File :-(, x, )
do you limit what you take pictures of? Anonymous
I read in this months popular photography about how photo store employees browse your photos for anything that could be illegal. Some guy who took a picture of a montage with president bush and a thumb down, and print the pics at walmart, got a visit by secret service agents because of his terrorism crime. And some dozen parents had been arrested for pics of their kids.

Some of the photographers said they had stop taking pictures or at least severely limit what they take pics of nowadays. That sounds quite sad.

Is self-censoring among photographers common? Do you intentionally limit what you take picture of because of the risk that your photos might be seen critically by others?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Pro tip: Digital.
>> Anonymous
>>58758

but if you want them on quality print many still go to the photo store with the memcard and print the pics
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>58758
Useless response. People have been busted for posting "questionable" pics of their kids on photography forums. As in, regular baby pictures where, as is often the case, the baby is naked.
Nevermind self-censorship, this is blatant censorship, if you can't shoot what you want without the government coming after you. Nevermind illegal things, there's no reason for the secret service to come after such a political message. Terrorism crime my ass.
>> Anonymous
Lol, Amerikkka
>> Anonymous
God bless third world countries!
>> street-pirate
>>58757

I call shenanigans. I bet I could photoshop my cock in Bush's mouth and post it here without raising a single eyebrow. People do it all the time.
>> Anonymous
>>58765

Yeah, but try getting it printed at Walmart.
>> Anonymous
No, I don't, but I never get prints made. RAW file -> PSD -> screen-fitting PNG, and if I'm posting it to /p/, screen-fitting JPEG as well. That's my workflow; I regard the PNG as the "print." Monitors have more dynamic range than paper, so I don't see the point in making an actual print of a digital file unless one intends to hang it up somewhere for some reason.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58772
Prints are awesome. Especially nicely framed and matted prints. You should try it sometime.

(Just, you know, not of your naked 3-year-old daughter printed at Wal Mart)
>> Anonymous
>>58772
>>so I don't see the point in making an actual print of a digital file unless one intends to hang it up somewhere for some reason.

I do believe that is the point in making prints
That and to sell them.

I probably spend a good $500 a year on framing stuff I've printed
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Bullshit.

If the guy got visited by the secret service they probably just asked him a few questions. There was no "terrorism crime" whatever the fuck the OP means by that. This is probably just the result of an overzealous MERICA loving WalMart employee wanting to bring down the man on "those damn liberals."

As for parents being arrested for taking photos of their kids, there can be a gray area there but as long as it is not pornographic there is nothing to worry about. There is nothing illegal about a child being photographed naked in a non-pornographic context. Go look at a National Geographic if you don't believe me.

Pic very related.
>> Anonymous
>>58785

some of them lost custody of their children, got lifelong sex offender registers, are harassed by the public after news about the bust, many families are now divorced, and they got heavy fines
>> Anonymous
>>58790
These people must have bad lawyers or they really were producing child pornography. There have been a number of prominent photographers who have featured child nudity in their work and while it's been sometimes controversial they have not been imprisoned or labeled as sex offenders. Sally Mann's series 'Immediate Family' is an excellent example of this.

Anyways, no artist should censor himself. As artists and American Citizens we have the right and duty to practice our freedoms even if makes some people uncomfortable.
>> Anonymous
The very moment you limit yourself, you cease to be a true artist
>> Anonymous
>>58762

Sanos muuta.

>>58757
Well of course they are watching. They cant go blind when they look at the pics. At some cases they might look quality on your pic from 120 printed. And well duh, i doubt they will let you go away if you have lets say..illegal porn. They dont have the silence oath or w/e like doctors or so. But i doubt they come to your back when posting pic "Our baby having bath"
>> Anonymous
>>58762
Its pretty bad in KKKanada too :(
>> street-pirate
>>58767

Sure, but Walmart is teh good american company. They're probably more worried about damaging their image than losing the sale of 10c prints. Freedom also means the freedom for Walmart to refuse printing as they see fit. They owe it to nobody to print their stuff.

Just go elsewhere to print your "Saddam receiving fellatio from Bush", most photo labs will print anything not illegal.
>> Anonymous
the article from the magazine is online now,
google for "How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life"

>>58793

"Rubin is the basis of an urban legend, the 65-year-old granny taken to jail for snapping innocent bathtub pictures of her beloved grandkids. Except her case was real, and the headlines in the Trentonian screamed, "Granny Busted/Cops Think She's a Perv."

The night that she was arrested, after picking up the nude pictures of the girls at a local MotoPhoto outlet -- Rubin, an experienced and award-winning art and children's photographer, insists that she never intended to publish these photos -- Montclair, NJ, police went to the girls' home and had their parents wake them up.

"They asked totally inappropriate questions," says Rubin, who is now 72. "'Did Granny get undressed, too? Did Granny touch you? Did Granny touch herself?' They threatened my son and daughter that, if they didn't cooperate, the kids would be taken away."
>> Anonymous
lol, 'granny undressed'

In Sweden we sit naked in the sauna, and the kids are also in there. Anyone doing that in USA would probably get life in jail. ;)
Very different cultures I guess.

And if you had a school project where you made a montage of king göran and a thumb down, absolutely nobody would care.

Life as a photographer must be superior in Europe compared with USA where you can't even take pictures in public anymore, at least if there are any government buildings or such nearby.
>> Anonymous
>>58758
>Pro tip: home darkroom.

fix'd

>>58792
only if youre limiting yourself for others, setting self limits can help you grow
>> Sally Mann
     File :-(, x)
Sup guyz

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2003:01:27 11:13:54Image Width700Image Height569
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
hmm this raises one question for me.

What is the best format i should save in when i send photos off to the local printers?
>> Anonymous
>>58828
the one they request, if the don't have 'please send in this format' their printer/workmanship is prolly shit.
>> Anonymous
>>58830

I sent a few large JPEG's to a new local shop. They called me and ask if it was apple or pc JPEG because they only do apple JPEG. After a surprisingly unprofessional discussion she accepted she would try print them out, but it would take at least a week before I could come by and fetch them.
Then when I got them they had made a 'backup' of the files I sent them, and which I obviously had already at home, and I had to pay twenty bucks for the CD-R with the pics. And a lot more for the actual pictures, which looked worse than ones printed with a cheap photo printer.

I would obviously love to skip using photo stores, but then I would have to pay for all the printer ink needed, which officially costs more than gold in weight.
>> Anonymous
>>58843
Gotta love my print shop which provides you all technical details, from exact dimensions for each format, through DPI tutorial for those not in the know, and ending with details about colour spaces and a download of bi-monthly updated ICC profiles calibrated to their printing machines.

And they have a pick up outlet 5 minutes walk from my home, too.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58815
>Anyone doing that in USA would probably get life in jail. ;)
No, you'd just get a few years in jail. But then you'd go on a Sex Offender registry and every time you move to a new neighborhood (making sure before hand that the town or city hasn't passed legislation making it illegal for you to live where you're planning to move) you have to go around introducing yourself to all of your neighbors as a registered sex offender. Often there are fliers. It's this whole big thing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58867
Oh, er, and since this totally made me sound like one, I'd like to state for the record that I'm not a registered sex offender.
>> street-pirate
>>58823

Is that your shot?
>> Anonymous
>>58868
>not a registered sex offender.

so you're just not registered, that's it?
>> Anonymous
>>58872
Yeah, Sally Mann posts on 4chan.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58873
Yep. So far have managed to evade The Man.

Suckers!
>> street-pirate
I don't know her name, fucking shoot me.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>58815
> Life as a photographer must be superior in Europe compared with USA where you can't even take pictures in public anymore, at least if there are any government buildings or such nearby.

Same in France. They didn't allow me to photograph near USA Embassy. And I wouldn't dare to argue because the police man came so out of blue.
Which, quite cleverly, is located very near the Cleopatra's Needle and Champs-Elysée.

Oh, and one soldier didin't allow me to photograph him. Though, I did anyway, later.
>> Anonymous
>>58815
You must live in northern Sweden. Saunas? Tss, none of them down here. That, and I doubt anyone else missed that we have actually changed prime minister. Barbarians.
>> Anonymous
In Berlin, I toke pictures of practically all the Embassies, Almost none of them were guarded. Except the American one, which was guarded by 5+ soldiers, that directly started yelling at me when I didn't even took the damn picture yet.
>> Anonymous
>>58943
>>58949
Just for that, I'm going to take a candid photo of the US embassy in Dublin, when I'm over there.
Fucking Americans, they piss me off.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58949
>>58943
In our defense, there are a shit-ton of people out there who would like to blow our embassies the hell up...
>> Anonymous
>>58968
And pictures give them enough information? Heck, if they want to blow it up so eagerly they probably would pay it a visit first to check it out, as if a picture is needed if you can visit it in real life.
>> Ren Kockwell
>>58953
Well nobody takes any pictures of YOUR embassy, because it's gay
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
>>58949
I just recently join the Military Service, I kind of wished I knew there was "Combat Camera/Photo" before I signed my contract as a Power Generator Specialist.

I got to help a Combat Camera person on Monday when I was watching a airborne drills and it was friggin fun.
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
Also I could proby take picture/video record anything I wanted without getting any backtalk from anyone, so that was even more awesome.
>> Anonymous
I work in a photographic shop and the only orders we check are the ones where the work is of critical quality so for the wedding photographers that use use etc We in no way check any other work unless the packaging is damaged (we send film work away) to make sure the prints are damaged. Think of it as quality control rather than snoping into someone's personal stuff. This is in the UK though dont know about in the US but thats a bit off TBH a potential terrorist is not going to be printing pictures of bush at walmart sure he would have more important things to be doing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>59253
Whenever I drop off a roll of film, I have this secret hope that the clerks will have gone through it, looked at my pictures, and think I'm some sort of crazy photographic genius.

And then the cute female clerk will want to sleep with me.
>> Anonymous
>>59255
I do to :(
>> Anonymous
Maybe one should add the scans of goatse and tubgirl with the other photos. Then anyone snooping would get a fun suprise. But even those might be covered by indecency photo policy.
>> Anonymous
I used to work for wold camera. We had the occasional roll the required the police to be called, but the rolls or orgy shots from the htel across the street made it all worth while.
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
>>59297
This reminds me of what Best Buy's Geek Squad does now.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>59278
Last time I got a roll developed (from a One Time Use camera, whee) I know the clerk looked through 'em because she mentioned that she recognized my girlfriend from the shots.

Clerk was pretty hot, too.

(It was a One Time Use camera because I didn't want to use my Digital Rebel on the boat ride that takes you all up in Niagara Falls' bidness. Although I did see some people shooting with Rebels right into the mist, which I thought was either admirable commitment to photography or just plain dumb. Nothing really that great on the roll, though)
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
>>59354
You could always try that Condom Trick [Condom Underwater Housing].

Buy the mega-size condoms and give winks to the cashier, then pull out your oversize lenses, wrap them on, and start taking photos right there with the cashier.

http://www.instructables.com/id/EYADC0VF0DTUJUX/
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>59414
Don't think they sell any condoms big enough for an SLR. :-P

Also, I don't want to wrap my camera in a condom. I'd rather just drop a few bucks on a waterproof disposable. There's really nothing but touristy shots available from the Maid of the Mists anyway.
>> Anonymous
Condoms aren't filters. They'd screw up one's image quality.
>> illogical !!z/I+8zVANsa
>>59459
Well the trick will still fit some camera that lean to the point and shoot.
>>59464
I somewhat doubt the reason to worry about filters when diving.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>59529
Haha, I thought of the same thing when I saw the thread. Shame that comic doesn't update more often.
>> Anonymous
Photo Center people get a little overzealous in their snooping through pictures. I only really print 8x12 sports shots, But Almost everytime I go in to pick up my pictures (Costco) the Staff comment on how they "liked this photo" OR that they think they know that person because their friend has a dirtbike, or plays baseball (Since apparently only 5 or 6 people do anything sports related in this town.....)

Anyway, A few of my more artsy photo's have been questioned, They were like, "did you trespass to get this shot" And, "I don't think you should have been taking pictures in there".

OF course to both I answer, No I had permission (Never do of course).
>> Anonymous
>>59561
it kicks ass that the local paper, the alibi, runs
perry bible comics every week
>> Anonymous
If your going to print your pictures, use one of the wal-mart print stations that let you get your pictures right there, I think the Kodak machines print the out on the spot. You could also just save your money and print the pictures out in your home if your worried about these problems thats what I do.
>> Anonymous !2o7ekPN2Hc
...