Tamron – Need lightweight, compact mirrorless lenses? Tamron has you covered, with superior optics perfect for any situation. With weather sealing and advanced image stabilization, you’ll open up your creative possibilities.

Radiant Photo – Radiant Photo superior quality finished photos with perfect color rendition, delivered in record time. Your photos — simply RADIANT. The way they are meant to be.

Mylio Photos – Access your photos from anywhere, without the cloud! Easily showcase your photos on-the-go, resolve duplicates, find faces and look for those stunning locations.

B&H – B&H is a world renowned supplier of all the gear photographers, videographers, and cinematographers need and want to create their very best work.

MPB – Grab used but perfectly working cameras and lenses for less, or turn your old gear into cash by trading and selling them on MPB!

The world is taking more photos than ever before. In fact, it’s estimated that since 2015, more photographs are snapped each year than the combination of every previous year since the invention of the camera. That still doesn’t mean that you can snap a pic just anywhere, however.

Even in 2024, there are still public places that are not allowed to be photographed. Whether it’s due to permits, integrity of the democratic system, or even national security, there are several New York locations that ban the public from taking pictures.

Can You Take a Picture in a Voting Booth in New York State?

One of the most popular photography questions surprisingly revolves around selfies in voting booths (remember when Justin Timberlake got in trouble in 2016?). While plenty of states don’t mind voters snapping a pic, New York State does not allow photography “showing a completed ballot or indicating how [they] cast their vote”.

Can You Take Photographs of Railroad Tracks in New York State?

New York State’s railroad system, both historic and modern, is often the subject of photographers across the state. While taking shots of trains from public land is allowed, any activity on train tracks or other private property is strictly prohibited. Countless outreach programs stress the message that any train track, no matter how empty they seem, can turn deadly in seconds.

Can You Take Photographs at Famous New York City Parks?

Causal photographs (on a phone or handheld camera) are allowed in nearly every public area of New York City, but there are certain guidelines in city parks. For instance, no professional photography of any kind is allowed at The Cloisters, and taking shots with a tripod at Grand Central Station requires a permit (most photography, including professional, is allowed without a permit in Central Park). Find the full list of requirements here.

Of course, photography on any private property is subject to the owner’s discretion. Guidelines for trash, however, are universal no matter where the can is located. Take a look at some New York guidelines below.

Many of us don’t consider the harm we do with our photos. Our actions might be innocent, but there’s a dark side to most genres that we don’t ever consider.

The Problem With Wedding Photography

A book sitting on the shelves above my desk is about wedding photography. It starts by saying that wedding photographers were once considered bottom feeders. It then points out that things have changed significantly over the last couple of decades as documentary-style photography has taken over from the “look-at-the-birdy-and-say-cheese” group photos that plagued the genre for most of its history.

This new style of wedding photography has certainly caused some upset among the clergy here in the UK, and I suspect elsewhere too. Wedding photographers seem to think their work is more important than the wedding. A retired vicar friend of mine told me that he was marrying a couple when, during the vows, he heard a noise. Looking behind him, he saw the photographer climbing onto the altar. Recent news stories here have reported the feud between priests and wedding photographers, with the photographers saying they should be shown more respect and not pushed to the back of the church where they are sometimes sent, and priests pointing out that their job is the most important.

I’ll have to say, as a wedding photographer, I agree with the Church’s point of view. A religious wedding is a celebration but is also a sacred occasion. Secular wedding ceremonies are also important events. No matter how it is conducted or by whom, the ceremony is by far the most significant aspect of the day. However much the happy couple pays, the photographer should allow the ceremony to progress without disturbing it, the participants, or the congregation.

So, perhaps we wedding photographers are bottom feeders. Or are we?

Are Landscape Photographers Worse?

I recently bought a fantastic landscape photography book by a well-known photographer I have a lot of respect for. In it, he exhibits photos taken early in the morning at a particularly beautiful stretch of coastline that I am very familiar with. Where he has set up his camera before dawn is probably the best place to get a photo of that scene. However, it’s also the best roosting spot for a raft of endangered shorebirds that overwinter and feed there.

Migratory birds need to spend all their energies feeding to regain the body mass lost during their flight to their overwintering grounds. Every disturbance reduces the survival of the birds. Those birds, or any wildlife, are an important integral part of the landscape, just as surely as lions, giraffes, and elephants are to the savannah, and polar bears are to the Arctic.

Perhaps Wildlife Photographers Do More Harm Than Good

Landscape photographers probably disrupt the creatures through ignorance. However, creatures are often deliberately disturbed by wildlife photographers who fantasize about appearing on the next cover of National Geographic no matter the cost to the creature.

Somebody I know has an extremely rare and shy bird breeding on their land. Officially, there is only one known breeding pair in the UK. There is more because nobody is letting on that this bird is there because they know they will be inundated with wildlife photographers who will disturb the birds and disrupt their breeding.

So, maybe some wildlife photographers are the worst.

Yes, But What About the Paparazzi and Fashion Photographers?

I’m not so sure, though. The paparazzi hound people and invade their privacy. This has led to enormous upset, disruption to family life, and that horrific fatal car crash in a Parisian tunnel in 1997.

Yet maybe that pales into insignificance when one compares that to the harm caused by fashion photographers who feed the world with images of skinny models with perfect skin. The damage that does to the self-esteem and mental health of, especially, young women. Fashion photography contributes to increased depression, anxiety, and self-harm; decreased socio-emotional well-being; low self-esteem; as well as negative body image.

Photographers of all genres should remember that the photograph is always less important that the subject and the viewer.

But maybe there is worse happening than that. Social media companies now employ vast numbers of content moderators who are exposed to horrendous images of inhuman acts. As a result, those moderators suffer mental health issues from exposure to the pictures. Moreover, there are insufficient moderators to perform that task. Should those inhuman photographers be solely accountable for those images, or should social media companies share that responsibility?

Until now, in America, internet companies have been exempt from any responsibility for the content their sites show because of Section 230, which was originally part of the Communications Decency Act.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Originally put in place to promote freedom of expression and innovation, it led to social media platforms washing their hands of any responsibility for the content they show. So long as they did not edit the information posted on their site, they could not be held responsible.

This led to a raft of social issues, not least harassment, hate speech, inciting violence, misinformation, abuse, promotion of suicide, and self-harm, as well as allowing posts by foreign groups to disrupt the democratic process. The mob storming of the United States Capitol in January 2016 is seen to have been prompted by social media posts.

So, it’s not just the photography that is to blame, but how people use images and other information. Those companies that host images will probably soon be held responsible for the outcomes. Just as there was bipartisan support for introducing it, there’s now bipartisan support for rescinding Section 230 because of the harm caused by uncontrolled social media.

If that happens, this will affect not just the big hosts such as Meta, X, and Google, but smaller image host providers, including sites like Fstoppers and its competitors. The moderation of comments and galleries will become more onerous, and I can see commenting disappearing from many sites.

Election Interference and Faked Photos

2024 will see more elections worldwide than any other year in recent history. Never have there been more opportunities for bad actors with evil intent to use imagery to interfere with the electoral processes by posting on social media. Already, fake photos have appeared that show one presidential candidate in a good light. AI image generation tools make that all the easier.

There was outrage recently because a member of the British Royal Family had enhanced a family snap released for Mothering Sunday here in the UK. Most of us have done it to pictures, so the scandal boiled up by the press seemed disproportionate. How many of your family members have used Instagram filters to improve their looks? On one wedding shoot, I removed a pimple from the face in all the pictures of a bridesmaid. Nobody noticed apart from the bride who thanked me for it. If such an edit is done with good intent, then I believe there is no problem. Sadly, not everyone has the same opinion, and for them, anything goes.

However, except for minor edits such as removing dust spots, reputable news agencies insist that photos are genuine. There have been some notable digressions from this standard and great damage to the reputation of the news agencies that have done so. Nevertheless, most press reporting and photos are held to a high standard. Social media posts are not. Research shows that more than 40% of news on social media is fake and an astonishing 86% of Americans are falling prey to fake news.

In Conclusion

It seems the digital world we photographers walk in is precarious, and we risk having our reputations destroyed because of it. If people cannot tell the difference between a fake photo and a real one, doubt will be cast on the validity of all our images. All we can do is continue shooting genuine images and try to do as little harm as possible.