BW & Color

lensmole

Image # 1


Image # 2
Removed

bfjr

the B&W for me but not cause it's B&W.
I feel it's the much better capture.

bdcolen

There's also the creepiness element of #2. Yes, it's legal to photograph in public places. And, yes, they are called "public" restrooms. However, was this restroom in a mall or other 'private' space? If so, one would need permission to photograph. Beyond that, however, comes the 'creepiness' question: are there no boundaries? And if one believes one is making some kind of statement with a photograph taken in a place where people have an expectation of a few square feet of privacy, then what in this photo justifies violating that space? There's nothing here. Just some guys in the guys' room. Shot from a low perspective. Period. End of discussion. So why shoot it? Just wondering. To say nothing of wondering how many times you can do this without getting punched out.

RSL

Or sued. A restroom may be called a "public" restroom, but its one of the places normally excluded from our often-confirmed right to shoot from public spaces. People have what our legal system calls an "expectation of privacy" in the john that they don't have out on the street. One of the best references to this kind of question is Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right." It's a .pdf file that'll fit on a single page. You can download it from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. It doesn't hurt to carry a copy with you when you're out on the street.

Glad to see somebody besides me actually critiquing a picture. I agree with BD that there's nothing worth wasting battery power and sensor wear on in #2. #1's a good informal portrait, though.

lensmole

bdcolen wrote: »

There's also the creepiness element of #2. Yes, it's legal to photograph in public places. And, yes, they are called "public" restrooms. However, was this restroom in a mall or other 'private' space? If so, one would need permission to photograph. Beyond that, however, comes the 'creepiness' question: are there no boundaries? And if one believes one is making some kind of statement with a photograph taken in a place where people have an expectation of a few square feet of privacy, then what in this photo justifies violating that space? There's nothing here. Just some guys in the guys' room. Shot from a low perspective. Period. End of discussion. So why shoot it? Just wondering. To say nothing of wondering how many times you can do this without getting punched out.

I appreciate the good advice this is not something I would normaly do,I thought it strange someone would wash fruit in a public washroom.

lensmole

RSL wrote: »

Or sued. A restroom may be called a "public" restroom, but its one of the places normally excluded from our often-confirmed right to shoot from public spaces. People have what our legal system calls an "expectation of privacy" in the john that they don't have out on the street. One of the best references to this kind of question is Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right." It's a .pdf file that'll fit on a single page. You can download it from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. It doesn't hurt to carry a copy with you when you're out on the street.

Glad to see somebody besides me actually critiquing a picture. I agree with BD that there's nothing worth wasting battery power and sensor wear on in #2. #1's a good informal portrait, though.

Thank you for the information.