Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roc Camera

roc.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#411

Post by cardanome »

kelnos wrote: post #397
cardanome wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it strange how people consider taking pictures of strangers as some basic right. Here in Germany, people have a right to their own image. You can't just photograph strangers. You can photograph a crowd at a public event but you can't zoom in on one specific stranger. Also you can photograph people that are of public interest. Maybe it is me who is biased but I find these rules quite reasonable. It protects bot…

> Maybe it is me who is biased Sure, and so am I. We're all biased toward what we are used to, especially if it's something we grew up with through childhood. While I think it'd be creepy for someone to sit outside, zooming in on strangers and taking photos of them, I don't think that sort of thing should be illegal. (Aside from when it might break other laws, like if it were to turn into harassment.) I do think it w…

> Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter.

With analog photography this might be a useful distinction but with digital it is easy to leak that photo even without explicit intention to do so.

Even if the intention was to never share my photo, it is likely to be automatically uploaded to Google Cloud or similar services. It can be hacked, it will end up as training data for some LLM and so on. It is more practical to stop the taking of the photo in the first place.

> it seems weird to me to object to public photography

No one does. Lots of people practice public photography in Germany. You just have to ask for consent if you want to photograph strangers.

That is the point where I am lost an why this is even such a big deal for you. You can photograph the environment, you can photograph your friends, you can photograph anyone who wants to be photographed. Why would you even want to photograph someone why doesn't want their photo taken? Why not take a photo of the many people that would love to have their picture taken?

> when many of us are subjected to pervasive surveillance, both of the governmental and capitalist kind.

Germany has also much better laws in that regard as well. Sure it could be better enforced but the GDPR is super strong.

As for surveillance, this is also more restricted here as well. There is definitely a push to make widespread surveillance more a thing but we are still far away from US levels.

So yeah, both is bad.

Re: Roc Camera

#412

Post by k3nx »

LandR wrote: post #308
oxalorg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have clicked about ~20,000 photographs on a Sony camera in the last year and a half. And I have published exactly 0 of those photos on social media. Whenever I meet my friends and family, I show them the pictures myself and the story behind them. I love the thrill of street photography and it gives me immense pleasure to capture candid moments of humans. It's a great creative outlet for me and helps me think about…

As someone who would love to get into street photography, and has an old NIkdon D7100, what would you recommend is a good lense (not model, but focal length, zoom, etc) for street photography ?

You should try to rent a lens to see what works for you. I used lensrentals.com just to try out the 85/1.4 that "everyone" said was awesome. I loved it, but couldn't justify the price for a hobby, so I settled on the 85/1.8. I bought it years ago (4+) and I think I've taken less than 20 pictures with it. My "nifty 50" is still a favorite 50/1.8, but I also love the 70-300/4.5-5.6. Those two are my most used, and both were less than $600 US total.

Re: Roc Camera

#413

Post by sbarre »

rocqua wrote: post #315
rkomorn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell phone cameras, photo rolls, social media, growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy, virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing anymore. There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of having every moment of your life in publ…

There's legally usually quite a big gap between what pictures you can take of people, and how you can publish them. In places where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can generally be photographed. But there are significant limits to how such pictures can be published (including social media).

The law doesn't matter much if someone is convicted in the public square by intentionally misrepresented (or even just context-collapsed) images of them going viral to a global audience at Internet speed.

By the time the law, or the terms and conditions of social networks, catches up, the damage is already done.

Re: Roc Camera

#414

Post by dugidugout »

foldr wrote: post #267
MarcelOlsz wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?

I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion.…

Curious how 4x5's inconvenience is "proportional" while 35mm's is "hugely disproportionate". I'm not familiar with the specifics of these formats, but you seem to be arbitrarily drawing the line for where the added friction is still serving the "magic" I believe is very real if not fragile. I think you recognize the value of photography isn't solely in the product. I'm curious what you personally find in 4x5 that saves you from these younger artist's silliness.

Re: Roc Camera

#415

Post by igouy »

tasuki wrote: post #202
Tepix wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?

Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion on the internet? Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture showing other people and show it to a third person?

Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed commercial use is not.

Re: Roc Camera

#416

Post by I_dream_of_Geni »

bborud wrote: post #213
barrell wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some social media site to be permanently stored… idk it’s shifted from a way to capture a moment t…

The concept of «public» has changed. About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races, shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars, but also a lot of closeups of race car drivers using a long lens. For about a year more than half the photos published in a very niche car publication were by me. The magazine had a few thousand subscribers. And to this day I still see some drivers use my shots o…

Maybe this comes to mind? : "Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and chief people officer Kristin Cabot, who were caught on a Coldplay concert jumbotron hugging each other and then quickly recoiling when they realized they were on camera."

They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are....

Re: Roc Camera

#417

Post by igouy »

sneak wrote: post #303
Tepix wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?

Because we in the global west generally have the right to photograph anything we can see in public, save for pathological places like Germany or France. You don’t own your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You don’t have any say in what I do with my (legally obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.

? "Model Release"

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/...

Re: Roc Camera

#418

Post by MarcelOlsz »

barrell wrote: post #243
MarcelOlsz wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.

Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing. YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.

>YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.

Has to be a digital.

Re: Roc Camera

#419

Post by igouy »

divan wrote: post #377
LaGrange wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that’s bleak. “Look at that fake photo of you but better.”

That's actually working technique in sports psychology – one version of it called VSM (Video Self-Modelling), where edited video shows athlete performing correct/advanced technique. It tricks brain to belive in "future self". I'm not surprised it works with photos that well, but I think it's not studied yet. These AI photos I make a very different from, say, photoshopped faced. I tried it on myself too, and can confi…

Fascinating!

Re: Roc Camera

#420

Post by fooqux »

I_dream_of_Geni wrote: post #416
bborud wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of «public» has changed. About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races, shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars, but also a lot of closeups of race car drivers using a long lens. For about a year more than half the photos published in a very niche car publication were by me. The magazine had a few thousand subscribers. And to this day I still see some drivers use my shots o…

Maybe this comes to mind? : "Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and chief people officer Kristin Cabot, who were caught on a Coldplay concert jumbotron hugging each other and then quickly recoiling when they realized they were on camera." They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are....

> They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are....

The rule is: if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy.

I think a debate on that rule would be interesting. My thought is that if I can't take a picture unless there's absolutely nobody else in the FOV, then that basically prohibits the vast majority of photographs.

Post reply on HN