Porch and front door photography sessions have exploded in popularity since the lockdown, but photographers in Canada are now seeing a pushback against the practice.
Porch portrait sessions have been the subject of much debate in photography circles, with arguments about whether they are essential, further compounded by official advice varying greatly from one region to another. The Professional Photographers of Canada (PPOC) has now released a statement asking photographers to stop.
“PPOC recommends that these Front Porch type of sessions do not take place at this critical time,” the statement reads. It acknowledges that the sessions can be argued both ways but has come to the conclusion that photography “is not an essential service or business” and its continuation cannot be justified in light of directions from Canada’s health officials.
Many photographers were offering their front door sessions for free, with clients making donations made to food banks or supporting other local services. Despite these good intentions, photographers are now being encouraged to stop in the interests of public safety and respect for government guidelines.
No doubt the debate will continue. Be sure to check out this article, which explores it further. Many point out the low risk presented by such photoshoots, making them justifiable. In contrast, others observe that people shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose when the “stay at home” advice can be ignored.
What do you think? Is PPOC overstepping? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Houston, you have a problem. ;-)
I didn't realize Houston was in Canada.
1000% Yes
Lets destroy the worlds economy over something that is maybe and seemingly worse than a bad flu season in some cases. Even though we wont know if that's the case for sure until years later. Logic is hard...
Also photos should be essential, it's documenting a very interesting time in our history. This is how the records of what happened during our lifetimes are shown to people long after we are all gone.
Try telling somebody the photographers and those who shot video during WW2 weren't essential.
I agree, photography of this event is important. No debate. But. There are professional journalists taking care of it. Porch session seem to me to be more ego than anything.
As for the flu comment, I’d ask you to check out the photos of NYC hospitals using freezer trucks for bodies. There is no way the flu kills a thousand people a day.
The 2018 flu killed roughly 80,000 people in the US, do the math for a four month flu season which is normal that's more than 650 people per day and that's a virus that we have a vaccine for. Imagine if we didn't.
By the way photos of freezers with bodies with no context or official statement from the hospital doesn't mean you take that to fear-monger people and shut down the entire world. How many people have lost their livelihood because something that by all accounts on a comparative level to other types of deaths across the world is extremely small.
Why is someone who is labeled a professional journalist somehow more important than the next person? Why can portrait sessions not be photo-journalistic in nature? Look through some of the most popular and famous journalists in the world, and the work they've shared. Bet you find plenty of "porch sessions". But because it's in an impoverished country of someone poor it makes it photojournalism right?
Several hundred thousand people die of cancer in the US every year and we don't shut down the world. Perspective matters.
The flu is deadly a fraction of the time in comparison to this SARS that leads to COVID-19.
Almost 12K have died in NYC alone in the last 4 weeks, that number is likely to almost double as those who contracted the virus weeks ago die. The "flu" vaccine is at best an annual educated guess. There isn't really a vaccine for the 'flu.' There are thousands of flus.
Comparing the flu to this SARS is like comparing a long bow to a military grade automatic rifle.
The fact that more people aren't dead is a result of the shutdowns. Those countries that waited to long are paying for it. Those FEW countries that haven't shutdown and haven't had huge outbreaks are drastically different in density and social structure than NYC and the like.
Porch sessions are not photo journalism. They're social media driven. These are family photographers and influencers who have nothing better to do.
I agree, everyone can be a photojournalist, but, I'd certainly trust those journalists who have proper experience over those who's most stressful moment is a first kiss.
"We" spend billions on cancer research a year. What are the opportunity costs for that money?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the need to fight for a 'porch session' at the cost of lives.
Don't forget that the 'paper of record' (NY Times) tweeted this out on 9 January:
" “There’s no evidence that the virus, a coronavirus, is readily spread by humans, and it has not been tied to any deaths. But health officials in China and internationally are watching it carefully."
For whatever reason, early concerns about 19 were downplayed by a LOT of people. I am fortunate to be in Manitoba. A total of 246 cases and 4 deaths. New cases are showing up in single digits during the last week or so.
No lock down, but the people are doing their part to bring this thing to an end.
I certainly don't disagree that in early January there was little global worry. But, there certainly is now.
Don't mean for this to sound cold but if you compare how many people this virus has killed to how many people are born every day it's not even close. Humanity is still in a net positive for population growth which is arguably not a good thing anyways.
Let's say this virus really is substantially worse than the flu which I'm still skeptical about. It is still not even remotely close to being a world ending sickness which a lot of people like to make it seem. There is no doubt it dangerous and we should be more cautious but where is the balance between trying to mitigate risks from the virus and mitigating the very serious side-effects of those mitigation's.
Again making generalized statements about a photographers or a subjects intent for the photos seems a bit blind. Of course is some cases and maybe you could argue that even in many cases you view of it could be true, who are you to make that distinction for everyone?
Again the fight for a porch session at the cost of lives lacks a practical level of context. In very densely populated areas I think that's a ration argument, but location and context matter don't they?
I certainly think we can agree on location specific context.
We're not going to agree on whether this is worse than a seasonal flu. The mortality rate is 10+ times higher for COVID-19 related infections. Unmitigated models show death rates in the US alone that would outpace combat deaths in WWII. I'm personally putting that in the serious category. World ending, no.
I don't know where you saw that mitigated model but that's a stench into fantasy land to me. Out of curiosity I checked the GleamProjects unmitigated model for the US as of May and it was at 350,000 deaths. There were more than 20 million combat deaths in WW2. Those numbers aren't even on the playing field. That would mean the death rate is almost 10% which it's not. It's 4% based on current testing which always means it will be lower because not everyone has been tested.
I meant comparing US deaths to US deaths. Sorry to be unclear
350,00000 deaths over what period of time?
Ps, worldwide, based on the testing that was done, counting only concluded numbers, (that is, those confirmed who got sick and recovered, vs those confirmed who got sick and died, but not counting those who are still sick, but not yet recovered or dead), the world death rate is about 25%, and the Us rate is about 50%.
Excluding the US and Italy from the sample, the world death rate becomes about 10%.
and twisting numbers to make the death rates artificially higher than the reality based very specific and limited parameters is the type of fear mongering that creates more problems and a false sense of what is actually happening and doesn't help anyone.....
Explain
First, let me explain my point.
United States
Recovered: 75,540
Deaths: 46,013
Worldwide
Recovered: 701,426
Deaths: 180,784
Doing the division…
United States: 60.91209955%
Worldwide: 25.773780841%
Okay, your turn.
[EDIT] To your point on, «and limited parameters», that is true, as the US has done less testing than any other country, testing less than 1% of the population thus far. This means that the numbers of those who have had COVID-19 and recovered, without us ever knowing, is probably higher, thus lowering the US death rate….
…But we may never know without more testing.
[/EDIT]
Your "EDIT" proves my point. Also look at how mortality rates are actually calculated by the CDC. Your math while on a basic level is correct it completely skewed and not a logical or practical measure of the situation.
Mortality rate is calculated the same way by all scientists who calculate mortality rate. One looks at the numbers of all who have gone through the event completely, (not those what are not yet through the event), and do a division of the number who died vs ¹/100th of the population.
That is the death rate. That is how it is done.
(Technically, it is NOT the death RATE. The “Rate” is how fast people are actually dying, such as “one every ten minutes,” “3 per day,” or, “564 per year.” What we are referring to is mortality ratio, but that is commonly, and incorrectly, called the death rate).
«Your "EDIT" proves my point.»
I know what my edit does. (ANd, no, it did not actually prove your point). It is called acknowledgement. But I see you are not used to that. I basically agreed with you on one thing; the 50% death rate is somewhat inflated. It does not explain your point at all. Still waiting on an explanation. I merely pointed out what I already know, so that you will know where I am coming from, and that you can give an explanation based on my knowledge, and my acceptance of your wisdom.
To be clear, you said that I twisted the data. Explain how I twisted the data.
lol always got to try and throw little jabs in there, that explains a lot.
I also said that how you compare and selectively choose to view the data is skewed not twisted.
Also, your entire calculation creates bias is the numbers because the grey area for not yet recovered or dead is vastly larger than either of those numbers so once again my whole point is your 60% mortality rate is a skewed version of the reality.
Again if you don't think your edit proved my point then you didn't understand my point.
«…because the grey area for not yet recovered or dead is vastly larger than either of those numbers…»
…But the actual numbers of those who are recovered or dead is a statistically relevant number. ① that is how stats work, and ②, I mentioned the fact that we leave out the numbers who have not yet gone though the event (for obvious reasons), that the world death rate drops significantly when two outliers are eliminated from the numbers, and that the death rate can be as low as 2% or less (in another thread, where I point to S. Korea).
So where have I twisted the numbers??? It is you doing the twisting. The facts are the facts, the figures are the figures, and I have NOT manipulated them. I have chosen to mention the unknowns, and explain how these may change the statistics, but you choose to reiterate the unknowns as some sort of proof to some deliberate plot to skew the facts.
how is 60% death rate in the US based on very limited parameters not twisting the reality of the situation? You clearly admitted that the percent would be much lower if we did more testing which was my whole point by the way...
I haven't twisted anything you're the one taking numbers and applying the stats in a way that makes this virus seem much worse than it is. I don't know how many times I can explain that.
«… based on very limited parameters….»
Based on a domain of 75,450???? It is well beyond statistically relevant!
«…that the percent would be much lower if we did more testing….»
Correct. So how have I twisted the data???
I never stated you twisted the data go back and read what I wrote I said you're twisting the reality of the situation to make it seem much worse than it is by using a very niche and specific comparison of the data. How many times do I need to reword this? The current data is what it is, I'm not arguing that, I agree with you that the most up to date data while not accurate and we all know that is still what we have to go on and there is no twisting that. You're missing the point I'm making apparently.
Using the data to twist the reality of the situation. Fine.
Be specific; where/how have I, «twisting the reality of the situation to make it seem much worse than it is by using a very niche and specific comparison of the data»?
P.s., fourteen days ago: «…and twisting numbers [a.k.a., data] to make the death rates artificially higher….»
Six days ago: «…how you compare and selectively choose to view the data [sic] is skewed….»
Five days ago: «I never stated you twisted the data….»
So first you said that I twisted the numbers, then you said you did not say, “twisted,” but skewed, the data, now you said you never said “twisted the data,” but twisting the reality (with data). Still, just be specific in precisely where/tow I did whatever it was that I did, when I did what I did to the numbers/data/reality.
I guess you're just too ignorant to understand the context of what was written specifically referring to you taking the current numbers and making a comparison that was wildly higher than the reality. Don't know how else to explain that to you. 60% death rate... cool.
Also twisting the numbers and the data are not the same thing. taking the numbers that are by all accounts correct at the time even though we know they aren't and making a specific comparison to make things seem one way is not the same thing as making up fake numbers.
Data is partially made up of numbers it's not exclusively numerical... (do your research) since that's what you love to preach.
I've never had an argument with someone who has tried so hard to make petty responses about verbiage instead of actually sticking to points being made... Sad.
You enjoy yourself Karim I'm not going to argue semantics with an arrogant person all day long. This conversation has turned into nothing more than you trying everything in your power to be petty and it's now to the point where it is actually pathetic, and it wouldn't surprise me if that makes you feel like you accomplished something which would be sadder than anything.
«…specifically referring to you taking the current numbers and making a comparison [ of numbers ] that was wildly higher than the reality.»
So you are referring to me manipulating/twisting/viewing numeric data, into incorrect information, correct?
«Also twisting the numbers and the data are not the same thing.»
Unless it is numeric data, correct?
«…that are by all accounts correct at the time even though we know they aren't and making a specific comparison to make things seem one way….»
Huh?!? What?!?
Do you mean like when someone states, «…unmitigated model for the US as of May and it was at 350,000 deaths. There were more than 20 million combat deaths in WW2. Those numbers aren't even on the playing field. That would mean the death rate is almost 10% which it's not. It's 4% based on current testing….», without looking at length of time, or calculating death rate using values withou an outcome, etc? Is that what you mean?
because not only are my numbers/data correct, but verified, and my mathematics is accurate, and my time frame stated. So….
«Data is partially made up of numbers it's not exclusively numerical....»
But in this case, all the data used in the calculations was numerical. The only non-numerical data was things such as geographic data, (such as, S. Korea, USA, et al), disease data, (such as, Influenza Type-A H1N1, Covid-19, et al), And none of that was manipulated/twisted/viewed inappropriately by me, so….
«…instead of actually sticking to points being made….»
Again I ask, (and be specific,) Where have I twisted/manipulated the data, whether numeric or otherwise???
YOU are the one NOT sticking to the point. Bringing up non-numeric data, making irrelevant distinctions (since really only numeric data was in anyway put into formulas), bringing up things which I had mentioned in my analysis (such as testing), etc.
You have NOT ONCE stated where and how I twisted data. The closest you came was suggesting that I ignored inadequate testing, (which I did not ignore in my analysis).
«I'm not going to argue semantics….»
But YOU have argued semantics at every turn!! I just want to know where it was I did what you said I did, whether the word was “twist” or something else, whether it was data, or something else, whether the data was numeric, or something else. YOU are the one arguing semantics, and NOT getting to the point.
«…wouldn't surprise me if that makes you feel like you accomplished something….»
If I did, I would have known by now what it is that I have done wrong. You accuse, then walk away. Good show. Don't accuse if you have no valid point to give.
LOL go sit down somewhere and take a deep breath, as I stated before, you're too arrogant to have a rational argument with.
Really Explain?
Lol so I got the answer I was expecting which is you don't have the capacity to justify your own argument so you come up with an excuse not to. OK, cool story bro. lol
LOL still makes excuses not to justify his point of view. You'd be a good politician.
Let me try to explain. Photojournalism is taking photos of newsworthy or news related events/subjects, for the benefit of those consuming the news, to know what is happening. Portraits is producing an image of a subject for the benefit of the subject.
If a subject pays you to come take their image for their benefit, it is a portrait session. If you later publish all your portraits in a book as, “documentation of people during the Covid-19 Pandemic,” it becomes a portfolio of your Covid-19 Pandemic porch sessions. It does not become photojournalism, nor documentary, simply because you published it for general consumption.
…But you were right. Brad Smith did nothing to add to the discussion but to disagree without explanation. Where I agree that an explanation ought not have been necessary, that the answer ought to have been obvious, I think that he was in error not to provide a complete response, since thee was at least one person who, for whatever reason, did not grasp the obvious.
You're making an assumption that all porch sessions are being done for the purpose of personal family portraits that people are paying for because they don't want to wait to get their photos taken. There was an article of here earlier that talked about a photographer flying his drone around and taking photos with people doing interesting things or dressed in funny ways and standing on their balconies or out their windows. That entire project is recording a very import part of our history and by any practical definition those would be porch sessions would they not? I think it's a complete error to make assumptions since there was at least one person who for whatever reason did not grasp the concept that porch sessions might have a more board usage than just what you think....
[EDIT reason=clarity of terms]
«That entire project is recording a very import part of our history and by any practical definition those would be porch sessions would they not?»
No. they would not. Perhaps you need to consider what a “session” is. [INS] A session is a meeting, for a specific reason, with other participants, such as a court session, parliamentary session, (or photo session). If no other participants are present, or there is no specific reason, then it is not a session. From old French, to sit (past-participle, plural). [/INS] The article does not actually defines what they mean by porch session, but it is clear by the context, [INS] without the need for a dictionary. [/INS]
And an earlier article, (which is NOT the discussion here), about someone breaking drone laws, and privacy laws, [INS] —taking pictures of private property with a drone without knowledge and consent of the property owner is illegal in the US, and violates privacy laws in the EU— [/INS] is not in anyway related to porch sessions, nor the safety —or lack thereof— inherent in the practice. [INS] That is to say, even if you believe that that article is about photojournalism or documentary photography, it is not what is at issue here. Taking portrait sessions with a drone (with foreknowledge and consent,) does not alter the issue at hand, and as such does not add to the discussion. [/INS] If you wish, you can start a thread about the safety of flying a drone around to capture strangers in peculiar situations [DEL reason=repetitive ]if you wish, [/DEL] but I do not think I want to be party to that discussions, as I find it wrong on so many levels.
….And, no! Although that [INS] (third paragraph reference), [/INS] is “documentary” by nature, that is not photojournalism either, nor is that essential.
[EDIT reason=address the accusation about assumptions]
«…making an assumption that all porch sessions are being done for the purpose of personal family portraits that people are paying for….»
No such assumptions were made. The example I gave was not to define “porch session,” but was to illustrate how they do not become “journalistic” despite what is done with them later.
[/EDIT]
so many assumptions without any evidence here.... Also if you want to get into the semantics of what a photo session is, look up the actual definition. That would make us both wrong so don't start with that crap...
The other article is not the discussion it provides context to what I am referring to... didn't think I needed to explain that one.
Your entire third paragraph is so wildly ignorant. How am I suppose to have a rational conversation with someone who makes completely blind statements without any shred of evidence to support his point...
I see you are avoiding the question. Bye
lol makes excuses so he won't address the ignorance in his prior comments. Sweet! :D
Someone has to point them out first. To say, “you are ignorant,” then walk away, does not leave anyone anything to address. The question was ignored, there is nothing to say.
[EDIT]
You know what? It just occurred to me that you are doing the very thing that you and I accused Brad Smith of doing; making a statement but not giving information to back it up. Not only that, but although I have given information to back up my statements, you have also accused me of doing what Brad did!
Maybe Brad was onto something in his last post.
[/EDIT]
So you don't understand that making claims without evidence in your prior posts was the entire point of my comment... Again the casually ignore that point for some reason or you don't get it...
You claim that the photographer using the drone was violating all these rules but you have zero proof of that, you're just making ignorant claims to try and argue...
«…making claims without evidence….»
Again, what claims have I made without evidence? If you cannot answer that question, I have nothing to defend.
«…casually ignore that point for some reason….»
I cannot ignore that of which I have not been informed.
«You claim that the photographer using the drone was violating all these rules….»
Ah! Finally! That thing. No we are getting somewhere.
Okay, so what do you think I missed; what the photographers are doing, or what the rules are? Be more specific, and I will answer the question.
«…making ignorant claims….»
Again, with the ignorant thing, without being clear, but I will let this go, in the hopes that the answer is coming in your next post.
[EDIT]
Let me save sometime. Here is one Lithuania law.
>>>>><<<<<
Drones must be kept a minimum of 50 meters (164 feet) from all vehicles, buildings, people, crowds, and places of worship.
<<<<<>>>>>
[/EDIT]
Drone rules differ from location to location so sighting a specific drone rule on this argument is not really relevant unless you reach out to the author of that article and ask him all those questions to determine whether what he was doing is allowed or not.
You do not have the full context to that situation at all so again making claims that they are violating rules of any kind is in quotes "the claims without evidence" that I am referring to.
Karim that would be no different than me claiming that you go out and violate people's privacy when you go shoot photos just because you have picture of people on your website. I obviously have no evidence of that whatsoever. However, that is the exact same idea you are applying to this other person.
I am sorry, but which country is he in? Which country were the photos taken? Which drone rules did I quote? *MIC DROP*
[EDIT] For others who also missed it, the questions were rhetorical. [/EDIT]
(Unlike some people, I research BEFORE I speak).
So you didn't ask the author? got it lol
Some people are just too arrogant to have a rational argument with clearly.
The article specifies where the photographer did his shooting!!!!
Why ask what is stated?
The law I cited is from the country where the images were taken, but YOU are too arrogant to think that others think like you, and don't do their homework before commenting.
I did mine, and made an accurate statement. The photographer violated drone laws, (plural), and, yes, in the country in question. To what other drone laws would I have referred? (Hence, the mic drop).
LOL this is what is known as I state things like I did my research but I won't cite any of that research because I know it's bullshit... HAHAHAHA Cool bro!
My prior comment is still as accurate as ever.
So you didn't ask the author? got it lol
Some people are just too arrogant to have a rational argument with clearly.
I did cite my research. I said that he is breaking drone laws in the country in question, and quoted one of those laws. You want another one? “Drones are prohibited in urban areas.” At least one of those photos is in an urban area, and two others might be. (Most of them seem to be rural/sub-urban).
No, I did not ask the author, as it is mentioned in the article. Why would I ask someone something they already….
Ah! I just got it. That is what you do. You asked me questions for which I already gave the answer, so you think that that is what all people do. No. If someone already gave me an answer, I do not see the point in asking them again.
Your comment is in error. You accused me of making inaccurate statements without actually stating what was inaccurate, and all the time, it was because you assumed that I did not do my research. The country was already mentioned, so I looked up the relevant drone laws BEFORE posting. You made the error of accusing me BEFORE YOU did any research.
Get it right.
lol you must be referencing the wrong article. that's cute. :D
Okay, so you said, «There was an article of here earlier that talked about a photographer flying his drone around and taking photos with people doing interesting things or dressed in funny ways and standing on their balconies or out their windows.»
Be specific, then. To which article were you referring? It really is not cute when you make a vague reference, —what seems to be a very specific reference— then claim, “See, I was right! It is THEIR fault they did not get the vague reference.”
So lets start over. You be very specific in the reference, and, if I was referencing the wrong article, you will get a full and complete apology. I will even delete all my previous posts with the incorrect reference, and put a big, “¡mea culpa, lo siento!” post up instead.
Sounds fair?
(Personally, what I think sounds fair is if you had just posted the link to begin with, but to each their own).
[EDIT] I did a search, and there is only one Fstoppers article about someone doing drone photo during this pandemic. Am I wrong? Please prove me wrong!
…Otherwise it may give people the impression that you were called out and was too embarrassed to admit it. [/EDIT]