Tracy I absolutely love the simplicity of this shot - and the composition (I'm expecting some to not appreciate the hat falling off - but I like how that adds movement) Very nice!

Thanks Christopher, the hat isn't falling off though. :-) This is a Mennonite father and son I as able to capture at a horse sale recently, the lighting was really poor but being able to capture that type of moment is so difficult and I was thrilled to bits with the outcome.

Nice shot ... great texture, composition and the somewhat quizzical look in the child's eyes.

On WS when you posted this image, I commented:
"@tracy, the reason he gave you that evil look is they don't want their pictures taken, something do do with their religion..."

In response you wrote:
"Thanks Beamer, I did know that which was one of the reasons I was being sneaky about it. He could have accused me of invading his right to privacy(I was using the 70mm to 200mm) but he was in a place where there were hundreds of people."

What you are doing, NOW repeatedly, is disrespecting their religion by showing this image to the internet world that you, yourself acknowledge he did not want you to take. I suspect that if the father knew you were posting this he would be more upset that you showed his son's face than if you had shown his own... Being "sneaky" isn't always being right. Think about how many places and in what ways you would not want some candid image of your child shown on the internet...

..."Photographing people in a public places is both legal and moral; at least that is still the case in the U.S. and Canada. The limitations that sensibly apply have to do with violation of privacy, harassment, commercial use, and concerns regarding holding that person up to ridicule or libel. None of these apply in this case.

Since this photograph was not taken for commercial purposes, the subjects were not harrased, were taken in a public place, this photograph clearly falls within accepted common practice."

As quoted by another photographer with regards to photographing Mennonites. Beamer, there was no reasonable expectation to privacy here, as I said there were hundreds of people milling about, he had seen me several times and if he had come over and specifically asked me not to photograph him I would have respectfully done as he wished, but he didn't and I have what I consider to be a very special image.

Almost all of my photography of people are street shots, I don't think that one group takes precedence over any other, if I remove this image I should in all fairness remove all street shots, which I am not about to do.

@Tracy: I agree with everything you just said, however, I don't think any of it addresses the point I was making. I was not suggesting that your image violated any law. I WAS suggesting that you knew of their religious restrictions and you posted the image of his son for the world to see twice. I wasn't suggesting a "legal" concern, I was suggesting a "respect" concern. Without being too blunt, would you feel OK if someone took a candid photo of your child (or any one of our children)taken in a public place and posted it on some nefarious website? By your arguments it would be legal and as you state "moral"...

And, I do say this to you and to the group with great respect for your art. It is an excellent photograph. My original comment on WS was that I liked the image a lot. My last words on the subject...

well done. i skip the rights/laws comment section.
minor:top left area takes to much viewing energy.
could try a square format on it.

Me gusta la fotografia, enhorabuena.

nice catch, a moment of beauty!

Wow... this one has stirred up a bit of a debate. All of that aside, as someone else said, the simplicity of this shot really sets it apart. The eyes are so expressive. It's a bit noisy, but, as you said, the lighting wasn't ideal and it was candid. I like it. :-)

PS: Unlike some of the photos in this category, I think this one really benefits from being B&W. Good choice.

I can see both sides. This shot is excellent. I agree that in order to take street photography i.e pictures of people who might not necessarily want their pictures taken, one does have to cross a certain boundry. I have always had a hard time with that and I do think I have missed numerous incredible photos because I did not want to be what I considered disrespectful. In the end it is the photographer who has to be comfortable with what they are doing and who they are shooting. I think the world would miss out on some unbelievable art if we all remained in our own comfortablenss.

congrats!!!

I find it ironic that this image has driven a bit of controversy here at Vazaar. I am almost always drawn to photography which captures imagery of individuals going about their daily lives. I find that in some instances people - namely other 'photographers' seem to take offense to those who capture imagery of people, specifically children or minors under the age of 18 in the US.

Whether someone does or does not approve of their image being taken in a public place is immaterial in my view. Religion, sexual orientation, race or any other 'defining' category has nothing to do with what we are trying to accomplish and that is to document human expression in its many wonderful forms be it happy, sad or anything in between. If the photographer does not share the circumstances under which the image is captured, it is simply up to the viewer to make up their own story of the image. That is what art is all about, a conspiracy between three facets, the photographer, the subject matter and the viewer.

As I view images which have won Pulitzer prizes, I am in awe of the courage many of those images required to obtain them. And I am certain that many governments around the world would prefer to NOT have those images ever published and have taken great offense at their viewing. And of course each individual whether representing themselves as part of an organization or as a single individual has an equal right to agree or disagree that an image is taken and displayed.

In this specific case, the man's ability to practice his religion is NOT hindered, nor impaired by the photographer's decision to photograph a very human moment. He did not request that the photographer stop taking their image and the photographer simply 'assumed' the man's displeasure based on his body language and movement.

I admire those who have the ability to shoot imagery that evokes thought much more than imagery that I consider to merely be 'entertainment.'

One of my favorite shots of yours, Tracy.

Thank you Brandon and everyone else who took the time to comment.

This is a fantastic photo in every sense. Not only have you captured a wonderful image you've stirred quite a bit of controversy alont with it, which IMO, makes it even better. I agree with the courage statement; if we didn't have photographers who weren't afraid of taking a risk to photograph, we would be short many, many spectacular images!! Very well done!

First off, I love this photo. The composition, subject and details are wonderful. Second, I was going to say exactly what Mark said (probably not quite as well as he said it though) ! I also agree that the controversy and discussion add even more to this photo - thats what a photo is meant to do - evoke 1000 words. You scored very well on that point!

Beautiful work. I love the composition especially.