Ethics got the better of me

I have to second what Ward said. . . .a great point made here!

Hmm.If our 'code of conduct' for street photographers means consent in every situation, we would have no sailor kissing nurse on V-E Day. No photo of Parisian crying at the German occupation. Could be we are getting just a little squirmy and better stick to rhododendrons.. OTOH I have never had a 38 pointed at me as some photojournalists have.

I think Ward has made a very good point. But at the same time, I do not think it would have been "wrong" to take the photo. From what you told, what made the photo was the holding of the dog. it wasnt a homeless man sleeping and using his shoes for a pillow. Perhaps the emotion someone would get from viewing a photo of a "filty man" holding a dog would show them that anyone truley is capable of love and/or just carrying about something.

 

 

Comments were made that homeless people dont like beig photographed or are miserable. I think this is a stereotype, while of course it does hold true, you dont know if this person is miserable. There could be a doctor who hypothetically hates his life equally to/if not more then the homeless man [and if this said doctor was a dentist, he'd most likely be contemplating suicide [bad joke, sorry]].

 

I think a more ethical situation would be if the subject infront of you was having a heart attack, giving birth, and you were the only person there and were taking pictures opposed to helping. During the world trade center attacks, there was a French film crew coincidentally doing a documentary on fire fighters the same day, and in interviews the only time they said they put down the camera is when people were running into the lobby of the WTO on fire.

 

I first got a passion for photography in highschool and would often take my camera to the punk shows i went too. Growing up in a pretty violent underground musice scene, I have a handful of pictures of kids getting jumped, punched in the face with brass knuckles, kicked in the head with steel capped boots etc etc etc. I dont regret taking those photos because I feel it documents the music scene I grew up in very well.

 

 

So while this post dosent give you an answer and is way too long, I would not have looked down on you for taking a picture of a homeless person and if you did take the picture and could sleep at night, then that is all that matters.

 

 

still ill

Elvis is dead. That would have been a *very* interesting picture.

Dignity is what this ethics issue is first about, not shooting. Secondly, it is about having their permission.

This thread reminds me of the writings of Sebastiao Saldago. No one has photographed the poor of the world more frequently or successfully than he. And he always shoots them with a sense of dignity. He talks of it being a free exchange. The photographs are given, never taken.

 

With your homeless man sleeping with his dog, the political issues become paramount. You are the priveledged student with a camera (we are all priveledged to be discussing photography while most of the world is concerned with food) and he is the owner of little. You are in power, he is not. He is vulnerable and unaware. If you take that picture, you just add to the volume of stereotyped pitying work regarding the poor that already saturates the world. If you want something special, see if he will let you get to know him. Then you can take a picture of the man.

i have more ethical problems with you flicking cigarette butts in the street, rather than you making/not making a photo of someone who is down and out. but hey, thats just my opinion and you probably dont really need it.

Your question raises a dilemma - in attempting to ask permission to take the shot you often lose the expression/emotion/composition that drew you to the shot in the first place. By not asking permission you could be intruding on someone else's life.

 

Some people have commented here that you should shoot first and ask questions later. That is all very well from the point of view of financial gain/notoriety of the shot were it to ever leave the darkroom, but really, that has nothing to do with the subject of the image. It seems to me that what is more important to you as a photographer and decent human being (and to me) is that you do not offend the person you raise the lens to in the first place.

 

I think someone here has made the point, but I would like to make it again, that it depends on what else is going on at the time. The photography should come second to the outcome of the situation. An example springs to mind of a roll of film shot of a camel train stuck in a river. The photographer has documented a dramatic and (for one camel at least(!)) tragic event, but I feel that he has gone over the top. One or even a few images could convey what happened, yet he shot a whole roll. The expression on the face of one of the men says it all: 'put the camera down and lend a hand'.

 

Of course, if he had offered to help and there was nothing to be done but to step aside, then by all means reach for the camera, but try to do it in as sensitive a manner as possible.

 

I suppose that illustrates another point made here - respect for someone's privacy. As they have said, if someone is making an attempt to hide themselves away then you should respect that. You will probably know instinctively when you are intruding, and you should learn to listen to that voice.

I'm inclined to believe that ethics comes into play, not so much in taking the picture, but in the choice of its audience. One can always choose later whether or not to destroy the negative, whether or not to show the picture.