commandments for photography, not prayers

It's late, I'm in a temporary lull in the effects of my chemotherapy, and I'm feeling far too righteous, so you'll have to ignore or abhor the preaching.

 

I grew to photographic and general adulthood from days when men were men (if they were white) and women were girls. I attended segregated schools until Jr. High.

 

At the time a 'candid' photograph of a passed-out drunk was high art. A look at any of the photographic magazines of the 1930s and 1940s will show many examples of distasteful images dressed as art (could I mention Mortensen?).

 

Many of us who grew during and after WWII on have been educated into different, even 'PC' viewpoints by our younger colleagues and particularly our own children, but we still can often be rightly accused of being tone-deaf when we fail to realize that times truly have changed. (Both of our current Presidential candidate encounter this problem frequently, being of a 'certain age.' Many older folks who have not been so educated are still around, but shuffling off. Of course, these attitudinal 'problems' are not only a matter of generations, but also a matter of class in the sociological sense (in what is touted as a classless society).

 

Now that I have perhaps offended some of the old boys here, I will offer, ex cathedra, some commandments for photography in the 21th century:

 

1. First do no harm.
   
2. Do not photograph others as you would not be photographed yourself
    
   
3. Do not 'steal' images from people for whom their small 'tips' from being photographed are much more important than you might realize.
   
4. As 21st century photographers are discovering, releases for commercial use are no longer just for Europe and North America
   

No doubt you can offer additions or "counter-commandments"

 

Thanks for sharing... No matter what century, or what age we live in, the truth of the matter is, that if we really respected each other as human beings, brothers & sisters, most of the conflicts would fade away. Unfortunately, that has not been the case at all. Historically we have been like crabs in a barrel. Each man for themselves, managing to unite only when familiar interest are involved, driven mostly by egotistical and selfish interest, making enemies as we go. Despite this, mankind has somehow managed to survive and has risen to the highest levels of civilization and cooperation, but so far it has not lasted too long. Maybe a few centuries, or a couple of millennium but that's about it. Not all have risen to this level for some reason... Some are still living like our ancestors lived a long time ago, but they are still part of the human family...

 

In any case, getting back to photography, when I first started taking pictures with my Minolta SRT 2002(film camera), I thought that taking pictures of "homeless people" was the thing. Everybody gawked at pictures of some homeless guy, preferably with garbage strown around them and steam blowing in the background. i never imagined what these people were going through until I almost winded up in that condition myself and I can tell you that you would not want anybody to take your picture under those circumstances, Additionally, I traveled around to many different places around the world where people objected to me taking their pictures, or pictures of their country if it was not done with the best in mind.

 

As far as stealing images, HOW LOW CAN YOU GO, but that does not stop some individuals from doing just that especially if money is involved. Actually they do not have to steal it, but they can copy it, without facing any repercussions.

Thanks, William, for the explanation and for the photo.

Definitely an important distinction, however, I think this directly relates to my post above - that is, if I take the shot I am therefore making it available for possible misuse.

 

WW

Do people who grow food cause obesity?

Certainly some photographs flirt with harmful potential more than others.

To whom much is given, much is required.......I expect time, displacement, and anonymity tend to mitigate the hazards in many cases.

Common courtesy, a little forethought, and as has been pointed out, practicing the Golden Rule a bit is a pretty good personal guide.

 

I do not know the person or the circumstance. Pretty obscure but conveys universal reality as presented here, harmless in that context.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Moving On

I didn’t respond to your post and didn’t think to take what you said literally. No disclaimer needed.

 

Ok, thx.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that a picture of a homeless man (which most viewers probably would have considered exploitive) led a family member to recognize him and, with quite some effort and a fortuitous chain of events, there was a re-unification after many years and a happy ending.

 

I think "do no harm" will probably work for most people.

 

However, I think there are photographers who won't want to operate within such confines, especially considering they can't necessarily predict the future and can't know in advance whether a photo will cause harm or not.

 

I think there's room for a photographer to discard the "harm" baseline and instead determine to photograph whatever he might find as long as it's legal. That is a documentary approach, not in the sense of documentary as a genre, but in the sense of documentary as in that's something a camera can do. It can take a picture of what is there. In a search for truth (however we may define it), the truth isn't always unharmful, isn't always pretty, isn't necessarily supportive or even understanding. It's what's there.

 

I don't know that I could photograph like that. But if someone who was good at taking pictures declared that she or he believed in taking a picture of everything and anything without prejudging its goodness or harmfulness, that would be a portfolio I'd be interested in looking at.

Vanity, both of the photographer and the subject are unpredictable and tricky........

 

Never cared much for “Photoghouls”.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Moving On

I can tell you that you would not want anybody to take your picture under those circumstances,

I don't find that to be true, for me or others. Taking time to respect with acknowledgement can be something longingly appreciated.

Labelling someone... "folks who are suffering, down and out, addicted, etc." is one dimensional and for most that it's directed at... degrading. As if they are less significant. to be avoided, to be protected from our opinions and from being photographed. Ask them. These folks are as much a part of humanity as any. Just try treating them equal. due respect.

 

 

Labelling someone... "folks who are suffering, down and out, addicted, etc." is one dimensional and for most that it's directed at... degrading. As if they are less significant. to be avoided, to be protected from our opinions and from being photographed. Ask them. These folks are as much a part of humanity as any. Just try treating them equal. due respect.

Beautifully and thoughtfully said.

Certainly some photographs flirt with harmful potential more than others.

 

That's goes to a cornerstone of my point about assessing the situation and weighing the options: which include not taking the shot.

 

WW

Inoneeye's photo is worth considering, helping me understand his words accompanying it. Its straightforwardness both compositionally and in post processing work, lack of excess pathos, and the perspective suggest empathy, suggest that I'm in sync with the woman's point of view and not merely looking at her. By getting so close and shooting from a height on the same plane as her, it allows me so much more than had he not bothered to want to feel her angle and see from a vantage point akin to hers. One can sense the photographer's participation in the moment here. He hasn't just captured something, he's joined the scene in such a way as to enlighten himself and us. The depth of field also puts me in her world, as the legs, feet, and skirts of the passersby are seemingly unaware yet made prominent in the shot through the movement captured by the camera. The way she holds the cup is one thing, but the gesture of her other hand, clutching her collar against the cold, is the subtle yet iconic gesture that also helps me relate to her and a narrative. There's so much known in this photo. Rather than her being made a curiosity, which so often happens in street work, there's an intimacy and softness in the way she's shot. Her eye penetrates the scene. As inoneeye said, "due respect."

 

Would that we could look critically together at photos and understand what's happening and why instead of debating theoretical commandments.

 

My approach to photography and ethics is based less on the specific subject or type of subject and more on how that subject is handled. How I may characterize each subject and the bias I show in doing so tells me more about my ethics than what or whom I choose to photograph.

Thanks for taking the time sam .... thoughtful.

 

"inoneeye’s use of a shallow dof betrays his sentiments."

dof was decided by being very close to the subject and the polaroid camera and film & shutter speed.

 

"She looks like an isolated mad woman, not part of society"

I think most would agree with you on that. we can add that as one etcetera in "folks who are suffering, down and out, addicted, etc."

but she is a member of our society and her isolation within it is a factor in her suffering.

 

"pretty crap photo" your go-to these days. I'll file that away where it belongs.

My guide - don't chase the likes...

Shoot what you are drawn to, with conviction. find your voice. experiment.

Edited September 6, 2020 by inoneeye

Photography commandments! Most took it to apply to photographers. What about the ethical sensibilities of viewers, regardless of the best or worst efforts of a photographer? A photographer does what a photographer does. Each photographer does well to do what he's moved to do. Beyond that, viewers will do with a photo what they want.

 

She looks like an isolated mad woman, not part of society.

This ... betrays ... the viewer's ethical eye as much as the photo does the photographer's. The photographer's eye ... and the woman's … are elsewhere.

It's late, I'm in a temporary lull in the effects of my chemotherapy, and I'm feeling far too righteous, so you'll have to ignore or abhor the preaching.

 

I grew to photographic and general adulthood from days when men were men (if they were white) and women were girls. I attended segregated schools until Jr. High.

 

At the time a 'candid' photograph of a passed-out drunk was high art. A look at any of the photographic magazines of the 1930s and 1940s will show many examples of distasteful images dressed as art (could I mention Mortensen?).

 

Many of us who grew during and after WWII on have been educated into different, even 'PC' viewpoints by our younger colleagues and particularly our own children, but we still can often be rightly accused of being tone-deaf when we fail to realize that times truly have changed. (Both of our current Presidential candidate encounter this problem frequently, being of a 'certain age.' Many older folks who have not been so educated are still around, but shuffling off. Of course, these attitudinal 'problems' are not only a matter of generations, but also a matter of class in the sociological sense (in what is touted as a classless society).

 

Now that I have perhaps offended some of the old boys here, I will offer, ex cathedra, some commandments for photography in the 21th century:

 

1. First do no harm.
   
2. Do not photograph others as you would not be photographed yourself
    
   
3. Do not 'steal' images from people for whom their small 'tips' from being photographed are much more important than you might realize.
   
4. As 21st century photographers are discovering, releases for commercial use are no longer just for Europe and North America
   

No doubt you can offer additions or "counter-commandments"

JDM, Hope you are feeling well today. The places you take us.:) It would be interesting to read your take on the seven deadly sins of photography or what they would be. ;)

Right, I sat down on the sidewalk stuck a huge camera in a mad street woman’s face and then got up and walked away. And then my excuse for the cheap shot was a limited dof. brilliant.

Or just imagine ...

We sat on the sidewalk talking for some time. I know her name and some of her story & she mine. Before saying goodbye I gave her the original print to keep. I kept the negative.

Edited September 6, 2020 by inoneeye

Ludmilla, get a clue. It’s one thing to critique a photo. But so badly mistaking the story behind its making wouldn’t occur if you didn’t speak about things you couldn’t possibly know. More than your lack of a photographic eye is showing. Your unsuitability as a writer of fiction is also on full display. Do you have friends? If so, call them and see if you can get one to come over and talk you down off the ledge. It’s painful watching you dangle so precariously. Edited September 6, 2020 by samstevens

if he has a photo that doesn’t isolate her from the rest of society (or shows some semblance of a relationship) he should post it.

If you had a facility with the language of photography, you’d know that what you’re looking for is right in front of your eyes. Since you can’t be as blind as you’re pretending to be, I suspect something else is at play here. The ethics of personal agendas masquerading as photo critique. Is there a commandment for that?

“inoneeye’s story (of bonding, or engaging, with the subject) doesn’t reconcile with the photographic evidence.” That’s good it clearly wasn’t meant to.

Are you such a snowflake that you can’t handle alternative interpretations of a cheap, exploitative photo?

It's cheap, exploitive interpretations I have a hard time with.

 

Snowflake? Now you think you're Phil? Hard as you may try, you can't hold a candle to her.

Any chance of this 'debate', fascinating though it is, being conducted via PMs, please ? We seem to have strayed from the original topic somewhat.

Moderator Note:

 

"We seem to have strayed from the original topic somewhat." - Indeed

 

ENOUGH.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

William

Have we? Didn’t JDM want this level of debate when he started the thread and why do xxxxxx’s like Tony have such influence?

 

Hadn't realised I had any influence - unintentional, I assure you. Just my personal view, as are so many others on this thread. Please PM if you wish further discussion.

My commandment - just be nice to people.

This is not a N/W thread or even W/NW thread. So, to my mind Ludmilla is perfectly entitled to her comments.

 

."Do you have friends? If so, call them and see if you can get one to come over and talk you down off the ledge. It’s painful watching you dangle so precariously" Sam.

 

Really, unacceptable, Sam. I'm surprised.

 

Anyway, JDMvW,. Luck to you.

 

Who is this mysterious, Phil?

I reckon he/her is really Rupert the Bear.

 

Rupert goes everywhere.