Is this acceptable photography?

[Ed Shapiro]

Just for your FYI- Technically speaking, electronic flash is not "strobe" The term "strobe" is a misnomer for electronic flash. Stroboscopic light is a quickly occuring series of flashes which can be set at various frequencies. This kind of lighting can yield motion studies in special effects photography, is seen in theatrical lighting at rock concerts, is used for timing automotive engines and other technical and scientific usages and serves as beacons atop emergency vehicles.

This kind of light can indeed bring on epileptic seizures in certain cases of epilepsy. This serious condition can also be aggravated by the scan lines when watching television.

I have never heard of a single flash of light having brought on a seizure. In past years, I have had several clients who suffer with epilepsy including one bride. I checked with their doctors and my own doctor and they advised me to precede with caution and try not to do any rapid fire flash work but they all agreed that a single burst of light would not be harmful.

Ed

[Wolfdagon]

I had completely forgotten about this post. There seem to be several people defending the legality of what the photographer is doing. That's not the point. The original poster asked if it is acceptable. I still maintain that it is not.

Just because something is legal does not make it right. They are not the same thing.

I have no problem with street photography. What this guy is doing crosses the line into harassment.

[Marmaduke]

I think the uncomfortableness of his encounters does come through in some of those images, which are frantic and unsettling. His weird little crouch before shooting, though, must make him seem more intrusive for the subjects - plus only ever producing a few angles. His 'participation' excuse is odd because many photographers achieve that feeling without being so aggressive. As pedestrian ambushed by him I'd be a bit put out; as a photographer it really annoys me to see it because it exacerbates the suspicion that already exists around merely holding a camera on the street.

[Celt]

Wow - this is an interesting discussion. His actions are taking in the context of his environment. Are the boundaries stretched so far in NY that virtually anything goes? If he did this in my home city of Swansea the reactions would probably be bemusement or anger. I don't like his approach - it is too aggressive and intrusive. But, damn, I love the images! I've always been a fan of work by people like Diane Arbus - but I can imagine that she used a must softer approach.

So, I like his work - but the guy is a complete prat !

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Wolfdagon

I had completely forgotten about this post. There seem to be several people defending the legality of what the photographer is doing. That's not the point. The original poster asked if it is acceptable. I still maintain that it is not.

Just because something is legal does not make it right. They are not the same thing.

I have no problem with street photography. What this guy is doing crosses the line into harassment.

Well said.

[jeff martin]

The guy's an ass. Making it harder for everyone else with a camera.

Legal? Questionable. If he lunges right up in your face, or crotch level, I could see someone laying him out and not getting convicted for assault. Someone should follow him around and do the same to him.