Conference moira::naturism

    The "Free Beach Etiquette" (which I will post in full sometime)
    contains the following item:
    
        7.  ASK PRIOR CONSENT FOR PHOTOGRAPHY.  People cannot legally
        be stopped from taking pictures in public places.  However,
        asking permission is a common courtesy.  Not everyone wants
        to end up in a stranger's summer album.  Above all, parents
        should be asked before children are photographed.
    
    As this says, it's basically common courtesy to ask permission,
    but there's not much you can do about it if someone doesn't (short
    of physical measures, such as appropriating someone's film).
    
    There are probably gradations.  A picture of a nude beach with a lot
    of nude people on it is very different from a closeup of a single
    person; and somebody sneaking pictures with a mini-camera or a
    telephoto lens is clearly committing an socially unacceptable act. 
    
    (A man once asked my wife if she would mind his taking a picture of
    her and our daughter; she said she would mind, and that was that.
    She later felt that she might have been too abrupt, but she felt
    uncomfortable and wasn't prepared for the situation.)
    
    Incidentally, nudist camps tend to be very sensitive about privacy
    in general and about photography in particular.  One camp that
    I visited had rules (which I suppose were typical) that all cameras
    had to be registered with the office, that no pictures could
    be taken without the subject's permission, and that telephoto
    equipment could not be used at all without someone from the camp
    management present.

    	-Neil

    
        Nope, don't even bother to bring the photo equipment on the
    beach, I'm doing something that I want to do and I ask that you
    (the photographer) respect my privacy. You want to take pictures,
    you hire a model and take your pictures elsewhere. I'd hate to resort
    to physical violence in order to keep my privacy mine. 
    
    Tom

    Re .3
    
    I follow your sentiments, but obnoxious photographers who don't
    respect one's privacy are not unique to naturist activities.
    
    If you want to take my picture under any circumstance, ask me first.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re .4
    
    I think that the "under any circumstances" sums up my opinion as
    well. I wouldn't like it if a perfect stranger took my picture without
    my consent whether I had clothes on or not. 
    

    Hi,
    
    	I am new to this conference, but have been a Naturist for some
    time.  I've been reading all the notes up till this one, and find
    them all to be very interesting and informative.  I'm going to keep
    reading, and replying. (Hoping a new sunworshipper will be welcome).
    
    	Back to the topic of discussion.
    
    	I also beleive very strongly, that if someone is going to take
    your picture, they should ask you first.
    
    	There is only one place around my area, where it is common 
    knowledge, that people can enjoy social nudism.  However, on one
    occassion, on a hot summer day, I was videotaped by one of the local
    television stations, (without me knowing it), and displayed in the
    buff on that night's late news broadcast.  Others there, also were
    videotaped and on TV that night.  They didn't know they had been
    a victim either, until I went over to them and told them about the
    film crew on the top of the hill !!  Needless to say, they weren't
    very impressed either.
    
    	I was asked once by a woman if I would pose with her, while
    her girlfriend took a picture, and I said OK.  I think it's one
    thing to be in someone's personal photo album, but it is *REALLY*
    something else to be videotaped in this manner for television 
    purposes.
    
    	The way I feel is, if someone wants to be able to GAWK at you,
    then they can damn well take the time to drive, and then hike for
    2 miles, to get to the site where the clothes-optional concept is.
    But, reporters will be reporters.  They seem to have absolutely
    no respect for other another human's private interest.
    
    	I was lucky.  My head was turned away from the camera most of
    the time, so I don't think anyone recognized who I was.  It's really
    weird, I always wanted to be a star on television, but never expected
    it would be this way !
    
    darrell

    Picture taking, I say it's alright as long as they manage to fit
    my smiling face in the picture. Come on, take a stand. The gawkers
    wish they had the guts to do what they really wanted. Photography
    is only another one of the sexual suggestiveness stigmas. It really
    doesn't bother me any more than taking pictures with my clothes
    on. Some people don't like having their pictures taken, period.
    Some people don't like to even be looked at. It's their problem.
    Most of us are courteous enough to recognize when someone is
    uncomfortable, but it is a privilege, not a right, to be able to
    decline having your picture taken. I figure I'll make the most of
    it and smile for the camera, and be my basic person. When I look
    at gawkers, I feel like I'm looking from the outside of a cage,
    looking in, and that simple attitude has done wonders for my
    disposition towards them.
    
    							John.

    A group of nuders at Moonstone this past Sunday had a video camera
    along...lucky me, they parked their towels about 30 feet away.
    
    Some people walking in their direction turned around before they
    got close...
    
    B.
    

    Hi,
    
    I'm very new to both Digital (3 weeks) and Naturism, although I've
    enjoyed being nude for quite some time (mostly in doors, since I
    haven't found any places where its acceptable, even in doors, I
    have to be sure my roomie isn't around!)  
    
    I've been reading the topics up to this one with great interest.
    I'm happy to see that other people (rational people, not freeks)
    enjoy being nude (I thought I was the only one!).  Most of my friends
    think me rather strange for stripping whenever possible.
    
    I did reply to this topic for a reason, however, not simply to babble
    about myself.  I just graduated from college with a Comp Sci degree
    and a photography minor, hence my interest in this topic.  My final
    project for my last photography class was nudes, by the way, so
    I'm used to both photographing nude bodies (my own included) and
    dealing with the sociological fallout from doing so.
    
    All this intro leads to my wanting to agree with a previous noter
    some people don't mind having their picture taken, others do.  I personally
    never have a problem with it, I don't think it would matter if I
    were nude or not (for TV and other public purposes I would want
    the opertunity to sign a release form, but I realize that in public
    it is *legally* ok for anyone to take my picture).
    
    My only point is, as a photographer, asking someone if you can take
    their picture often ruins the picture.  Unless all you want is a
    snap shot.  My solution to this has been not to take pictures of
    people in public, since I can't tell who minds and who doesn't.
    Which is kind of sad, because some of the best pictures I've seen
    have been candids that the subject could not possibly have been
    informed of before hand.
    
    Just the same, I agree with respecting people's wishes :-)
    
    Just my thoughts,
    
    Kerry
    
    PS.  I'm male.  The name is often confusing and I'm often curious
         of other noter's sexes (hope this is not considered extremely
         strange!)

    
    
    HI
    
    I thought I would add my 50 pence worth, I take photography
    fairly seriously but I can't help feeling that taking candids
    on the beach would be the hight of rudness.
    
    If a person is worth taking pictures of it's worth doing properly
    wether they are dressed or not. While some poeple would prefer
    not to have thier pictures taken some people are very willing and
    one of the best exhibitions of femail nudes I have seen were of
    young ladies whoem were unpaid, some of them were simply aproached
    in the street by the photographer.
    
    
    Andrew Hoare
    
    
    

    Hi all,
    	Interesting subject and it seems, an emotional one.  I would surely
    get "emotional" if surprised on the evening news with a nude romp of me
    in all my glory.  I also doubt that I would consent to such a public
    event for myself or my family. 
    	However, I have no problem with appearing in someone's summer album. I
    have been the subject of others photographic skills and felt
    complemented to be asked.  I guess I knew that since they appreciated
    a similar life style, that they would treat their photos as memories of
    a fun,wholesome time on the beach.
    	I have been reluctant to take my camera to C/O areas for fear of
    making others uncomfortable, but next time I venture out to Stinson
    Beach area(near S.F.), I'll take by trusty Brownie with me and 'test
    the waters'. 
    	I'm curious to determine if any of the readers with an aversion to
    nude picture taking, would find it more(less)acceptable if the photographer
    asked the subject to take his/her(the photographer's) snap shot first?
    Will this reduce the reluctance?  Good idea or not? 
    
    		Gary
    

    
    I have only just found this conference so my apologies for re-opening
    a very old topic.
    
    I am a professional photographer, and have had an "on-again-off-again"
    relationship/involvement with naturism over the years, that I may explain
    elsewhere.
    
    I view this topic with some amiguity: as a naturist I view my nude
    activities as perfectly normal - no different than my clothed
    activities. Some of the objections to photography border on admitting
    you are ashamed of being nude.
    
    Candid photography has a very long tradition, and dates back to
    the earliest time when it was technologically possible. Prior to
    that there was an honorable school of candid portraiture using
    sketchbook methods, notably amongst Dutch artists. Amongst photographic
    exponents I think particularly of the work of Cartier-Bresson. No
    there is very little nude work in his published photographs, but
    I'd hesitate to say none (I can only think of two such pictures).
    More recently David Bailey has published a few candid nudes in his
    books. There are of course many more examples. However NO professional 
    would publish any picture without getting a release signed - though he 
    might make the approach after he had taken the picture. 
    
    The story of the news crew struck a memory with me - when Brighton
    in England opened its nude beach some video was shot and shown on
    the evening TV news. The people involved sued and the case was settled
    out of court (defamation of character is a serious matter here).
                                  
    Incidentally I have belonged to several naturist clubs and none
    had a "no camera" rule, or required cameras to be registered, though
    a few had "no unaccompanied batchelors" rules... In my experience
    it is not uncommon for members to take "happy snaps" type pictures
    for their own holliday albums, and I don't recall anybody asking
    permission. The exception of course would be if somebody had a view
    to sending the pics to Health & Efficiency or whatever.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    
    
    

    The following note is being posted for a participant in this
    conference who prefers to remain anonymous.
    
    	-Neil Faiman, moderator
    
    =========================================================================
    
    It's difficult for me to understand the extreme emotion that surrounds
    amateur photography at nudist gatherings.  
    
    I enjoy pornography ... always have and probably always will.  I
    would never consider nudist publications, however extreme and thinly
    guised, as material to satisfy my yearing for erotica.  The most
    clandestine photo at a nudist or naturist enclave does not begin
    to compare with professional erotic depictions.
    
    So what's the issue?  It obviously can't be privacy.  Nor can it
    be any serious misuse of content.  I submit that the only issue
    is the lack of royalties for services rendered!
    
    Regards,
    Happy in 35mm Land
    

RE: .13

>>>It obviously can't be privacy [that nudists are worried about when being
>>>photographed]

	Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?
	I don't draw the same conclusion from your example.

>>>Nor can it be any serious misuse of content

	I don't see how this conclusion is arrived at.


	Some nudists prefer not to end up in someone else's photo album,
	particularly when the photographer is someone who goes to a nuding
	location just to take pictures of nude people and not to enjoy the
	nuding experience.  Other people are just camera shy and they are
	even more so while they're nude; not everyone is completely free
	and open-minded enough to not care if someone has a nude picture
	of them.

	When someone you don't know takes a picture of you in public, you
	really don't have all that much control over what that person does
	with the picture.  It could end up in a publication that puts you
	in an unfavorable light.  You really don't know.  I've even seen
	some of the pictures from the World Guide show up in some of the 
	more popular men's magazines.  How would you like to show up in
	Penthouse? :-)

	Bottom line is: If you want to take pictures of nude people at a beach
	or at some other nuding place, ASK first!  If for no other reason,
	it's polite.

	Ben

	PS: You forgot the ":-)" at the end of your note.

    
    Ben, (not really "aimed" at you but you wrote the last note)
    
    You might not know were the picture will end up, but if it ends
    up in a magazine, book, calendar or similar then you stand to get
    well paid, whether or not you gave permission.
    
    You as the subject own the copyright of the picture. That is absolutely
    true in Britain and USA, and other places too I believe. You can
    only transfer ownership of the copyright to a photographer if (a)
    you sign a model release and (b) he or she gives you "valuable
    consideration" (usually money) to buy the copyright. The release
    form is not a carte blanche permission to publish: it is a contract
    for sale of real property. A photographer who offers a picture for
    sale when he doesn't own the copyright, and a magazine that publishes
    without the permission of the copyright owner are both breaking
    the law and stand to suffer both criminal and civil penalties as
    a result. You don't surrender the copyright if you give verbal
    permission to be photographed.                                        

    As for pictures from World Guide appearing in a girlie mag, well
    I don't know about World Guide but Health & Efficiency require model
    releases for all identifiable people in all pictures they print.
    If you've signed a model release for publication in H&E, and didn't
    endorse it "for use in Naturist publications only" then the
    photographer, not you, owns the free and unfettered copyright and
    may sell it to Playboy if he wishes.
    
    If I were in a club enjoying myself it would never occur to me to
    object if a fellow member took a few snapshots - I probably wouldn't
    even notice. Also by and large it wouldn't occur to me to ask
    permission before photographing somebody I knew.
    
    Example of a slightly different nature: I go to Disneyland with
    my wife and take a picture of her. Walking by at the time I take
    the shot are several people. Should I ask each and everyone of them
    if they object to being in my snapshot? Later back at the darkroom
    I see in the background a charming child eating ice-cream. It makes a 
    delightful candid portrait, so I print a blow up of it - but his
    parents aren't around anymore, I haven't done anything legally wrong - 
    why should I not make the print?  Of course if I decide to sell it to 
    Disneyland for next year's publicity brochure, or to some ice cream 
    manufacturer for an ad, then I'm breaking the law, but as long as it 
    stays in my private photo album it is nothing more than a harmless, 
    and perfectly legal souvenir.
    
    The "clubbers v. beachers" argument has been around for a while
    - I'll add a few cents worth - if you go to a public beach, then
    you are in a public place and have no right to object to non-commercial
    photography. If you go to a private club, then you are in a private
    place and have a right to object, or to have the club object for
    you. In a club members are usually known to each other - photography
    is incidental and just between friends. If someone turned up as
    a visitor with several thousand dollars worth of equipment and that
    sort of thing was frowned on they wouldn't be invited to join -
    they'd probably get the grand order of the boot. 
    
    However all of this is academic since it concerns only the
    photographer who comes close enough to be seen - who is actually on 
    the club premises or on the beach.  It occurs to me to wonder: 
    "what about the determined photo-voyeur who sits half a mile away with 
    a Questar-7 lens and takes his pictures without you seeing him?" 
    He (or she) is also not breaking the law, and being infintely more sneaky. 
    
    There is a well known piece of advice about noting that you should
    assume what you write will be read. Well if you go naked in public
    you should assume that you might be photographed. If you don't want
    that then stay indoors on private property. You don't give up your
    rights by becoming a naturist, you are still protected by the law. 
                                                                      
    /. Ian .\

    I believe that any picture of you can be printed without your
    permission if it was published in a news context.  For instance,
    if some magazine had an article on nudism or nude beaches, they
    theoretically could publish nude pictures without getting any prior
    consent.  I doubt that this would happen because most magazine would
    not want to take a chance on getting sued.
    
    RE: .15
    
    On your comment on the policies of the publication, Health &
    Efficiency,...
    
    I have an issue that contained an article about the rights of a
    photographer to take ANY nude pictures and publish them WITHOUT
    the consent of the subject.  I can get you the issue number if you
    want.
    
    On the subject as a whole, once someone publishes a picture, it can't
    be recalled; it's too late.  Who owns the rights to the picture is
    moot when a picture of you (someone, anyone) is published.  The subject
    of any such picture will have to live with that, regardless of how much
    compensation they get after the fact.  I'm not saying that it would
    be bad, but other people (like some of the read-only noters here) 
    might be deterred from going to a public beach like Moonstone.
    
    
    If you're taking pictures in a public place where the subject could
    include identifiable nude people, it would be proper and polite to
    ask for permission first.  You really don't *HAVE* to, but it would
    be the nice thing to do.  
    
    Ben
    

    Re: -1
    
    Very well put, Ben.  My sentiments exactly...
    
    - Kathryn
    

    Ben I'd appreciate the reference: it's not that I doubt you, but
    I don't take the thing regularly, and I have seen statements (on
    the banner page, under the heading "unsolicited material" stating
    that they require releases). I wonder whether they differentiate
    classes of pictures.
    
    Part I suspect of this is a cultural difference between Briatin
    and America, and I didn't intend to give offense. For my own part
    I don't take candid pictures of anyone - I rarely take pictures
    that aren't for publication, or test shots of some sort, other than
    family snapshots, so I never take pictures without giving my subject
    a business card.
    
    America has "freedom of the press" - a picture can be freely published
    if part of a news story, and that can be loosely defined. Britain
    does not have freedom of the press. A picture better hadn't defame
    the subject or the paper and its staff will get nailed to the floor of 
    the Old Bailey. Nor do we have a right to privacy, so appearing
    in public gives implicit rights for pictures to be taken (but not
    published). Believe it or not British courts will define a nude
    picture as defamatory (they have) and award damages. We as a nation
    tend to assume that people don't have malicious intent, so a casual
    candid snapshot would in my experience be ignored.

    In Britain a photographer standing where he has a right to be may
    photograph anything he can see. If doing so may cause a fracas than
    the police might arrest him for "disturbing the peace" - a rather
    minor misdeameanour, that may not even be brought to trial. A subject
    who objects over vociferously however runs the risk of being arrested
    for assault, or assault and battery (in American terms a serious
    misdemeanour and a felony respectively, though we don't use the
    terms).
        
    Britain as a nation also has strict laws against indecent exposure,
    such that if you can be seen naked from any place to which the viewer
    has right of access (a treetop wouldn't count, but a third storey
    window would) then you are commiting Indecent Exposure, even if
    you are in your own back garden behind a high fence or in a bedroom
    with the curtains partially closed - a few years back a couple were
    succesfully prosecuted by a neighbour who could see them making
    love by standing on tiptoe in her third storey attic window. As
    Dickens said "the law is a ass"! You don't have to be insulting
    anybody, or offending anybody, nor do you need a history of the
    incident. Doing it once is enough. Thus the photographer isn't breaking
    the law, but unless you are in a licenced club or on a beach covered
    by enabling legislation (such as say Brighton's Nude Beach) then
    *you* are commiting the offence.
    
    And yet Britain has allowed topless sunbathing on beaches and even
    in public parks in city centres for a quarter of a century - that
    isn't indecent, and it no longer creates much attention.
    
    I repeat - perhaps it is cultural, but if I go naked in a public
    place I anticipate that I might be photographed (If I go skinny
    dipping in a mountain stream I anticipate I might be arrested, but
    that is another matter), I don't expect the photographer to irritate 
    me by asking. That is impolite.
    
    Anyway, enough said I think - I know that if in America I must ask
    before exercising my rights, so much for the Land of the Free :-) :-) :-)
                                                                     
    /. Ian .\

RE: .18

The article that we're talking about is in Health & Efficiency, Volume 88, 
Number 2.  The title of the article is, "Is it illegal to photograph a
naked stranger".  The first two pages of the article shows a beauty contest
at a naturist resort, where the contestants were nude women and the spectactors
were clothed men with LOTS of cameras.  I think this issue came out
last spring or summer.



I would think that you are correct about this whole thing being cultural.
The naturist movement in America is still fairly fragile and most people
are very nervous about anything that would put naturism in a bad light.
Voyeurs running amuck with cameras at a nude beach is one of them. It also 
takes away some of the enjoyment of being able to go to a nude beach without 
any hassles.

I've seen cameras at Moonstone and I've seen a video camera once.  I've never
seen anyone get upset about it...yet.  The primary reasons for no one getting
upset is the fact that the photographers are also nude or the subjects aren't
aware that their picture is being taken.

With regard to the laws, American laws tend to lean the individual rather than
the community.  We do have rights to privacy.  If we have an enclosed backyard 
that is completely shielded from public view, then no has a right to be offended
if they climb over the fence and see naked bodies lying around.  If someone
has to go out of their way to be offended, then they don't have a case.
Kinda different, eh?

Ben

    
    Thanks Ben, I'll try and track it down.
    
    However without even doing so, the scenario you mention (a beauty
    pageant) raises an issue: Some years back I was a judge at a beauty
    pageant (had something to do with the fact that I was a photographer
    working on contract for the sponsors I think). The rules included
    some fine print about contestants surrendering their rights implicit,
    and explicit, in any publicity material or photographs generated
    by the contest. [As an aside a lot of contests of the sort that
    say "send your best bonny baby picture to..." implicitly transfer
    ownership of the copyright to the contest organiser - not just for
    winners, but for all entrants]
    
    Taking part in any (repeat *any*) organised event (be it a beauty
    contest or a football game) will usually confer the copyright for
    the event (and hence for pictures of the contestants/participants)
    on the organisers/sponsors. If they (the organisers) do not explicitly
    ban photography on the admission tickets, then the arena being a
    public place where photography is permitted and the owners of
    the copyright having neglected to conserve it when in receipt of
    valuable consideration (the entrance fee paid by the spectators)
    the spectators will be deemed (in English law at least) to have
    implicitly satisfied all the conditions required to take and sell
    commercially photographs of the event. (I repeat the legal requirements
    are (a) permission and (b) payment of 'valuable consideration' -
    usually money). 
    
    /. Ian .\

    Unfortunately, legal constraints on picture-taking and the use of
    such pictures have not stopped people from publishing anything
    they wanted.  They just take the chance that the subjects in the
    pictures will not take any action against the photographer and
    the publication.  I think most naturists would like to change that
    mind set and get people to consider the feelings of others before
    snapping a photograph of strangers.
    
    B.
    

    
    Thanks Ben, I think I've said all I had to say, but to summarise
    before I move on to other topics: the base note concerns photography
    in a Beach setting. My experience predates the first nude beach
    in England, so I have no first hand experience. In a club setting
    (somewhat different) the photographer is almost always known to
    me, even if only slightly.
    
    What would I do: I suspect I wouldn't do anything.
    
    After the event: At all costs don't get angry. You could try asking
    for a set of prints...
    
    If they publish -- sue!
    
    /. Ian .\

    The following note is being posted for a participant in this conference
    who prefers to remain anonymous.
    
    	-Neil Faiman, moderator
    
================================================================================
    
I posted my note on Photography mainly to stimulate some conversation in an 
area that I feel is important, although the resultant replies haven't 
picked up on the theme.  I've always found it amazing that people would go 
to a nude beach, take off their clothes, and then worry endlessly about 
being seen or photographed.  And to confuse the issue with pornography 
seems to be the ultimate irony.  My own experience, which seems to be 
shared by most nudists, is that naked men and women or even children, are 
seldom erotic and 'sexy' unless they intentionally pose or portray 
themselves as such.  It's inconceivable to me that nudists should worry 
about being depicted in the obscene sense.

Now, privacy and photography is another matter.  Here I contend that 
nudists and photographers experience exactly the same friction that 
non-nudists and photographers do.  The infamous 'paparizzi' shutterbugs can 
be a pain in the ass wherever encountered.

Perhaps you would post the following note for me in the continuing dialog 
on photography:

My wife and I were visiting Paradise Lakes last summer during the National 
Nude Weekend.  A local TV station covered the event at Paradise by sending 
a four-person crew out for the day to roam around and interview on 
videotape whomever would cooperate.  It was quite interesting to note the 
varied reactions of the audience there.

Paradise management was escorting the crew, of course, and very specific 
ground rules had been laid out.  No one was going to be photographed who 
didn't specifically agree, and releases were required as I'm sure is always 
the case.  Several announcements in the pool area were made so that 
disinterested parties could avoid being in any of the general background 
coverage.

We noted that people either ran for cover, or ran to be included!  It was 
hard to guess at the spectrum of motives for either group.  It was not hard 
to guess about the TV crews reaction to the mass of oiled flesh they were 
confronting ... they were completely bored!  Even the newsperson had 
everything he could do to remain animated.  Ah well, that happens when you 
have to work on the weekend.

We don't live in Florida, so we never had a chance to see the aired 
coverage.  I wonder how accurately it conveyed the Paradise theme?

/s/Anon

Re: .23
    
>I've always found it amazing that people would go 
>to a nude beach, take off their clothes, and then worry endlessly about 
>being seen or photographed.  

Although I don't condemn anyone who does feel this way (I'm not saying you
are), I would agree with you that this is puzzling.  I didn't bother
saying so when you first wrote, because you made sense as I remember (I
didn't go back to read the note), and I figured adding my two cents 
wouldn't make much of a difference.  But since you seem to want some
support...

Generally I tend to think you are right, the issue of being photographed
really seems to me to have less to do with naturism than it does with
just plain not liking to be photographed.  I can understand the things
Ben and others are saying about not wanting to end up in some magazine,
but I would think the chances of that are fairly slim, and even if you
did, you probably wouldn't even know, and even if you did, most of your
friends etc probably wouldn't...

As an amature photographer, I've found that many people simply do not
like to have their picture taken.  I won't try to guess why, I'm sure
everyone has there own reason.  Personally, I've never minded, and I
look at it from the photographer's point of view (if you're hidding
behind your hand, the picture has *no* chance of coming out good :-),
also I'm not bothered by pictures of me that are unattractive.  It is
the picture that is unattractive, not me.  Believe me, any photographer,
no matter how good or how bad, can mistakingly take a picture wrong
and make the most beautiful person or scene look boring or worse.

But, as others have said, some people still don't like having their
picture taken.  So be it.  For me, if I take candids (I'm talking on
the streets, here, I've never brought my camera to a nude beach),
I try to do it descretely so as not to embarrass or disturb the 
subject, which usually means they never even realize I've taken
there picture.

Kerry