Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:14 am  

WIZEB wrote:

But do you concede that DHM maybe succumbing to the real and modern day irrationality of creeping paranoia?
It's him, after all, using the rhetoric of child abduction and there being some evil f**** out there.

Is it the loss of confidence amongst parents that is the real issue?

*Photography.

Well I read it in the same way that I presented it - "This is the way it is...", I also recognise what LBWR mentions in the previous post in that when sporting clubs address the undoubted paranoia that exists in SOME people about photographing their children (christ knows how they manage to get through each day without having a nervous breakdown) then sensible solutions can be found - they do have to be addressed though and its just one part of the bull-droppings that amateur sporting clubs have to put up with in their administration, I've been to committee meetings at our local RU club where heads of years have spent two or three hours discussing issues that have arisen in the last month, its like running a decent sized business when you have two or three hundred participating members.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:28 am  

Having no parental responsibility perhaps my naiveness is glaringly apparent with regard to the modern day child protection circus and the hysteria that ensues.
Perhaps my innocence is a good thing, maybe we should ask the children.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:57 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Having no parental responsibility perhaps my naiveness is glaringly apparent with regard to the modern day child protection circus and the hysteria that ensues.
Perhaps my innocence is a good thing, maybe we should ask the children.

The really daft thing is, especially with junior and mini rugby teams, is that the ultra-paranoid parnets who are terrified of having their kiddies photographed, then happily hand them over to an 18 stone ex-prop forward with a face like a bowl of mashed potato for a full contact sport (well not for the minis, but they do get carried away sometimes) when at least one of them will report back to mater with a bloody nose every weekend, they already insist on headgear and gumshields, shouldn't be too long now before tag gets played all the way up to 18 year old

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:07 am  

WIZEB wrote:

... maybe we should ask the children

I have.

To accompany every set of match photos I produce a collage of all the images deemed worthy of "publication" (usually around 40 out of 600 or so). Here's an example:



That's my grandson on the right of the central picture having just scored.

Every week the team discuss the question of "who's in the middle picture this week" and bragging rights ensue.

To echo Jerry Chicken in a previous post, the boys love to see themselves in action.

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that, as you can see from the collage, I try to give equal coverage to both teams. I think that this is appreciated by the opposition and word gets around.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:43 am  

WIZEB wrote:

But do you concede that DHM maybe succumbing to the real and modern day irrationality of creeping paranoia?
It's him, after all, using the rhetoric of child abduction and there being some evil f**** out there.

Is it the loss of confidence amongst parents that is the real issue?

*Photography.

Where have I said any of this was the way I think? These are facts regarding how rugby clubs - and I have experience of a few - deal with the issues/potential issues caused by people photographing children while playing the game on club premises.
McF has explained things the way I see them at our club and it's the way I see other local clubs. I, as I've said, try not to get involved with any of the arguments, at the moment it doesn't effect the kids (my son's included) enjoyment of the sport and that's all I care about. I have a safeguarding course to attend this weekend and I'm sure the subject will come up again. whatever they tell me I'll take on board and do what the club asks me to.

The context here is very limited - it's just about taking photographs. Most of the work of safeguarding is around making sure the game is safe to play physically, that all activities are supervised correctly and training is applicable to the age of the children. There is also a substantial bullying section, kids can bully each other and they can be bullied (on purpose or unintentionaly) by coaches and other adults. There is no paranoia, but as McF points out, clubs are run almost like business's these days and reputation is very important. I know clubs who have bad reputations that have hung around them like a noose.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:36 am  

DHM wrote:

We are not allowed to caption photos on our club website with the childs name (I coach 10 year olds at our local Union club). It's an internal policy and I have seen other clubs that do post captions with childrens names. I have posted photos with captions and any reference to names was removed by the moderator. Rugby clubs can face the wrath off the RFU (although never actually understood what this "wrath" entails) for not complying with child safety guidelines. Each club has a child protection officer and clubs will generally be cautious. I have heard the argument regarding naming children and this information potentially being used to abduct etc. It's very far fetched, I agree, but frankly you fight battles that have a point to them at rugby clubs and captions with names or not is way down on the list. There is another argument, and one that I would hope few people have experience of directly but the use of images of children to generate obscene material in photoshop. This is a very real issue. I don't get it and I hope I never do, but there are some twisted f**** out there who do this sort of stuff. Another reason not to have kids named perhaps.
We have also had the situation where it has been proposed that anyone taking photographs be CRB checked. We went through this last year and it was left undecided.

My take on things is with rugby clubs is there are legal requirements, there are requirements from the governing body and there are the bits every club adds on themselves as nobody fully understands 100% of either of the first two.

Then of course there's the swimming club my son also belongs to - how they do things is different again. If anything they seem more liberal, there are pictures of our swimmers on our website with their names.

When I was taking junior/youth rugby league photos the club I was with applied for a CRB check for me from the RFL. Not a problem and the opposition team can then be told our photographer has been CRB checked by the RFL.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:04 pm  

Some from this weekend:

Some from this weekend:

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:34 am  

The first robin is an absolutely superb shot. I can easily envisage that winning prizes in certain niche circumstances.

The second robin is under-exposed. The bright background has caused the camera's meter to "think" that the subject is better lit than it actually is.

Before the fact: spot metering or fill flash would have helped.

After the fact: rudimentary masking of the bird followed by brightness adjustment might help.

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:01 am  

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote:

The first robin is an absolutely superb shot. I can easily envisage that winning prizes in certain niche circumstances.

The second robin is under-exposed. The bright background has caused the camera's meter to "think" that the subject is better lit than it actually is.

Before the fact: spot metering or fill flash would have helped.

After the fact: rudimentary masking of the bird followed by brightness adjustment might help.

First Robin is, apparently, entering it's post=breeding moult.

My camera gernerally overexposes (Pentax) and so the second Robin was amended via the sotware to "auto exposure". I think it looks better having the face / bill more correctly exposed. As you say though, the rest of the body becomes underexposed (high contrast as it was taken in yesterday's very strong midday sun (90+ degrees where we live).

Re: Photography thread 11.02 : Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:38 pm  

Another from the weekend:

Another from the weekend: