Wetlook World Forum
Current time: Wed 14/11/18 17:09:49 GMT
Message # 75047.1.1.1.1.1
Subject: Re:taking pictures
Date: Mon 29/10/18 16:37:45 GMT
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
Well, you are correct about the cops, because nobody I know has ever been arrested and charged for taking pics at the beach, because it is not illegal. The main problem the cops cause is that they can hassle you and can cause you to lose an entire afternoon at the beach while they interview you and demand to see your pics or footage, and then after 2-3 hrs wasted, they tell you everything is ok....but it is not OK because they just wasted 2-3 hrs of your time and you lost your pleasure time. It is not only at beaches that this happens, but also at certain fountains like Trafalgar Square. Ever since the London poll tax riots at T Square in the late 1980's the authorities have installed over 60 high powered surveillance cameras on every single rooftop of every single building that surrounds T Square and they have numerous "wardens" that communicate by walkie talkie with the cops who survey the area. I used to spend many days at T Square in the 1970's before these cameras were installed, but these days you cannot step foot anywhere on that square without being constantly watched on security cameras. It is ironic that the wardens will detain you and question if you have permission to film people....when they are doing the very same thing to you, because the cops film you without your permission too.
The cops are just a hassle that can detain you and waste your time before they return your camera and let you go. The bigger risk is "the irate boyfriend" who sees you filming his girl....just ask Wetscape why he gave up filming at the lakes and beaches in Canada.....after he was assaulted several times by guys at the beach who did not like him being there. He had black eyes and smashed cameras on at least 2 occasions.
>[I assume it is some Southend in the US you are talking about, BTW, MK? The pier at Southend in Essex is 1.34 miles long, not 200 yds, the fishermen are normally at the outer end having arrived by the train which runs along it,
>and if you were only 200yds along it you wouldn't even be able to see the beach because the funfair would be in the way]
My favorite UK pier in the 1970's was Margate pier, where you could easily stand on the pier and film the acton taking place on the beach. Sadly that pier no longer exists today, because it was destroyed by 2 huge storms in 1978 and they never rebuilt it.
The pier I mostly film at these days in the USA is the Daytona Beach pier.....and there are fisherman all along the pier so you can film from either side and not be noticed......but you need to have a camera that has a very long zoom lens. Here is an example of the power of my zoom lens. See these video/screen grabs I took earlier this year at Daytona Beach....I was not anywhere near where the girls were....I was not even standing on the sand,,,,I was mostly standing on on the promenade deck which is well over 200 yards away from the shoreline..
|In reply to Message (75047.1.1.1.1) Re:taking pictures
It is not illegal to take pictures of children. Otherwise a high proportion of photos of street scenes, popular tourist sites, etc etc would be impossible, since there are almost always some children somewhere in view in any busy place.
The photos which I had taken in 2014, which the policeman looked at and declared as having nothing in them which gave him cause for concern, included children. Had any of the children been naked, or had any photo had a child as its main subject and been taken without the consent of the child's parent or guardian, then he might have been more concerned - though I think the laws he might have been able to use would not have been specifically about photography, but rather about child protection or something of the sort.
Lots of people do seem to think it is illegal, and somebody had obviously told the small Indian child so - the lad spoke English with a strong Hindi accent, whereas most young people of Indian descent have picked up a local British accent if they have been here for any length of time, so it is likely that he had arrived in Britain recently and it may have been the law in India he was talking about.
MK can of course speak for himself, but my take on what he wrote about Wetbrian and Weinerking was not that they were ever arrested or charged with anything but were merely fed up with constantly having to explain themselves to the Police (and no doubt being asked to leave on that day to avoid the risk of public disorder). MK's words were "THEY decided to give up going to those places"; not that they were instructed to do so under the law. And it is the risk of being hassled (and possibly having some civilian self-appointed guardian of child safety deleting all my pictures or even smashing the phone) that causes me to be a bit careful about how I go about taking pictures. I have no fear of being arrested and charged - in that respect the episode with the police, on only my second or third day of taking beach pictures, was reassuring in demonstrating that I was not breaking any laws.
I am puzzled by MK saying he is too old to blend in at the beach. Maybe that is true in the US, but here in the UK there are usually plenty of older people on the beach, and I have never felt uncomfortable on that score despite being over 60. And I am absolutely sure that standing on the pier or promenade with a long-lens camera pointing at the beach would make you a much sorer thumb and would be a much quicker way of attracting unwelcome attention than is wandering about on the sand with a smartphone in your hand! [I assume it is some Southend in the US you are talking about, BTW, MK? The pier at Southend in Essex is 1.34 miles long, not 200 yds, the fishermen are normally at the outer end having arrived by the train which runs along it, and if you were only 200yds along it you wouldn't even be able to see the beach because the funfair would be in the way]
|In reply to Message (75047.1.1.1) Re:taking pictures
Thank you for the experiences of taking pictures. I did not even know that it is not allowed to take photos of children. Maybe the rules are different in Hungary, maybe I am ignorant beyond imagination. Nevertheless the fact raises a question. What happens if a young father wants to take a picture of his little son in a schoolyard or during a school event or excursion? Does he have to send the other children far from his own? I know that it has absolutely nothing to do with wetlook, but I am curious about it.
|In reply to Message (75047.1.1) Re:taking pictures
By MK - email@example.com Sat 27/10/18 18:58:34 GMT
JWF said "It was the widespread introduction of the cameraphone which made my type of beach photography possible"
I would say the opposite was true for me and folks like Wet Brian (Apex) and Weinerking.....the cameraphone has turned out to be what makes things less possible today than it used to be before camera phones were invented. In the past you could spend a pleasant day wandering up and down the beach or hanging out on the pier and you could just blend in with the tourists and you were never hassled by anyone. But ever since smartphones were invented and ever since the Jimmy Saville scandal in the UK now everybody seems to be paranoid and assumes (wrongly) that you are stalking children and so everybody has a cell phone and calls in the cops anytime they see a photographer at the beach. It got so bad with Wet Brian who was at Great Yarmouth and other UK beaches, and with Weinerking at the Truckee river in Reno, where they were constantly having the cops called in, that they decided to give up going to those locations. I used to take pics at UK beaches in the 1970's, but I would not try to do that today.....because now everybody assumes the wrong motivations and calls in lifeguards or cops on you. That is why I gave up filming at beaches in the UK, and instead went to Thailand to the water festival instead, because nobody hassles you when there are crowds of 10's of thousands of people around you.
Basically these days, if you are under 30 and can blend in with the crowds at the beaches or fountains, buy yourself a Go Pro and have some fun and you can get close to the action.
If you are middle aged or older and would stick out like a sore thumb.....like me .....then do as I do and keep a long distance away and invest in the best camera that has the longest optical zoom lens. I have a Sony camera with 60x optical zoom so I can stay on the pier at Southend and film from 200 yards away with perfect clarity and hang out with the fisherman and avoid any hassles.
I you really want to get close to the action, you will need an assistant....or a drone. Personally I do not like drone footage because the best wetlook scenes cannot be seen from an overhead angle so drones are no good for wetlook imho. The most effective method my Russian camera guy Sergey uses is what they call a "wife"....i.e. much of his close up scenes are not fillmed by Sergey because security guards at the Moscow fountains will always hassle male cameramen for bribes (they demand money in order not to arrest you and leave you alone). Sergey has a 2nd camera that he gives to his wife and she films all the close scenes because nobody ever hassles a female with a camera.
|In reply to Message (75047.1) Re:taking pictures
Well, Laszlo, although I've been visiting beaches for the specific purpose of seeing (and participating in) wetlook since 1970, I only started taking pictures in 2014. Prior to that a camera was very obviously a camera, and people took pictures very sparingly, and usually carefully posed, so anybody taking pictures on a beach was very obvious. I have the utmost respect for MK and Leonmoomin and others who dared to take pics in those days.
It was the widespread introduction of the cameraphone which made my type of beach photography possible. Now everybody has a smartphone and uses it constantly for all sorts of purposes, including frequently taking pics, so I am only doing the same as everybody else (and indeed I know I feature on many other people's beach pics). Well, that's true on southern English beaches, but in less affluent places such as Blackpool and Scarborough (you can tell your friend that Scarborough featured again on TV last night, Laszlo, as the "low wage capital of Britain") I still feel much more conspicuous because many fewer people have cameraphones.
I also take other precautions, though. People are remarkably good at telling when you are looking AT them, so immediately before and after taking my pic I often focus my eyes on something BEHIND them - a bit of coastline, the pier, a boat, or if there is none of these just a more distant person in the water - which is remarkably effective at convincing the people in the foreground that I am not interested in them. Either that or I busy myself fiddling with my phone - I check my emails, the weather forecast, the tide times, the times of trains, Tripadvisor recommendations for nearby restaurants, and anything else I can think of, dozens of times a day, so that I can always have one of these open and can flip back to it immediately if I feel the need to look like I'm not taking pictures at all (though in practice have never been challenged while doing so). And I keep my eyes open for possible trouble and move away before it can develop. For example, in this pic https://www.flickr.com/photos/105715846@N06/43942689182/in/dateposted-public/ you can see a guy, almost submerged, to the left (from our perspective) of the wet clothed woman, apparently giving me a hard stare; now I have no idea whether it was me he was looking at, and whether he really was angry - perhaps he always looks like that - but I moved away, head buried in my phone but as fast as I felt looked natural, just in case.
But I have had 'trouble' a few times. In Britain the allegation is always "taking pictures of children" - there is a substantial sector of British people who are seemingly convinced that there are paedophiles lurking round every street corner, despite all the evidence that actually such paedophiles as exist are mainly to be found in churches, schools, youth activities and their own homes.
I have previously mentioned the time that I was approached by a policeman whilst standing on the Prom waiting for the time to leave for my train home, who said there had been complaints that I had been taking pictures of children; when shown the pictures he said "I see nothing here to cause me concern" and even took me at speed in his Panda to the next station down the line to head off the train which I was otherwise about to miss because of his interviewing me. That was in 2014, before I had learned the tricks mentioned above.
Last year, when I waded back to the beach after taking this pic https://www.flickr.com/photos/105715846@N06/35748177950/in/dateposted-public/ , two women - as far as I could see unconnected to the woman in the photo - asked me what I was taking photos of; I replied "Just Arran [the island offshore] and the coast generally"; she said "I hope you're not taking pictures of children"; I replied that I was wading into the sea to try to avoid them as far as possible, and that seemed to satisfy them. But I then felt obliged to wander around taking other 'tourist' pics in case of any follow up, and I also felt unable to take any later pics of the woman in this pic, https://www.flickr.com/photos/105715846@N06/36006182331/in/dateposted-public/ who was at the same bit of beach and subsequently waded in up to her chest, pink jacket and all.
These were both fairly straightforward. The two examples in 2016 were both more off-the-wall. In the first case it was the child himself who accused me. I mentioned above that I often focus my eyes on a distant person while taking a pic of somebody nearer. I had taken two pics of a group of women in wet clothes, when I was approached by a small Indian boy of perhaps 7 or 8 years old. He said "you take my picture". At first I thought that he wanted me to take his picture, and I refused and walked away. But he followed me saying "Take my picture - delete" then "Illegal to take pictures of children" and it dawned on me that he must have been the distant figure I had focused my eyes on, and he thought he actually was my target. So I showed him the photos, in which he wasn't discernible at all on the small screen, and he looked confused and went away. Actually you can make him out on the large screen, and I thought long and hard about whether to post the pics given his strong objection, but eventually decided that he was so insignificant that nobody would notice him. Can you spot the relevant pics? (hint, I posted them in reverse order by mistake). Was I wrong to post them?
And the final example was in many ways the most serious. I was sitting on the steeply-sloping beach at Southend waiting for a woman who was submerged in all her clothes a few yards along the beach to come out for me to take a pic. Eventually she did, and at what I judged was just the right moment I took a quick pic - only for a small child (who had not previously been visible to me) to wander right in front of me at that precise moment. I looked at the picture and, yes, he had completely blocked the view of the wet woman. But then I noticed that the woman had stopped, still knee-deep, so I took another pic - and blow me if the same child didn't wander back again at precisely the wrong moment. The woman was still standing up in the water, so I looked up to where the child had headed to check he wasn't about to spoil my third attempt - and was confronted with a whole family of angry faces staring at me. Oh shit, they think I am deliberately photographing their child! I got up to go, and they got up too - this was serious, because, lets face it, I HAD twice photographed their child, even though I certainly hadn't wanted to, and it was going to be difficult to explain away. So I set off at a very fast walk, across the road and up the hill behind towards the main street.
Now I may be over 60, but I can still go up hills faster than most people of 40; I risked a glance back at the top and saw that the two teenagers of the family were still behind me but the adults were nowhere to be seen. So I carried on along the High Street and into the "Last Post" pub, where I knew kids couldn't legally follow me - and which I also knew I could go right through and out the other end, bringing me out right at the entrance to Central station. Where I quickly bought a ticket and boarded a train for Chalkwell station two stops along the line, which is next to another beach. And needless to say I deleted the pics as soon as I sat down in the train. But that was the end of beach photography for that day - my nerves couldn't stand it!
So there you are, the thrills and spills of wetlook photography.....
|In reply to Message (75047) taking pictures
Dear Members of the Forum,
In his message no. 75020.2.1.1.184.108.40.206.1 MK wrote that on English beaches he had taken pictures with his old Polaroid camera. It has conjured up memories for me.
In 1991 I spent two days in Budapest, and both times went to a nice lake in the City Park, where a group of young people were cavorting in the water, the girls fully clothed. It goes without saying that I also joined them, in my street clothes. The second day I even had a conversation with a girl who dived in headlong, wearing a long skirt with underskirts beneath.
She told me that once a foreign tourist had taken pictures of her when she was in the water, and later even sent her copies. She was obviously proud of it.
The other memory is not so nice. I took a picture of girl in wet clothes at a lake, where swimming was not allowed. She thought that I was from the police, and got very angry. I was ashamed, and cursed myself.
Mr. Jolly Wet, if you read this post, I have a question to you. I know that you like taking pictures of wet ladies on British beaches. Have you ever got into inconvenient situations?
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)
[ This page took 0.003 seconds to generate ]