How do you deal with these nutters?

[Caracus2k]

I with the Op (mostly). Was in San Francisco recently and the founder of a certain social network was apparently doing all he could to stop people coming by to take a quite famous photo of San Fran the 'painted ladies'

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...hl=en&tbm=isch&q=painted+ladies+san+francisco

Its all contextual. Buy a pretty house in the country that is clearly visible from the road/ public land etc and I don't think that you can be that surprised if people stop to take photos that include you property (same goes for any other building of interest in the town city etc - as per the 'painted ladies'). I certainly would not be knocking on the front door of a house in these circumstances to ask permission. As previously stated the owners would soon dislike this more anyway. I would not however strap my 70-200 with a2X extender on and start snapping away at 50 meters however! Part of the problem is the 'fear' people seem to have of DSLR's. People look at them and think you must be a pervert paparazzi stalker regardless or what lens you have strapped on! Its why I often take out my small mirroless

 

[ethan]

No, it's my home. A home with children in, a home with my entire life in and a home I'd rather not have some freak inexplicably taking photographs of.

Tbh if you haven't got a house in which people are likely to take an interest, I wouldn't have thought you would have a problem? It's amazing some of the words used to describe an individual taking photos though like "creep" and "freak" ?

 

[Cuchulain]

Shut your curtains then.

This is theoretical, nobody that I know of is taking photos of my house.

 

[Above&Beyond]

Theres a lot of assumption that the homeowner/occupier was a "paranoid nutjob" just because they didn't want the house photographed.

Also I think it's far more damaging and alienating for photographers to bang on about their rights in the face of what is frankly a reasonable request. Whats to say that "nutjob" now doesnt go off and form a petition for a change in the law, start spreading the word about how photographers are unreasonable etc (granted that may not actually change the law but its still bad PR for photographers in general).

I'm all for Raymonds approach personally. Manners cost nothing, whos to say maybe the occupier would actually purchase some prints if they were nice enough.

Manners cost nothing except when the nutter shouting from a window who created the drama doesn't have any? As for a petition to change the law, please.

 

[Rojin]

Manners cost nothing except when the nutter shouting from a window who created the drama doesn't have any? As for a petition to change the law, please.

There is zero evidence of that, shouting is a perfectly valid means of communication. Unlike D.P. I can't hear a voice at normal conversation level 50m away!

Don't forget, the OP thinks Vicars are out of line for not wanting photography during religious services. I don't know if that makes them nutters as well?

 

[Raymond Lin]

I did the Beatle's tour in Liverpool a few years back, one of the stop is the house of one of the Beatles grew up in. Now days it is a house with that blue plaque but still a regular terrace house that people live in.

So we stood outside, literally on the road, and out comes the owner of the house, he opened the door in his bathrope...


Wearing a Ringo Starr mask waving at us !

 

[DBT85]

The public requests are something I've wondered about. I've nto done much street photography but I'm worried about getting hassle from people who think they can stop me.

I'm a polite guy, so I guess I'll apologise for upsetting them but that I really like the picture, tell them I'm a student and that if they really want I'll delete it. I don't have to, but I'm not going to get into a ****ing match over law on the street with all my camera gear at my side.

 

[Steve M]

Who cares about "reasonable grounds"!?! It's someone's home, and if they don't want you taking pictures of it, then surely that's that. I know I wouldn't be too happy if I looked out of my window and saw some random stranger taking photos of my home.

Maybe they weren't very polite in asking you not to, but I believe it's a perfectly reasonable request.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Above&Beyond]

There is zero evidence of that, shouting is a perfectly valid means of communication. Unlike D.P. I can't hear a voice at normal conversation level 50m away!

Don't forget, the OP thinks Vicars are out of line for not wanting photography during religious services. I don't know if that makes them nutters as well?

The OP said the nutter was shouting out his window. Thats the preferred method of communication for ranting paranoid nutters who don't want you taking photos of whatever whim they've deemed important.

As for vicars not wanting photography it's irrelevant. It hasn't been the case at any wedding I've ever attended anyway.

 

[Rojin]

The OP said the nutter was shouting out his window. Thats the preferred method of communication for ranting paranoid nutters who don't want you taking photos of whatever whim they've deemed important.

As for vicars not wanting photography it's irrelevant. It hasn't been the case at any wedding I've ever attended anyway.

Are you for real, do you actually believe that, or are you just posting for effect?

 

[ethan]

Who cares about "reasonable grounds"!?!

Well, most reasonable people actually.

 

[Above&Beyond]

Are you for real, do you actually believe that, or are you just posting for effect?

If someone is shouting at you from their window not to take pictures of their house you don't think 'what a sane and rational point they are making' do you?

The vicar whataboutery is attempting to discredit the OP with a nonsensical argument.

 

[Rojin]

If someone is shouting at you from their window not to take pictures of their house you don't think 'what a sane and rational point they are making' do you?

The vicar whataboutery is attempting to discredit the OP with a nonsensical argument.

No I don't think that just by someone shouting that they aren't sane or rational. That is nonsensical.

The OP's viewpoint is entirely relevant.

 

[Mr Joshua]

Well, most reasonable people actually.

.

 

[Above&Beyond]

No I don't think that just by someone shouting that they aren't sane or rational. That is nonsensical.

The OP's viewpoint is entirely relevant.

Someone shouting out of their window telling you not to photograph their house is completely irrational. If you were standing on the street shouting at a photographer not to take your picture you would think that was rational?

As for your vicar comparison it's irrelevant.

 

[Rojin]

Someone shouting out of their window telling you not to photograph their house is completely irrational. If you were standing on the street shouting at a photographer not to take your picture you would think that was rational?

As for your vicar comparison it's irrelevant.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

 

[D.P.]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

You forgot to say in your opinion.

In my opinion shouting is never a polite form of communication. Basic Conflict resolution clearly suggests to ignore people who are shouting until they have calmed down and are speaking to you calmly.

 

[V-Spec]

Jesus..

Thank god I only do landscapes...

 

[DBT85]

You could come across a particularly vicious ferret.

 

[Rojin]

You forgot to say in your opinion.

In my opinion shouting is never a polite form of communication. Basic Conflict resolution clearly suggests to ignore people who are shouting until they have calmed down and are speaking to you calmly.

No, not opinion, fact. We're not talking about someone shouting in your face which would indeed be rude.

Shouting does not equal anger, which is what you are assuming yet again.