Jump to content

Are you an ethical photographer?


Recommended Posts

The two terms that I have found cannot be defined are.

1. What is ART?

2. What is ETHICAL?

Interesting and I get what you’re saying. But not being able to pin something down with a specific definition does not mean we can’t understand it or talk about it intelligently. Understanding often comes through as much in our actions as in our definitions. So do ethics.

Edited by samstevens

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Who are you kidding? Of course, anything to do with ethics has a connection with 'life as it unfolds'. Life is the whole paradigm of it and of what ethics has to concern itself with necessarily." Phil.

 

Bless Phil, and his little white cotton socks;)

 

Actual, photographs are not concerned with morals/ ethics; they are just concerned with taking the photo as it is portrayed....street or documentary.

 

They let others like Phil, to concern themselves about ethics. Of cause those ethics have a lot to do with their own political persuasion or personal vanity.

 

The bottom line is who's ethics we should follow...perhaps, the ethics of the truths, the photograph portrays.

Edited by Allen Herbert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that this becomes necessary.

 

Grub first, then ethics.

“Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral.”

 

Bert Brecht

Dreigroschen-Oper

Akt II, Ballade über die Frage: “Wovon Lebt der Mensch”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Clark's photos ... and ethics ... and morals ... oh my!

 

LINK

 

[by the way, I am not claiming to agree or disagree with the author of the review. I do some of each. What I am claiming is that ethics and morals are related to all kinds of photography in all kinds of ways.]

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
..don't do HDR...

 

When I started in photography, there was only film. And I learned the zone system to fit the dynamic range of the film to the image.

 

So HDR, which pretty much does the same thing in digital, just seemed to me to be another tool. I wasn't surprised to hear that it was "cheating"; Ansel Adams got the same flak for his manipulations, mostly from people who couldn't do it properly.

 

I got almost as much flack from HDR enthusiasts, because my HDR shots "don't look like HDR."

 

All that matters to me is the image. And how I can make it look as I saw it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that matters to me is the image. And how I can make it look as I saw it at the time.

Another perspective would be to make it look not like what I saw at the time but like the photograph I want it to be.

I wasn't surprised to hear that it was "cheating"

Artists who don't in some sense "cheat" show little imagination. It's good to hear what others say and sometimes much better not to listen!

“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

--Pablo Picasso

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the main points seem to have made, if not to everyone's satisfaction, I thought a February, 1960 article from Popular Photography on "Are You a Camera Pest" might be of minor interest to some people.

Are-You-a-Camera-Pest--1960-02-PP-s_Page_1.thumb.jpg.73383bb2d86eada5526a77fa9da17fae.jpg

Are-You-a-Camera-Pest--1960-02-PP-s_Page_2.thumb.jpg.eb97bd6c7890a975b78f26bbce103587.jpg

in the category: "Have a brew, don't cost nothing"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great find, JDM!

 

There’s charm in anachronisms of language, and yesterday isn’t today, so I don’t know if I can call “irony” someone from the sixties talking about manners and courtesy to others with these words:

When it comes to photographing a crippled beggar, a charwoman scrubbing a flight of steps, a drunkard, or some ragged unfortunate, put yourself in the other’s place.

Indeed!

 

We don’t seem to have come far in camera etiquette, but we have made strides in how we speak about others. How well we put those more kind characterizations to use ... we may have to revisit later in this century for a better answer.

 

And , just a quick word about this:

Is your picture more important than the experience?

Good question, though one answer could be that the picture IS the experience! :)

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a reference I studied my share of theology and philosophy, been around lawyers (my wife is actually a lawyer) and I can tell you ethics is a large area of discussion. Many things seem inocuos but it isn't, sometimes your knowledge is your limitation. As for the comment on legality, you can have long conversations with lawyers regarding lots of things that don't break the law (and thus are legal) but offend or hurt people, and are absolutely questionable.

 

My personal opinion is prudence, humbleness and having a really open mind can open our eyes to why some things are in fact not ethical at all. All it takes is willing to listen, unless you want to take the long way to learn: when life puts you in that situation and thus you understand why it is unethical (in other words: when we are on the other side of the lens).

 

I'm not here to lecture nobody, just to try con contribute, and I will address a bit of your post with some examples.

 

As I am not much of a nature photog, they can't blame me for destroying nature from too much people traffic trying to get a selfie or a sunset. But I've heard all sorts of other complaints of ethics violations from people...don't shoot kids...don't shoot people without their permission...don't do HDR... don't shoot homeless people...don't clone that stray cig butt out of the photo...don't do selective color...if you pay a person $$ your documentary photo is dishonest...you are exploiting people for your own fame...etc.

Nature. I manage a website (my own) with lots of traffic regarding travels and some specific stuff... I learned by reading and then by personal experience NOT TO include some places I visit because it can drive too many visitors to that area. Is it bad? lots of locals might be happy to receive them (tourism) but there is a LIMIT to what amount of people an area can receive in X amount of time. I can't control how many people find out about those places BUT I did specialize on visiting remote places so it makes sense, there is a responsibility on how much exposure you give to those areas. Other photographers will do as they please, but there are ways to help those areas and the locals, and not to the expense of me taking a picture and having the ownership of the image.

 

Shooting kids? some areas will punish you, someone I knew (rest in piece) got one of his best friends murdered by a crowd because someone yelled in a local language "they want to steal your kid" (someone was taking a picture at some market DESPITE this guide telling them not to), true story, guy used to cry when remembering this because the one killed was his friend (and driver).

 

Homeless people? you need their permission and many will refuse to approve. Why? with friends we did lots of social work in the past including the homeless. Well, a lot of them have issues with the authorities and also have problems with specific groups, they don't need to be exposed, they need to keep a low profile. Taking their picture and posting it can translate on people knowing their location and hurting them or killing them, no kidding. Things change a lot once you engage on conversations instead of just shooting a picture. I could go on, many could say "nahh" but life teach some valid lessons to those willing to listen.

 

Post long enough by now.

 

BTW I worked for years on digital imaging and modifying pictures for newspapers (quality control) but in my work (photography) always worked hard to learn to use the camera and avoid photoshop at all costs unless it's pure post-pro. To me it's like learning to play the guitar instead of digital editing the sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW I do remember religious places where people where standing, on their knees or even lying on the floor begging for mercy, forgiveness or whatever to their God. Some people bring their cameras to capture the moment (if there are some tears better) and some shut their cameras off, I do that out of respect to their beliefs and what they are feeling. It's in the public eye yes but it's not my moment to take away, it's theirs.

 

Hmm... I'm ethical. I've rarely

killed anyone when I'm out

photographing...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

 

After years around theology that's the usual result when people are invited to question their actions: going to extremes in order to be way forgiving on their own actions. It's some form of super compensation and denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How often do ethical photographers take unethical photos (unintentionally or naively) and how often do unethical photographers take ethical photos (intentionally and unintentionally)? I expect more than one might think. And how often do photographers or photos not fit easily into either category, ethical or unethical?

 

When we judge the ethics of photographers for actions relative to homeless people, do we also judge the rest of the population for inaction relative to homeless people?

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two terms that I have found cannot be defined are.

1. What is ART?

2. What is ETHICAL?

 

I cannot answer these questions but I have a feeling that "art" is vast & expansive & "ethics", much less so.

 

There are ethical considerations throughout life’s experiences.

The individual is best qualified on a case by case basis to conduct himself in a manner congruent with good conscience.

 

I think that's fine, as long as "the individual" has had *someone* teach them a working knowledge of just what "good conscience" is. One could argue that "good conscience" comes from a "good upbringing" which may have involved instilling a sense of "right & wrong". And a sense of "respect for others". All of which sounds so.... old fashioned. Have societal mores shifted dramatically enough that people no longer have respect for others, don't have clear ideas of right & wrong, and don't know good conscience? Or that these ancient notions of how to conduct oneself in public & private are no longer valid?

 

I like the "Golden Rule" approach:

 

Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.

Analects 12:2

Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

Sunnah

Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

Talmud, Shabbat 3id

 

See? SO SIMPLE! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot answer these questions but I have a feeling that "art" is vast & expansive & "ethics", much less so.

 

 

 

I think that's fine, as long as "the individual" has had *someone* teach them a working knowledge of just what "good conscience" is. One could argue that "good conscience" comes from a "good upbringing" which may have involved instilling a sense of "right & wrong". And a sense of "respect for others". All of which sounds so.... old fashioned. Have societal mores shifted dramatically enough that people no longer have respect for others, don't have clear ideas of right & wrong, and don't know good conscience? Or that these ancient notions of how to conduct oneself in public & private are no longer valid?

 

I like the "Golden Rule" approach:

 

Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.

Analects 12:2

Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

Sunnah

Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

Talmud, Shabbat 3id

 

See? SO SIMPLE! :D

 

The worlds in trouble if it as to rely on religions for the answers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worlds in trouble if it as to rely on religions for the answers.

 

I think the world has always gotten into trouble regarding religion, when it needed the authority of a God to enforce its teachings. Some of the basic teachings are common among all religions (as Ricochet nicely showed), reinforcing the power of common sense and a moral compass that comes naturally to humans. To ignore that inherent morality and blindly follow scriptures under the threat of punishment is what gets civilizations into trouble.

Edited by Supriyo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worlds in trouble if it as to rely on religions for the answers.

 

I cannot possibly see how something so simple as

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"

would be harmful, wrong, bad, or unsound advice.

 

I am of the opinion that religion's basic tenets of good are reasonable and strong, and I feel there is much to gain from centuries of wisdom from all sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet our secular/humanist moral and ethical frameworks didn’t pop out of thin air and are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition (and that of ancient Greek philosophy kept alive in writings by Christian monks), in particular, the central notion concerning the sovereignty and sanctity of the individual regardless of the individual’s social status.

 

Tom Holland’s book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World talks about this.

 

So, I guess it depends on what kind of answers. There's not much use for religion if you want to build a bridge or launch a rocket into space, but that doesn't mean that religion as the age old universal questioning concerning the human condition is without its practical use.

 

I would not be so quick to assign all that or all anything to any single religion. Christianity is but one (not the first) in a long line of similar schools of thought. Their stories vary but the basic tenets are similar. Long before any religion was invented (yes religion is a human construct), different people in different places had similar spiritual beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the thoughts and preaching of the worlds religions as the problem. I'ts the way that they have been and are still being interpreted. This has been going on for at least 2000 years form the Christian Crusades to current Islamic jihads.

This has strayed away from ethical photography in the way these forums do (may long it continue) :)

Edited by Gerald Cafferty
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the "Golden Rule" approach:

A great starting point Richochetrider. I have found that I need to add a focused layer of empathy to the approach. In regards to photography I have had to learn to not use myself as the gauge. what you would not like yourself.

I do not mind being photographed in what many would consider as compromising or inappropriate situations. I like photos that go beyond what many consider a line that they would not cross or want to be the subject of. I am ok with being the subject even if it crosses my line, my line is fluid. So I have to consider where that line is for others. Respect. Not always an easy balance. But in photography it is easier for me to start with what others need.

  • Like 3

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion was mentioned, but it's not the only (or best) angle. There are tons of discussions on the web where some people point out that ethics and morals ONLY derive from religion or God, from where I'm standing that's a separate off topic discussion.

 

Where I live one newspaper disliking (openly) a president, decided to post pictures where he was in the middle of blinking, opening or closing his mouth, etc. The result was an absolute parody and lack of respect: it was on purpose. It is not ethical or professional (regardless of whether they like or not the president or anyone else). Sure, we could do the same to the owners and they would not like it and will consider that to be unprofessional.

 

Lots of "professional" photographers won't doubt on capturing any moment where people show being hurt, emotionally vulnerable or something alike, they want to treat everything as war photography.

 

What about Magazines? a place where I used to work produced a magazine for women. The cover photos featured really white and blond models while including the slogan "just like you" WTF, most of the local public didn't resemble those pictures not even with 5x 100Watt bulbs. Later there was an intensive communication course provided by a local psychologist who happens to manage big brands online, she immediately complained about the hypocrisy of featuring absolutely out of this world women and pretending to sell the slogan "just like you". Her speech was long but precise, she hit the nail on how most women magazines are actually negative to the self esteem and promote absolutely unreal expectations, including the promotion of intense white skin.

 

Living on a region with lots of indigenous people, there are photographers who try to use them for "amazing pictures" that later they sell without asking permission or giving them some money out of it.

 

Respect. Not always an easy balance. But in photography it is easier for me to start with what others need.

x2, one of the photographers on that company I described had a dark and aggressive sense of humor, I guess that's "fine", but then we made an article about X place and he fell sleep. Dude was absolutely upset that I shot a picture of him sleeping on the back seat, humiliating? I don't think so, his jokes to the coworkers were too spicy compared to just having him on a picture... asleep with open mouth. I guess he was afraid of others doing what he usually did: making fun of people.

 

 

I believe things being in public places (including people) doesn't make them public or in the public domain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great starting point Richochetrider. I have found that I need to add a focused layer of empathy to the approach. In regards to photography I have had to learn to not use myself as the gauge. what you would not like yourself.

I do not mind being photographed in what many would consider as compromising or inappropriate situations. I like photos that go beyond what many consider a line that they would not cross or want to be the subject of. I am ok with being the subject even if it crosses my line, my line is fluid. So I have to consider where that line is for others. Respect. Not always an easy balance. But in photography it is easier for me to start with what others need.

I think this is beautifully said and comes across as being very sincere. It also captures some of what I hadn't put into words for myself about potential shortcomings of The Golden Rule and like-minded sentiments. One's own desires become the compass in The Golden Rule. Empathy seems to go beyond the self-orientation of The Golden Rule. A very important addition.

 

Then I started to wonder about flipping inoneeye's scenario where he doesn't mind and even prefers having lines crossed when he's the subject but doesn't necessarily assume others will appreciate those same lines being crossed when they're the subjects. How do we fully translate that to other photographers as well as subjects. There are photographers, and there have been some really good ones, who have wanted and preferred to cross lines as photographer which sometimes means crossing what others might consider lines in how a photographer can "ethically" shoot and/or portray others. We may sometimes confront competing empathies, for photographers crossing lines and for audiences or parts of audiences who don't like lines to be crossed. It's one thing to judge for ourselves what lines not to cross based on empathy for our subjects. It's another thing to judge for other photographers what lines to "ethically" stay within based on those same empathies for their subjects, because the needs, desires, and purpose of the photographer in question have to be considered as well.

 

Example: Were I in a concentration camp that had been liberated, I'm not sure I would have "approved" of a photographer shooting holocaust victims at their most vulnerable and intimate states, considering what they had just been through. That could have felt like very genuine empathy at the time. And I'm not sure whether the subjects of those photos themselves would have wanted their picture taken at the time. But isn't it a good thing we have those pictures and wouldn't many of those same holocaust survivors who might have not wanted that imposition on their privacy at the time be thankful in retrospect for the documentation that survives and that has done so much to portray the horror of what happened?

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed on all points.

 

Lots of what has gone on to be great art was not necessarily welcomed with open arms when it was first made. Art sometimes comes from extremes. From pushing people (and things) way out of bounds. Pretty sure we could all think of at least one photographer who shocked people with their work.

 

That said, a discussion of ethics remains relevant and vital. I think it’s important for us all to check in every now and then on this fluid concept of ethics. Each of us probably needs to decide where our own boundaries are- to accept that ours might not match anyone else’s. And to accept that our own ethics may, or likely will, shift periodically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the light goes out and the electricity stops working. The Rousseau view of human nature being inherently virtuous and moral and that it’s the society that corrupts this inherent goodness is somewhat naive. It falls apart quickly once you strip humans from all societal and cultural norms. It’s a well-organized functioning society in which freedom is also a responsibility and not a mere right that keeps humans from bashing each other’s heads in.

 

No, I don't agree with Rousseau's view either. In fact, I think society plays a big role in our upbringing, and morality and ethics are reinforced to a large extent through coexistence, but at the same time giving rise to harmful traits like ultra nationalism. Given stressful situations or imminent danger, self-preservation will kick in and many people (who are otherwise moral and ethical) will behave selfishly or irrationally. At the same time, we read about heros all the time who behave selflessly in such situations, saving lives.

 

Its not that humans are inherently selfish, and that societal blanket keeps them moral. I think, humans come with both selfish and community friendly traits, with all sorts of extremes and levels in between. Its the societal coexistence that reinforces the good traits, like good genes.

 

Morality and ethics may be products of the society, but its the collective mandate of the individual. After all, its the individual who forms societies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of us probably needs to decide where our own boundaries are

That's a tough one for me. I spent the first 5 or so decades of life living within boundaries either that I had decided on or that I felt obliged for whatever reason to limit myself to. Along with my foray into photography has come less enthusiasm for boundaries. I still hope to be ethical (in my terms more than in society's, because I often think society gets it wrong) and it may just be that my experiences of the past are now able to guide me instinctively without my having to try or decide. I also currently love it when I find opportunities to expand my boundaries and to discover that things I used to consider unethical may have just been my own way of avoiding risk and even positive temptation.

 

andy-revolt-3689-ww.thumb.jpg.576e2cb522076789ebcb1b3a93c96d15.jpg

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...