>>3213968>>3214451thanks for the kindness! unfortunately i have already been ripped several new ones by people in this thread. Sadly I was just trying to help beginners. and yes i do love that photo and may try to copy it in the future if you dont mind :)
>>3214463hey man not cool to us people with an intellectual difficulty as an insult
>>3214563not sure, never been tested.
>>3214664it's raw truth. it was taken in public with no legal expectation of privacy. Does a disabled individual on oxygen that is unable to move and has been confided to their room for years have a right to see things i see in public? yes.
Do subjects want me there taking their photo? probably not. Did i use 1.8 aperture to blur out the injured woman's face for privacy reasons? yes (even though i didn't have to) I took photos of law enforcement agents beating a homeless man in the bronx. It's exploitative and disgusting to take photos of police without asking them first. is that going to stop me? no
