Frost Building, Daylight

@Shawna: Thank you. Probably won't see the owl for at least another week.

@MadScientist: So far, I've never been stopped or questioned by the police when taking photos, though apparently, quite a few people posting here have been. Most of the time I'm questioned by curious people who have absolutely no idea why anyone who isn't getting paid for it would be taking photos of strangers, buildings, or what have you. Several times I've been confronted by hostile people who more than likely have some kind of psychological problem. Those are the people I worry about most.

@sherri: So far, I've never been stopped or questioned by the police when taking photos, though apparently, quite a few people posting here have been. Most of the time I'm questioned by curious people who have absolutely no idea why anyone who isn't getting paid for it would be taking photos of strangers, buildings, or what have you. Several times I've been confronted by hostile people who more than likely have some kind of psychological problem. Those are the people I worry about most.

Much of what a photographer does when taking pictures is inherently "suspicious." If I stand in one place for 30 minutes waiting for a bird to land, or a scene to change, aren't my actions going to be considered "suspicious" by a paranoid and ignorant public? Or how about if I'm a truly wild and crazy guy like the Persian King, and I lay on the ground to take a photo of a bottle? Such behavior might look very suspicious to a largely gullible public who think "terrorists" stand out in the open with big cameras taking pictures of highway overpasses for their next attack. The whole notion is so absurd it shouldn't require discussion any more than it is necessary to have a discussion about the kind of green cheese that was used to make the moon.

However, since the US government monitors just about everything we do on the internet --and actually routes everything that passes through a large part of the network (anything that goes over AT&T for example) to its own database for storage-- everything we do is subject to scrutiny. Of course, while 99.9% of the time they're only looking specifically at people who set off certain triggers, EVERYTHING you do on the net can be retrieved --every email, every site visited, every blog posting, every comment you've ever written, every streaming audio file you've ever listened too, etc-- all of it can be retrieved and dissected if you ever become a target --for whatever reason.

@dj.tigersprout: Thanks. Most people apparently don't look that far, as you're one of the few who have noticed --or at least, remarked.

@étranger: Agreed, and though I'm worried about the trends, so far, I've never been stopped or questioned by the police when taking photos, though apparently, quite a few people posting here have been. Most of the time I'm questioned by curious people who have absolutely no idea why anyone who isn't getting paid for it would be taking photos of strangers, buildings, or what have you. Several times I've been confronted by hostile people who more than likely have some kind of psychological problem. Those are the people I worry about most.

@Observing: Nowadays everybody is a pro-photographer !! and with a rucksack full of the latest absolutelymust have equipment, and bag loads of top-end accessoires and enormous lenses,

Maybe you see that more in New York or London, but I really don't see that around here. I've been to big public events where I am virtually the only person with anything more than a cellphone or a P&S camera, and in fact, I'm frequently assumed to be some kind of professional. The day I took this one in Austin some people thought I was taking photos for the local paper.

And so far, I've never been stopped or questioned by the police when taking photos, though apparently, quite a few people posting here have been. Most of the time I'm questioned by curious people who have absolutely no idea why anyone who isn't getting paid for it would be taking photos of strangers, buildings, or what have you. Several times I've been confronted by hostile people who more than likely have some kind of psychological problem. Those are the people I worry about most.

@JoeB: That's the best way to handle the situation, though you probably get the best responses by simply telling people you're being paid by a client to take photos for XYZ. Joe Sixpack understands the concept of taking photos for money but generally does not understand the concept of taking pictures for fun or self-satisfaction.

However, the notion that "terrorists" are going to come over to North America, with all the logistical effort that such an expedition suggests, and then attack an abandoned building, highway overpass, grocery store, or "factory," is so absurd that the person suggesting it should be treated like someone who is expecting an attack by Martians. Should be. And where there really are potential terrorists, in places where the logistical hurdles make attacks of such limited scope feasible, like Israel, they don't need a photo to be able to strap on a bomb and then blow themselves up in a cafe or on a bus.

@danthro: I had to go look to see what you were talking about as I don't check my gmail very often. I appreciate the effort. I think the second version is more of an improvement and better than the shot I posted. The problem is, that while it's better, I'm not sure I like any of them, including what I posted. Part of it may be the lack of tonal separation in the "background" but I think the biggest part of it may just be the background itself. 90% of a "wild life" shot is probably the background and this background just, well, sucks.

Not only is "aesthetic value" entirely subjective, most of the general public doesn't even know what the word aesthetic means in the most limited sense. Plus, I wouldn't even trust a group of accomplished photographers to determine "aesthetic value," let alone an ignorant public that thinks photos of sunsets and kittens are the height of artistic expression. I've been questioned or confronted by members of the general public numerous times, and not once has anyone asked me a single question that has betrayed even the slightest hint of aesthetic appreciation. In fact, most people have absolutely no idea why anyone who isn't a "journalist" (and the answer there is nothing more thoughtful than 'cause they're paid) would want to take a photo of anything but a friend, family member, or pet --or, ok, maybe a stripper or a waitress at Hooters.

Even more relevant, perhaps, is something I read on another photography site. Much of what a photographer does when taking pictures is inherently "suspicious." If I stand in one place for 30 minutes waiting for a bird to land, or a scene to change, aren't my actions going to be considered "suspicious" by a paranoid and ignorant public? Or how about if I'm a truly wild and crazy guy like the Persian King, and I lay on the ground to take a photo of a bottle? Such behavior might look very suspicious to a largely gullible public who think "terrorists" stand out in the open with big cameras taking pictures of highway overpasses for their next attack. The whole notion is so absurd it shouldn't require discussion any more than it is necessary to have a discussion about the kind of green cheese that was used to make the moon.

@Ronnie 2¢: Does it get any wackier than this? And based on this: "There is also a high risk of damage to the register with a fountain pen when the bride and groom are looking at the camera and not the pen.

"A blank page allows the couple to concentrate on the photograph and allows the registrar to prepare the marriage certificate for which they would otherwise have to wait."

@gbe: I don't know what to make of your experience because every time I comment about this I get responses just like yours from people who have been stopped numerous times. One poster here told me the DA sent investigators to his home. I know this is happening and it troubles me, but I have never yet been questioned by anyone in authority --just Joe Q. Public. I've seen videos of the cops in NYC literally knocking people down who were taking photos with P&S cameras, and arresting them --then filing false arrest reports. Maybe I just don't spend as much time in public taking photos as you do. Or maybe the cops in Austin are more photo-tolerant --or the public complains less to the police. It's interesting to hear anecdotes from other photographers posting here.