During lunchtime on Tuesday, I popped over to the Singapore History Museum's new premises at Riverwalk. Occupying the 3rd and 4th floors of the building, its going to be the Museum's temporary abode until renovation works are completed on the original site to bring it back to its former colonial glory.

But I love the views of the Clark Quay area with the Singapore River gently winding its way past the building. Another plus for the temporary new location of the museum is the presence of top pub and restraunt Brewerks on the ground floor with its own micro-brewery.

The exhibition space is small but ideally located to the left of the ticketing counter and highly visible to any visitor. The next thing to do now is to pick a leader amongst us to co-ordinate the first Photo Story Exhibition.

Working on niche areas of my photography reportoire, I'd spent last Sunday morning parked in the great early morning sun along Madras Lane in Little India. Working on the aspect and treatment of long shadows and its impact, it was getting mundane with 3/4 of the roll fired off on mostly early morning shopkeepers riding their bicycles.

Well, that was until this pair of elegant Indian ladies walked past on the way to the Hindu temple around the corner. Dressed in flowing saris and weighted down by fruits, coconuts and garlands, they threw splendid shadows on the ground. On inspecting the output a few days later, I had great shadows but little else as I found to my dismay the entire roll overexposed by +2 having forgot to reset the exposure compensation dial from a week earlier.

I booked my flight too to Phnom Phen from 26 April to 1 May. I'm determined to put up a good photo story on Cambodian kick boxers and I dont think I have enough material to work with from the 1st trip last year. I've emailed my guide and told him "'get me boxing camps/homes of boxers/boxers' families/boxing monks.....anything that relates to kick boxing!"

Buddy Lance Lee's book "My Sisters" will be released shortly. I cant wait to get my hands on a copy. It documents the lives of transsexuals in Singapore and Thailand.

I'd like to quote wise words from good friend Andy D on the matter of photographing people sleeping in public.....or for that matter photographing strangers in public

QUOTE>>>>
".....Lance quite aptly commented 'shoot anything you like(provided you don't harm anyone in the process)...it's what you are going to do with the pictures that matters....'

I see two main issues :
1. taking the photograph
2. it's use thereafter

One reply to this may be "that means that the subject (since he is in a public place) has a duty/right/obligation to be made uncomfortable just because you are armed with a camera and decide to capture him on film. He cannot legally object to having his picture taken...but he may be able to object to what you do with that picture...if he ever finds out. If you are to fulfill your obligation to your artform...public photography...then one subject's discomfort is overidden by the visual enjoyment of the few or many who would view your picture. The benefit of more will override the discomfort of one? Is that to be the qualifying philosophy?

And what are you going to do with that picture? What repercussions will publishing it have on that person or some other person? Can you live without taking that person's photo or will your artistic license suffer?"

Granted that publishing (for commercial gain etc) without express written permission is an invitation for litigation, let's assume that we are taking the picture for our own private enjoyment to share amongst fellow like minded enthusiasts.

The underlying and rather well accepted idea is that it is ok to photograph people in public.
How did that right come about? where did we get that right from? Is it really a right? or just that no one has any convenient means of disputing that right?

Pictures are formed in our brains each time we see something. If something is in the public domain and can be seen by passer-bys, then why should it be prevented (or not) from a being more permanently recorded and viewed by many?
The press/media has kept itself busy reporting public issues via words, drawings, pictures and now even videos. We've become used to it. It's entrenched.

If it's possibly in the public interest, then the public should be made aware of it. Quite true and based on some sound philosophy that the general public should know about it. (eg. tragic accidents, their victims etc).

What about asking the subject?
If a person is awake, we can ask him and he can say 'yes' or 'no'.
If he is not, he does not have that ability to say 'Yes' or 'No'? Do we still go on?
What if we use a super zoom lens and take a picture of a person from far away? Are we expected to walk over and ask him?
What if we are in a train which has stopped at a station for a few seconds and you see a photo oppurtunity from your window? Are we to risk getting off to ask and the train moving off?

The TV media now in it's bid for higher ratings and advertising dollars has become quite bold in filming members of the public. Is this a right or an abuse of a right? Or is it just that no one has questioned that yet?
Will the media personalities themselves like it if Mr X sets up a website and provides footage of the TV media personalities in public...when they are with their families...(granted of course that the general public would be interested in what the TV personalities do in their free time)?

Will it be a question of time before rules of conduct need to be set up for such TV stations?
Do they need permission? What sort of permission? Express or Implied? Is that permission just to have your picture taken or to having it published as well? What if the subject would have not agreed to have their picture taken and published if they knew exactly how the picture will be used and it was contrary to their beliefs?

Full disclosure is always better. Do we have the time for this? Or would we rather just wait and see if anyone makes it an issue and then shy away with an apology?

How far are we as photo-enthusiasts (or make-believe wannabe photo-journalists) going to go to document the public scene?

The art world has for some time been allowed reasonable use of public images in artistic displays.
How far can we use (or abuse) that allowance as artists (if we are included in that description by virtue of us being able to own and carry a camera)?

How do we justify our taking those pictures? How are we going to use them? Do we really have to care about what the subject feels or thinks? How would we feel if someone does the same to us(with or without our express or implicit premission)?

Perhaps we should answer that first? How would we feel?"

<<<<< UNQUOTE

Great food for thought. And the thread's still cordial!!! I love Offstone.

My thoughts extracted and pasted here....."some folks just dont like their pics taken and i dont think anyone should force it. More than enough folks have told me in the face to not take their pics both nicely and crudely and I've backed off without releasing the shutter respectfully/happily/pissed off....."

In summary, I'll back off on the subject/prop if there're objections. It'll be the only sensible and polite thing to do. But if the shutter's already released before the " Nay!", they'll have to pry the film from my dead fingers before I surrender anything.

Any thoughts?