Photography etiquette within the parks

NelsonRD

Well-Known Member
You used the term "creepy" to describe your concern. Synonyms for the word "creepy" include frightening, eerie, disturbing, sinister, weird, hair-raising, menacing, threatening, eldritch, spooky, scary and freaky. Therefore you have attached an ulterior or hidden motive to the intention of the photographer without any other evidence. Just the mere fact that someone takes a photograph of your child while he or she is interacting with a Disney character is enough for you to describe the incident as creepy. That is irrational.

Then you go on to say that "...it is not criminal and mostly innocent...". May I ask, what part is not innocent in your mind? I have no quarrel with your opinion that you feel such conduct is disrespectful. However, if I see a great shot and your child happens to be in the frame, I'm not going to hesitate to capture the moment. You might want to emulate Micheal Jackson and provide masks for your children to wear when they're out in public areas.

As to taking photos of my family members or myself, you may fill up the largest digital card you own and I would not question your motives at all. And no, I would not mind at all if some dude took some photographs of Mickey and my five year old little girl.

Now your are just being argumentative. Evidence? Dude, its creepy. Taking pictures of other peoples’ little girls with Mickey Mouse, is creepy. We are all impressed with your google search for thesaurus, but its moot.

Sometimes I cannot believe what I read here. If we were discussing taking a flash photo on a dark ride on this forum, people support ejecting violators from the park, however, discussing taking a photo of little girls that are not yours, during an interaction with a character, and somehow I am being irrational and I have to provide a dissertation on why its wrong.

There are plenty of opportunities to get photos of Mickey Mouse at Disney World. Its not that hard. Really, its not. Therefore, there is no reason they should include my child. You are so focused on arguing, your missing the point.

There should be no great shots of interest to you while my child is interacting with a character, and if you think there might be, you are one of the creeps I am talking about.
 

NelsonRD

Well-Known Member
We have been to Disney many times, and our kiddos have been in tons of photos with characters. I honestly cannot think of a single time when I noticed someone else taking a photo of the interaction. Is this really a thing that's common enough to even be a concern?

Its not. It is just something I have noticed a few times over the years, that was relevant to this thread, that I find disturbing.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
The title of the thread is wrong. Etiquette in the parks? What’s this word called etiquette?

Witness the recent freak out by certain posters in a thread with claims that basically amounted to: “clothing shaming”. :rolleyes:
 

ninjaprincesst

Well-Known Member
My problem with people at Disney is they can't just take a picture and move on they have to do a photo shoot at each location and especially when there characters involved they have to have every possible combination of people possible instead of just getting one shot of the group and moving on.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
The title of the thread is wrong. Etiquette in the parks? What’s this word called etiquette?

Witness the recent freak out by certain posters in a thread with claims that basically amounted to: “clothing shaming”. :rolleyes:
IIRC, the discussion was about someone who decided that wearing a see-through top with Mickey pasties over her ninnies was appropriate. Not to drag up the argument, but there is a point where calling that "clothing shaming" is a bit of a misnomer.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
IIRC, the discussion was about someone who decided that wearing a see-through top with Mickey pasties over her ninnies was appropriate. Not to drag up the argument, but there is a point where calling that "clothing shaming" is a bit of a misnomer.

I don't think this is a fair characterisation of what happened. The thread actually got heated when a poster wrote that "young adults" (defined, against all logic, as girls 8-12 in age) were inviting harassment by dressing too revealingly.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
I don't think this is a fair characterisation of what happened. The thread actually got heated when a poster wrote that "young adults" (defined, against all logic, as girls 8-12 in age) were inviting harassment by dressing too revealingly.
I didn't see that particular post, but, yeah, that's a bit much.
 

Hayley In Wonderland

Well-Known Member
Now your are just being argumentative. Evidence? Dude, its creepy. Taking pictures of other peoples’ little girls with Mickey Mouse, is creepy. We are all impressed with your google search for thesaurus, but its moot.

Sometimes I cannot believe what I read here. If we were discussing taking a flash photo on a dark ride on this forum, people support ejecting violators from the park, however, discussing taking a photo of little girls that are not yours, during an interaction with a character, and somehow I am being irrational and I have to provide a dissertation on why its wrong.

There are plenty of opportunities to get photos of Mickey Mouse at Disney World. Its not that hard. Really, its not. Therefore, there is no reason they should include my child. You are so focused on arguing, your missing the point.

There should be no great shots of interest to you while my child is interacting with a character, and if you think there might be, you are one of the creeps I am talking about.
I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd agree with this point. It is creepy to take photos of someone else's kids. If you're not friends or family, it's weird. If you're that desperate to get a photo of mickey, wait your turn in the queue and ask to have one of just him before you leave.
 

Hayley In Wonderland

Well-Known Member
IIRC, the discussion was about someone who decided that wearing a see-through top with Mickey pasties over her ninnies was appropriate. Not to drag up the argument, but there is a point where calling that "clothing shaming" is a bit of a misnomer.
Never said it was clothing shaming, I said that people are free to do what they want without being sexualised, put down or have an entire forum post dedicated about it - there's bigger things going on in the world.

Also yes, all lighthearted until someone insinuated that a young child under the age of 12 dressing "inappropriately" was asking for it.

This post - some points I agree with and some I don't. People can take photos on busy streets or busy areas SO LONG AS they respect that there are people around them trying to move along and/or are trying to get to places such as dining reservations, FPs etc. If I want to take a photo in a certain spot that's busy, I will either wait until it has cleared down or take a photo quickly and move along.
 

jloucks

Well-Known Member
The title of the thread is wrong. Etiquette in the parks? What’s this word called etiquette?

Witness the recent freak out by certain posters in a thread with claims that basically amounted to: “clothing shaming”. :rolleyes:

Clothing shaming is a SJW term that, imho, arises from the selfie mentality. That is, that individuals are the center of the the universe.

Let me put it another way. You can look at dress two ways...

Way #1 - It is all about, and only about, you. With this mentality, the opinions of other are moot and your opinion is paramount. If you wanna wear bootie shorts to WDW, that is fine, and the only opinion that should matter is yours. Everyone else should "mind their own business"

Way #2 - It is more than about you. Just as I would not wear a naked lady t-shirt in public, nor would I wear a man thong banana hammock to a swim park. Now, the reason is super simple. It would offend others. I might be fine, but I care about what others think.

A silly example would be wearing parrot hats. If everybody on a specific tour is supposed to wear a silly parrot hat, you too, should wear a parrot hat. Not because you like parrot hats. In fact, you detest both parrots and hats. You should do it because you make everybody else happy when you wear a stupid hot parrot hat.

"because you make everybody else happy" is a very counter concept to "mind their own business"

I think they might be mutually exclusive even.

I think one is far more valuable to society than the other. But, my opinions might just be old fashioned and obsolete. At some point, "mind their own business" does actually make "everybody else happy" Looking at the kids nowadays, I think we are pretty much there.

...and I will adapt accordingly.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Way #2 - It is more than about you. Just as I would not wear a naked lady t-shirt in public, nor would I wear a man thong banana hammock to a swim park. Now, the reason is super simple. It would offend others. I might be fine, but I care about what others think.

Mine's never caused a problem

a62d5c6d11092c490c78759edb6068aa.jpg
 

ninjaprincesst

Well-Known Member
I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd agree with this point. It is creepy to take photos of someone else's kids. If you're not friends or family, it's weird. If you're that desperate to get a photo of mickey, wait your turn in the queue and ask to have one of just him before you leave.
When they still had the Osbourne lights I was taking a picture of my teenage daughter in front the nativity scene and this guy comes up and takes a picture with my daughter in the shot , i found it odd-borderline creepy but shrugged it off but when he got back over to his wife and kids his wife went ballistic on him.
 

Paper straw fan

Well-Known Member
My problem with people at Disney is they can't just take a picture and move on they have to do a photo shoot at each location and especially when there characters involved they have to have every possible combination of people possible instead of just getting one shot of the group and moving on.

If people are at a character location, I don’t know what WDW’s policy is, but I think etiquette should be- 2 combos of people in your group max. One w the whole fam and 1 w just the kids, DONE. No “let’s get Gam-gam, Kaylee, Bayyyleee, and Paxxden all making duck face w Daisy”

If it’s not a character stop or a designated photo spot, 1 pic and I’m walking if you are holding up traffic.
 

ninjaprincesst

Well-Known Member
If people are at a character location, I don’t know what WDW’s policy is, but I think etiquette should be- 2 combos of people in your group max. One w the whole fam and 1 w just the kids, DONE. No “let’s get Gam-gam, Kaylee, Bayyyleee, and Paxxden all making duck face w Daisy”

If it’s not a character stop or a designated photo spot, 1 pic and I’m walking if you are holding up traffic.
One time my daughter was literally the second person behind a group of 12 at Genie and they first group took so long they had to change Genie's 2 people after us.
 

Joebradley62

Active Member
With most people now owning smart phones with decent cameras on them, there's probably more pictures being taken than ever before in the parks. What I noticed this year however is a big increase in the number of folks stopping in the middle of a walkway, stepping back a few steps from the person taking the picture and expecting all those behind them to walk around them whilst the picture is taken.

I'll always try and be patient and respectful and try not to walk across somebody whilst they're being photographed and would hope others would show me the same courtesy back. However when we stop for pictures we always pick a spot that's as unobtrusive as possible and make sure it's not a busy area where people need to pass. I also noticed that many are taking longer to get their pictures with many young ladies (sorry girls but it's true) taking ages making what can only be described as 'duck faces' whilst hugging their buddies with little to no concern on those they're inconveniencing.

Now maybe as I'm heading into my 50th year I'm just becoming grumpier, however I think there should be no stopping in a crowded walkway for pics and wherever you stop you take 10 seconds or less if others are kindly helping you by waiting to pass (and preferably no silly 'duck faces', it's not sexy or funny but that's optional)

Rant over and thoughts?
Actually my favorite is the group of 10 that stops right in the path everyone needs to use to move and then have a conversation about whatever it is they want to talk about, then get mad if you suggest maybe an out of the way spot for this.
 

spock8113

Well-Known Member
50 years of photographic etiquette

As said here, with all the phones and new technological photography, picture-taking etiquette has changed somewhat over the years. However, you need to be familiar with the hardware of the time to understand how we got where we are today.

The 1950 thru the 1970's - photography hardware made few major advances during these years. Just about everyone was using:
Kodak Brownies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)
35mm cameras - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera
or SLR Cameras - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera

or wind-up 8mm movie cameras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film_camera

Still photograph film and developing as well as throw away flash bulbs forced you into taking quality photos. You were very selective about each photo and many of the early cameras were all manual. This meant the photographer was very aware of where and who he was in the way of.

8mm movie cameras could hold one roll of film that took 3:30 minutes worth of image.
The cost of film and developing was very expensive for the time and many movie cameras relied on a wind-up key. What you filmed was seen through a viewfinder that wasn't exactly the frame you were filming and hopefully you had it in focus.
Also, 8mm movie cameras basically required daylight to film and film for low-light conditions and processing was even more expensive.
Only very expensive cameras and projectors had sound.
Once again, due to cost, the cameraperson was very select in where, what and how they filmed.
During this time 8mm became "Super 8" that was said to be an even better moving image.

Also, if you took vacation movies and wanted to tell a story with several rolls of film,
editing was physical. You literally cut the segments away you wanted and actually glued them back together to get the clips in story form and thread it on one metal reel.

Some people were lucky to own an "Instant" Polaroid-Land Camera that developed your picture in front of your eyes within a minute. The drawback was they were large, black and white pictures at first and there was a small container of "developer" you had to wipe onto the picture as soon as it rolled out of the camera.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_camera#/media/File:polaroid_Automatic_350_instant_camera.jpg

Once again, while "instantaneous", film cost was higher and you generally got only 12 shots to a pack, the photographer was careful and meager with pictures.

During the mid 60's into the 70's, built-in flash units and pocket 110 cameras upped the technology a little more.




The 80's-
was a technological leap for consumer photography.
While it wouldn't be until later in the 80's when the digital photography hardware would become present, the video cassette changed how we all stored moving images.
My first video system in 1983 was actually that. Original video cameras were separate from the VCR. That meant carrying around two big pieces of equipment, blank tapes and lead-acid batteries that lasted about an hour recording time

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Aap4VxyJ&id=F02689EE7C63B8E97DAB0C124C02EDBD74A19903&thid=OIP.Aap4VxyJ2rTsUR7Rao1H6wAAAA&mediaurl=http://www.thecolefamily.com/italy/840109camera.jpg&exph=148&expw=150&q=panasonic+pk-957+picture&simid=608011546106594016&selectedIndex=5

http://www.rewindmuseum.com/vhs.htm



1541029909132.jpg


The cameras were becoming more able to video in low-light and now there was stereo sound to go with your impressive 240 lines of resolution.

This is when more and more people began taping on rides.
So at this point, video tape was good for two hours and the marginal portability allowed more video photography throughout the parks.
While looking like Neil Armstrong on the moon and being laden with bulky and heavy video equipment, I began to become very conscious of my presence in front of people.
I was very aware of being as little a nuisance as possible.

Later in the 80's camcorders became the rage reducing the size of video recording hardware even further while incorporating those annoying built-in video lights.
Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's European Vacation.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48Joq0+r&id=49C242A18897DD321F543E2900C1D47B6700B461&thid=OIP.48Joq0-riSHvRsKr1V1akAHaE8&mediaurl=https://irishbear3455.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/1980s-video-camera.jpg&exph=600&expw=900&q=1980s+camcorder+picture&simid=607990560872334393&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0

From the late 80's to early 90's, full size video cassettes were then reduced in size as well giving us VHS-C, 8mm video tape and then a better Hi-8 tape. These changes also doubled picture clarity to 480 lines of resolution.
Now video cameras were the size of the old 35mm film cameras and allowed more people to video at the parks. More people, more rude incursions.

During the early 2000's, video tape of all types was being phased out for digital media where cameras were equipped with internal CD and DVD burners.
That phase was short lived as the size of memory chips and hard drives also continued to shrink.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=viqofTNW&id=E13D5BFCDE0AD131C8EB9A2A745A08289EC13FB4&thid=OIP.viqofTNWwm1frD4lr0CqIQHaFl&mediaurl=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41N4Q1D4A5L.jpg&exph=377&expw=500&q=dvd+camcorder+picture&simid=608018903335895935&selectedIndex=20&qpvt=dvd+camcorder+picture&ajaxhist=0
The miniaturization of computer components allowed the smart phone to come into being.
And in the words of Doc Brown, "That's amazing. An entire TV studio in that little device."

There was a time when you would be the only one in the neighborhood to have actual legible footage of Pirates of the Caribbean.
Now everyone has that capability so there's really nothing magical about any footage that you have as compared to anyone else. So I would say don't let your selfie or Kodak moment keep you or others from enjoying the real-life moment.

For me, the footage I have of the parks way back when, or more importantly, family way back when, is really the subject matter I was trying to capture making it invaluable for me without being rude to other park guests.

BTW, you can digitize your old movies and VHS tapes rather easily, I did
 

Paper straw fan

Well-Known Member
My childhood was during the film era, so really outside of school and sports photos, there’s little evidence I existed between the ages of 6-21.

Now, if someone is taking pictures of my kid specifically, that’s odd. I don’t think I’d go ballistic over one picture with my kid in it though. Maybe someone just wants a picture of a character and doesn’t want to wait in line for themselves. If, say, a celebrity was somewhere in public and greeting kids, maybe I would take a picture if I felt trying to get one of that person I was imposing.
 
Last edited:

danyoung56

Well-Known Member
Why am I concerned? Its creepy. If they want a picture of a character, get in line, whether you have a kid or not.

Nelson, I've never considered this opinion before. I'm a single guy that never does any direct interaction with characters, but I will snap a pic of a character interacting with a child. It's not in the least creepy - it's just a great shot of a beloved cartoon character. What would be creepy would be me following your 5 year old daughter around, snapping away. And that would be very uncool.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom