When travelling in countries where photography is more or less forbidden,
due to f. ex. religion, I often say that I work for a newspaper (which I
don't) and then it's OK to take a shot.
Come to think of it, isn't it strange that if I state that I may publish
their face all over, I get to take the photograph, but if I want to take
one for my most private collection (i.e. for almost noone to see) it's a no no.
(Some of you may think I'm a lousy person lying like that, but I can
assure you it's not for taking advantage of people but simply to get nice
pictures to show to myself, my wife and a couple of friends. I *do*
respect culture in the countries I go to.)
That was my response to the man who objected to me photographing the
homeless guy on the pavement. I didn't say I worked for a news service,
just that I was photojournalist (in the loose sense, I didn't bother to
add). This did calm the gentleman down somewhat but I still moved on. Had
the shot been "important" I would not have moved on, indeed, probably would
have ignored everything else. It was not important, not even all that
interesting, so I acquiesced. As I noted, my action was a reflex more than
anything else. I see activity that's in the least manner outside of the
norm and my camera always swings up.
I've never traveled to a country where photography's taboo. Not sure I wish
to now.
Tris
|