Jump to content

Do you have a photographic ethic?


Recommended Posts

<p>In a couple of recent threads, the relationship between ethics and photography has been touched on. In what ways do ethics, if at all, relate to photography?</p>

<p>Among people who see some photographs as art, there are those who maintain that art is above ethics . . . it is expression and anything goes. I'm not one of them, though I give more leeway to expressions than to other actions we perform. Photographs that are other than art also bear on ethics.</p>

<p>I am responsible for my photographs. I make them and commit to them. I am also responsible to my subjects, and to viewers to some extent. I have little control over viewers' interpretations. Nevertheless, I bear a degree of responsibility for what I put out there. I don't have it all sorted out, but in often shooting middle-aged gay men, and by creating intimacy and expressing vulnerability, I am portraying someone's humanity and that strikes me as coming with at least some self-imposed or intentionally-decided obligations. Those obligations don't have to be restraints or restrict my expression. Ethics can and does <em>enhance</em> my expression.</p>

<p>I have a desire to be, and for my photographs to be, <em>genuine</em>, even when staged and "manipulated". This genuineness has little to do with "candid" or "spontaneous" and more to do with personal motivation, intention, and stance. For me, being genuine, photographically and otherwise, requires my active participation in what I'm doing. Though I may at times feel led by my camera, I can't escape certain things by feeling that way.</p>

<p>Have you ever taken a photo or not taken a photo because you felt it was partly your duty or because it went against your values or morals? What about your photographs overall? Are you doing good or are you having fun (not mutually exclusive), or practicing in a realm of ethically-free beauty or aesthetics? There can be good in bringing beauty or a personal perspective to light. There are other photographic goods: making people aware of political and social goings-on, exposing things that have been hidden, etc.</p>

<p>Among documentarians, photojournalists, and forensic photographers, there are various "codes" against fabricating or manipulating photographs in order to misinform or mislead. Do you respond to that code or any sort of code?</p>

<p>Moral obligations may be owed when shooting people on the street and when shooting homeless people. Do we owe homeless people something? Do we owe it to our viewer to show them what homelessness is like? How do we do that? (At what stage could good intentions cross over into superficial pathos?)</p>

<p>What might we owe ourselves?</p>

<p>Some will not separate personal from photographic ethics. To an extent, I don't. But I think it's not a bad idea to take a look at how those ethics may or may not influence the making of our photographs. And finally, how do photographs (our own or others) influence our ethics?</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<p>Every form of human conduct - including communication, and thus including photography - has ethical implications. Certainly photography has some of its own special ethical nuances. I think you've nicely described the landscape, Fred, and raised the right issues. <br /><br />In response to one of your questions: yes, I absolutely think twice about some shots or about when/whether/how to show them. For example, I spent Saturday working with a portrait subject and his bird dogs. Hunting happened, and ultimately, partridges were had for dinner. Photographs of the day's happenings have huge potential for being seen out of context. It's my duty to compose/show photographs that provide as much context as possible, in order to convey my subject's own ethics as they applied to what he was doing, and how he did it. I have a very serious obligation to him, in that regard.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred -<br>

Excellant points and I'm sure a good conversation starter.</p>

<p>Since I shoot mostly sports / weddings / portraits - I'll answer from that perspective -<br>

1. Yes - there are some shots that I don't take - or if I do - they don't make to anywhere beyond my computer. Example: 2 weeks ago I was shooting a hockey tourney... one of the games got a little chippy toward the end - and a cheap shot was taken by one of players... The player who was cheap shotted decided to retaliate and proceeded to knock the first player out cold. While the player was down on the ice - my camera was down also. Once the player got up - the camera came up again. </p>

<p>2. As a sports shooter who works hard to get contracts / gigs - Ethically - I won't sell or give out photos from events that have an "official" photographer. I'll take photos of my own kids at the event, but I won't post for sale or distribute photos that I take beyond my portfollio. They work hard for their money - why should I undercut their business. I'll stop by their booth and look at their setup and their work, but again - I won't sell or distribute my work.</p>

<p>3. Manipulation is one of the biggest trip words out there... Is it manipulation if I touch up a photo at the request of a client? If I clone out a distracting background artifact? If I crop the photo? If I adjust colors / exposure? Unless you're shooting HARD NEWS stories - then go to it... Don't ask and I won't tell...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting topic, with the rise of 'civil journalism', twittered newsphotos and blogged hot-before-the-press stories, one that, in my view, has a great social relevance too (besides the more obvious personal relevance).<br>

It's a two-edged sword, this phenomenon, but after a few pictures with all gory details of a car accident, I'm yearning for professionals who know when to stop.</p>

<p>Now I'm a casual photographer, so I do not encounter the tricky situations as much as the first two answers (whose considerations are also more serious). I can only put in what I see in what I do and watch, and throw in another $0,02. Apart from that, I'm all questions on this point, so I'm very anxious to see more input from the more experienced.</p>

<p>There is a tiny edge of inconsistent ethics on my behalf when it comes to showing pictures. I have no issue with posting photos on my website (or here) of strangers, that is: strangers to me. But I do find posting photos with family members, friends etc. clearly in them unnerving and invasive in my and their privacy. Likewise, all the albums on flickrs, facebooks and webshots with very personal material makes me feel like peeking into people's life more than I want. But not when I see photos here on the street and documentary forum. So, it's like the intent of the photo defines its ethics - but where is the line? What is invasive, what isn't? (I'd love to hear papparazzi in a non-defending way on this, by the way).</p>

<p>Accidentally, it's exactly the reason why I find the street/documentary photography very hard to do for me. I've got tons of pictures I did not make because I felt wrong about it. I am just having fun as a photographer, and as such, I feel I have less obligation and less rights to make some photos, and less reason to invade other people's life.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<p >My values define to me who I am. The separation of art, or photography, from ethics is something I find myself unable to accept. I’m with Fred in not being one with those who aver that in artistic expression “anything goes”.</p>

<p >I hold myself wholly responsible for my photographs, generally trusting my instincts. Rarely has it misguided me into clicking a photograph I may realize later to be of dubious ethical merit. Self-policing comes naturally and easily to me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A photograph speaks not only of the subject frozen in the frame, but also of the person initiating the freezing action, ie the photographer. The photographer’s genuineness (I use it in the sense elaborated by Fred), or his lack of it, is often evident in the frozen image.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >When I shoot a person as a subject I would never point my camera down at him – I would either be at approximately his level or be shooting upwards. Shooting down is for what I perceive as objects. Of course exceptions have to be made in some situations where the contrary angle serves to stress a particular point-of-view – or is just the only available option! I usually try and shoot children from their level, or shoot up, rarely if ever shoot down.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It pains me when I see the great number of photographs on PN which suggest the camera pointed down at a poor soul – in my book it turns the subject into an object. The viewer has no choice but to look down at the unfortunate. These photographs to my mind are self-serving and lacking in any empathy. I cannot respect the people taking such photographs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Manipulation is a murky area. With me it is an ongoing debate. I usually go by what I can live with.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not a professional photographer. I do it for my own pleasure. If it were a career, perhaps I would be more willing to compromise with my ‘ethics’. And perhaps not. I don’t know.</p>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Accidentally, it's exactly the reason why I find the street/documentary photography very hard to do for me. I've got tons of pictures I did not make because I felt wrong about it. I am just having fun as a photographer, and as such, I feel I have less obligation and less rights to make some photos, and less reason to invade other people's life.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a okay traveled street photographer, I find the whole "invading privacy" issue a little idiotic and blown out of proportion especially in the west. In Asia, people don't mind so much. Some, actually want their picture taken. It is fun, a great way to start conversations and it's only pictures, folks...not like hacking into your money market account or, say, your email account. Maybe people are a little more defensive in the west but it never stop me from wandering the streets with my cam. </p>

<p>Being somewhat of a pragmatic situationist, only one set rule for me, I don't give away money for shots at home or abroad...It is a disservice to all other street photogs. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think I see photography (art or not) as one thing, and personal ethics as another ... but that doesn't at all mean that the first is free of the second. Our ethics (whatever they may be, and they may be very different or even diametrically opposed from one person to another) shape and decide what we do in every area of life. If what we do (in photography, laundry, or anything else) seems to be dissonant with our ethics then we are self deluded about our ethics. So no; I don't have a photographic ethic ... I have ethics, to which I try to make what I do (including photographic work) conform as best I can.<br>

Yes, there are many photographs I have either not made or not used, because my own sense of ethics dictated I should not. But there have been photographs where one aspect of my ethics conflicted with another ... especially when working in third world war and/or famine zones. How to balance the dignity of the subject against the need to arouse consciences elsewhere? No definite answer ... it varies from one person to another, and often a shabby compromise was the best that could be managed. I suppose (though I don't know from experience) a similar tension would exist if I were to witness the punch up on the golf course: respectful discretion or self censorship, exploitation or truth?<br>

Now, I very rarely show my social documentary work; never without the informed and considered consent of those portrayed; often only at their specific initiating request. Street photography is different; in that case I apply Julie H's "no caricature" test ... according to my own lights, at least, I start from an absolute requirement of respect for the subject. I perceive things differently from Leslie Cheung (above) but don't imagine that I am "more ethical" than he; my interpretation of how my ethics should play out just lead me to different conclusions from his.<br>

The portrait, which you (Fred) specifically mention is a very different case from documentary or journalistic work. It is a very specific (though varying greatly from case to case) contract between photographer and sitter. I don't do a lot of portraiture these days, but personally feel that the ethics involved centre around honouring that contract (whatever it may be).<br>

Returning to the beginning ... art is amoral; it is people (including artists) who behave (or do not behave) ethically.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suppose that I have a whole slew of unspoken guidelines. I've just never taken the time to list or think about them that much. With your permission I'll brainstorm a bit.</p>

<p>I don't care for "painterly" looking photographs or obvious composites of different layers (as when a huge moon is overlayed on a moonless photo). If someone else wants to make these "fantastic" images, that's fine, but I prefer a more realistic approach in most cases.</p>

<p>That said, if I take a photo that LOOKS fantastic - note: fantastic means 'difficult to believe', not 'really, really good' - but is actually a realistic reflection of what was happening at the time, I'm completely happy with that. As photographers we have the chance to show people the world as they have rarely seen it - from different vantage points, in unusual lighting conditions, in challenging weather, in an odd juxtaposition, etc.</p>

<p>I have no qualms about using post-processing to achieve a natural-looking effect. This isn't an issue when I shoot on positive film, because what you see it what you get. But a RAW file is ultimately a semi-defined glob of data that needs to be shaped in one way or another. As long as the end results look close to what my eyes saw when I took the shot (i.e. close to the JPEG preview image), I'll adjust contrast, white balance, shadow detail, etc. to taste.</p>

<p>There are a lot of strong feelings on this next topic, but personally I don't like to take photos of people without asking for permission in advance. If you DON'T work this way, that's fine. Candid photography has a long and respected tradition; I just don't feel right about it. There are notable exceptions, but as a rule I'd rather clear it with the person first. It gives the subject a feeling of empowerment which sometimes works in our favor. People decline sometims, but when they agree I usually get MORE and BETTER pictures than I would have by "sneaking" in a shot here or there. Again, this is not meant to be a judgement on any other approach, it's just my preferred method. If I worked as a photojournalist, I'd be more aggressive about capturing candid moments.</p>

<p>I avoid shooting celebrities when they're minding their own business and just living their lives. They don't need another camera in their face. If they're participating in some event, then the heck with it! I'll take hundreds of shots if I can manage it. But if they're out walking their dog or talking to someone on the sidewalk, I leave them alone.</p>

<p>I never feed, pet, disturb, move, corral, or threaten wildlife under ANY circumstances.</p>

<p>I never alter vegetation or any other detail in the layout of a scene except to pick up the occasional piece of stray litter that's blown into the middle of my grand landscape.</p>

<p>I prefer not to copy other people's photography; I'd rather look for my own locations and vantage points and follow my own eyes and imagination. The last think I want is to spend thousands of dollars traveling somewhere to return with a bunch of somebody else's postcards.</p>

<p>Occasionally, I turn around and notice another photographer standing beside me trying to take the same shot that I've been working on. In that case, I just smile. The chances of that person creating the same composition with identical settings and filters and focal lengths and focus points is astronomically low. I've stood and shot in locations with friends and relatives, and our shots always look very different.</p>

<p>I like to seek out unique opportunities. If you're going to create art of any kind, you're not going to really, truly, deeply enjoy the experience until you follow your own muse and realize your own vision. Rather than trying to emulate the works of a historically-significant photographer, look for locations and subjects that the rest of the pack has overlooked. Shoot your friends being themselves. Shoot macros in your backyard. Shoot points of interest in your own area. Shoot a commonplace event in an uncommon way. Take something familiar and use your skills and imagination to make it funny, or beautiful, or sexy, or troubling, or deliciously ironic.</p>

<p>Think about it. Are Adams and Cartier-Bresson and Avedon and Rowell legendary because their photos looked like someone else's pictures? Or is it because their art was original, i.e. a vision that no one had seen before they came along?</p>

<p>Let your curiousity roam free. Let go of preconceived ideas and follow your muse with an open mind to see where she leads (as long as it's not dangerous!). When you capture something that no one else would have thought of and turn it into an interesting or compelling or humorous image, that's where the true magic of photography shines through. That's when photography transcends f-stops and ISO ratings and focal lenghts. That's when the photos LEAP out of your HEART instead of just your camera. That's what I want to see when I look over the pages of my portfolio - something that's technically correct and aesthetically enjoyable, but also fresh and insightful and a reflection of my own viewpoint.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred-</p>

<p>I think your choice of the singular form of the word is significant here, whether intended or not, and I remark that you do go on to describe ethics and photography or the interrelation between what we choose to photograph and a civil, social or religious code of behaviour that photographers (as your example) might consider to be morally correct.</p>

<p>Deontology for photographers? Apart from journalism (and even there it is less distinct as a code to my mind) and forensic science or documentation (and I would add scientific photography), I don't know of any well-described deontology that applies to groups of photographers, as one readily finds in law, engineering, medecine and other professions, and which establish moral values that the practitioners are mandated to uphold.</p>

<p>In other words, I think that ethical behaviour in photography is judged less categorically and less invariably than in the aforementioned professions. There is a considerable range of latitude in describing ethical behaviour in the arts and photography. I think it always comes back to specific cases and to the individual's moral values as opposed to a group deontology. Thus, the photographer is faced with an ethic or the moral philosophy that will come from his own study of the moral value of his conduct and the principles that are consistent with his approach or a given case. They have not been prescribed by a deontological committee on ethics of the group and acting for all photographers, but primarily on his own values and judgements. He is responsible for himself and not for a collectivity. I have always adhered to that sort of concept, albeit not always successfully.</p>

<p>I really need more time to think about your topic, and will await that before considering/reflecting on my own personal approaches or dilemnas in ethical photography. </p>

<p>I would like then to come back particularly to a few sub-topics of this: Legality and ethics; Private and public spaces; Crossing lines; Ethics and taste or fashion in photojournalism; and: Responsibility as humans (beyond that of/to photography). In the meantime, a few comments of myself and friends and others on the subject, mostly as questions at this point:</p>

<p>"I find it interesting that people will object to a homeless man’s photo being taken, but it’s okay for him to lie there on the street, in his own misery." (which I think relates to "Photography and responsibility") "Simply taking the photo of the homeless man is not, in and of itself, unethical. I think it more lies in your intent. Do you plan to publish the photos for a local homeless shelter in order to raise awareness? Are you planning to publish the photos in the newspaper to try and draw attention to the homeless problem? Or are you simply going to publish the photo and try to profit from it in some way? These are questions that each photographer must answer for him or herself. I’ve wrestled with this plenty of times and there’s never an easy answer." (a case similar to the case of the Benneton photographer Visconti - although the quotation is not from him)</p>

<p>Or another quote, from NAPPA (press photographers) Ethics co-chairman, John Long, in 1999:</p>

<p>"Take the very famous photo of the young child dying in Sudan while a vulture stands behind her, waiting. It was taken by Kevin Carter who won a Pulitzer Prize for the photo (a photo that raised a lot of money for the relief agencies). He was criticized for not helping the child; he replied there were relief workers there to do that. After receiving his Pulitzer, Kevin Carter returned to Africa and committed suicide. He had a lot of problems in his life but, with the timing of the sequence of events, I cannot help thinking there is a correlation between his photographing the child and his suicide.</p>

<p>This is the kind of choice all journalists will face some time in his or her career; maybe not in the extreme situation that Carter faced, but in some way, we all will be faced with choices of helping or photographing."</p>

<p>And one more:</p>

<p>"There is a book "The Sexualization of Girls", that delves into how marketers have aimed adult messages at little girls in their efforts to create cradle to grave consumers. Legal (yes). Ethical? (I think that is less clear, but a good example of "Legality and ethics")</p>

<p>Thanks for the subject Fred, it is really mind-opening. I hope I can develop another 2 cents worth as I struggle next with my own perceptions and experience.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

I don't give away money for shots at home or abroad...It is a disservice to all other street photogs.

</blockquote>

 

The devil's advocate might point out that FAILURE to tip might also cause problems for other photographers. I suppose it depends on the customs of the locale. If one photographer does something that upsets the locals, countless others may have to deal with unwarranted resistance. The world is full of annoying "no photography" signs. How many were installed in response to the actions of some insensitive shooter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Leslie,<br>

Just to be sure: my mention of invading privacy was not a generic statement, but merely how I perceive it. For me, it feels this way, while rationally I know you're quite right that most people (also in the west) do not mind all that much. So I did not try to generalise anything, just a bit of own experience and what I see as 'personal ethics', without wanting to judge anyone else.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter Willemse---</p>

<p>Sure, got it...I wonder why many photographers feel similar about this issue though. It was not a personal attack, I just see too many similar views (in many forums). And, of course, I treat my subjects with respect but I don't feel I have to say that, it is unspoken.</p>

<p>Dan South---</p>

<p>I have traveled to many countries in Asia and I don't think I have been to a locality where you have to pay to photograph. Again, the "no photo" sign is another Western concept/thing.. You might be right, hypothetically, but I don't bother thinking hypos these days...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>[<em>going into Devil's advocate mode</em>]</p>

<p>On photographing people without their consent, I think that *not* shooting is being rationalized as virtuous in order to suit the comfort level of the given photographer.</p>

<p>If we start with the (unavoidable) assumption that you were there -- you did see, you looked at something enough to think about photographing -- and yet did not to photograph, then consider more closely what you did not do. I would suggest that what you did not do was accept a burden. I would suggest that what you did was deny a relationship, a connection, a responsibility however small. You did not document your seeing and your knowing. You denied your shame; you denied your prurient interest; you denied your voyeurism; you denied your comparative evaluation; you denied whatever it was that made you *want to photograph.*</p>

<p>I think a strong case could be made that it is more honest and quite likely more ethical to shoot the pictures -- of the homeless, of the poor, of suffering or embarrassment -- and to accept the burden of shame of voyeur/pervert/exploiter (as well as sympathetic/empathic helper) that *is* there; that is ... human. More honest than to not photograph and get off scott free. ("I wasn't there; I didn't see.")</p>

<p>[<em>No, I'm not suggesting that you should murder, rape, or rob because it's more honest to do what you want to do. I'm talking about accepting responsibility for a relationship, an encounter.]</em></p>

<p>Arthur mentions the case of Kevin Carter. He accepted the burden, the shame, and it crushed him. How many others have been in similar situations and, by *not* photographing, avoided the burden, the shame, the confession of failure; the duty, the relationship?</p>

<p>Shooting the disadvantaged not only shows their shame, it shows yours. I think viewers of such pictures don't like them because of *both* shames and possibly even more so the shame of the photographer because it shames them too.</p>

<p>You were there. You did see.<br>

[/<em>leaving Devil's advocate mode</em>]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Of course, in philosophical analysis mode, some homeless will probably curse you and some will be glad that you talk to them like any other human being rather than just being ignored yet, again. Sure, both could happen but, <strong><em>in reality</em></strong>,<em><strong> 90%</strong></em> don't bother one way or another...and that's from first hand experience on the street. </p>

<p>I do feel there is a lot of truth in Julie's (devil advocate mode) post, however.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, devil's advocate... you make me feel bad now! Compelling case. The only argument I more or less miss is the intent with which the photos are made - holiday photos with homeless photos or journalism are seriously different cases.<br>

Though the homeless, the poor and the example of Kevin Carter are very strong ones, ethics should especially hold up in such cases. So in that sense the slight bad feel I get is mere another level of shame....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just a note regarding Kevin Carter: He committed suicide about 16 months after photographing the starving child. Part of his suicide note read: "I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join <a title="Ken Oosterbroek" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Oosterbroek">Ken</a> if I am that lucky.<sup id="cite_ref-3" >"</sup></p>

<p>Attributing his suicide to guilt he felt over photographing a starving girl rather than feeding her is overly simplistic, especially considering the atrocities he witnessed over the course of a decade.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Matt</strong>, context relates to the significance of the perspective of the photographer. Some ask whether we've photographed the reality of the situation. Does the reality include this part of the context and/or that part of the context? Does it exclude parts of the context? You bring up not just your own ethics but your portrayal of your subjects' ethics. That portrayal rests, to a great extent, on your shoulders. I'm not sure how many photographers I encounter realize the power they can have at times. Thanks for including that.<br /> <strong>David</strong>, thanks, I hadn't considered our relationships to other photographers. On your other point, I respect the decision you made and probably would have gone the same way. Another photographer, ethical also, might decide to shoot the downed man to show the ugliness of the sport, wanting to be genuine but coming from a different perspective. It's rare that I apply ethics universally, in all situations and for all people. It's hard to pin down. On manipulation, I think it's a matter of ethics, as you suggest, in HARD news or forensics and other like matters. I think manipulation is a matter of taste and technique in most other cases. Thanks.<br /> <strong>Julie</strong>, we may be understanding caricature differently. Can't it have negative and positive connotations? Some early portraiture grew out of caricature, where physical, superficial, visual features were exaggerated in order to convey essence, what was thought to be "inside". Caricature is also well used by some political and social satirists (Lenny Bruce, who could be self serving but who also provided some very strong, stinging, and effective political and social commentary). Others, like Bill Maher, use it less successfully (IMO). Caricature may be akin to cliché (in this respect). They can be utilized effectively and non-superficially in order to take a point further, or they can be blindly bought into and be not so hot. Caricature can simply be a negative stereotype, which seems to be how you're using it.<br /> <strong>Wouter</strong>, my not wanting to invade strangers' lives has ethical and aesthetic components. Knowing that, for whatever reasons, many people don't want their pictures taken unknowingly, I am <em>mostly</em> respectful of that. I have strayed and have made street photos without seeking permission. I feel OK about them, but there is a tinge of moral ambiguity, even a little Jewish guilt. A little Jewish guilt I have come to consider normal for me, so I can live with it. Negative feelings about what I do can be energizing and motivating. Sometimes I may even push what causes self-negativity a bit and it helps me grow and evolve. It can be a tricky balancing act. I take it on a case-by-case basis and try to be as mindful as possible of my <em>motivation</em> and the actual and real (not hypothetical) effects on others. Taking some photos of strangers can be much more compromising than others.<br /> <strong>Rajat</strong>, I appreciate the nuts-and-bolts photographic consideration. While you qualify it by saying there are exceptions (I agree) you mention the effect of pointing your camera down. Significant. Now, I have purposely done that to get a certain perspective or effect, sometimes even wanting to shoot a person as object, which I do with the best of intentions and, hopefully, results. But, often, it will suggest an attitude to me and I may think the photographer is simply not thinking. If you can't be bothered to engage from someone else's "level" it can show laziness and callous attitude. This attitude can have very real implications. There may be many great, ethical photos of kids with a looking down perspective that defy these judgments and elevate their stature. Such a perspective could wake us up. A lot depends on intent and whether that can be perceived in the photograph. Thanks.<br /> <strong>Leslie</strong>, I understand your difference with many western people and photographers. As you say, these issues can be situational . . . and cultural. I have given money to street people who I've photographed. Sometimes it does feel like an exchange. It doesn't happen often but I've never felt badly doing so and don't think it much affects other photographers. To the extent it might affect other photographers, I figure their situations will be taken care of by their approaches. Most of my actions will have some effect on everyone else and I have to weigh the proximity and likelihood in each case.<br /> <strong>Felix</strong>, nicely put. Most ethical dilemmas are fraught with the kind of <em>tension</em> you talk about. If it were easy, it probably wouldn't be all that significant. It's the ones where the rubber meets the road that are compelling, where there are strong competing interests, an individual vs. a greater good, the need to be honest and make public some injustice of suffering balanced against the need for privacy or not to exploit the one suffering. Thanks for the personal and sincere examples.<br /> <strong>Dan</strong>, you bring up many great points. I appreciate your talking about ethics in terms of the environment in which you shoot, the world you're affecting. Your first paragraph mentions painterly photographs and composites. You even begin it with "I don't care for" rather than something like "I think it's wrong." I don't see that particular one as an ethical consideration, more a matter of taste. Are you saying more than that. Are painterly photographs in some way wrong for you, or you just don't like them?<br /> <strong>Arthur</strong>, I chose "ethic" to convey an overriding guiding system rather than just a choice we make in a particular photograph. I work with underlying core beliefs, though I apply them differently depending on situation and context. Though some photographers may work according to an imposed code (journalists, etc.), for the most part I consider these matters self-imposed and intentionally-guided. That doesn't make them any less binding on me. I do agree that there may be more latitude in the arts in some ways. At the same time, I think "art" can be used as an excuse to leave ethics at the door, and I <em>usually</em> hate when I see that happening. You're right, lawyers have to adhere to (or at least are supposed to) a strict code of behavior, something most photographers don't experience and shouldn't. But, as Matt said, our actions (and expressions) have all kinds of consequences, including political, social, and ethical ones, and many, many artists are obviously aware of those, many dealing directly with them in their work. But many who claim to be artists are oblivious and their claims come off more as an excuse than anything else.<br /> <strong>Julie</strong>, Ethics often entail denying impulses, no matter how "honest" they are. I honestly want to steal money from the bank, run by people I hate who I believe have stolen and continue to steal from us. But I stop myself, not because I convince myself that I don't want to do it, but because I know it's <em>wrong</em>. Ethics often supersede my own needs or desires. I do pursue photographic voyeurism. And, what I pursue, I mostly live with just fine. I have crossed the line and had to live with that as well. We can and do ethically deny our own voyeurism often. If we didn't deny it, and we were honest about it, there'd be a whole lot of sneaking into bedrooms to check out things we'd like to be privy too. That would be wrong, though honest. Yes, there are times when we hide behind our shame and it would be better to confront it and develop the relationship you talk about, which is significant. Certainly, with a camera, we can develop a unique sort of relationship. But there can also be a less genuine "relationship" built up when it's mediated by a camera and done in secrecy, depending on how that plays out. The first step when confronting my own shame about homelessness and my own part in it is not to take a picture of it. It's to come out from behind my camera and engage it. That's hard. Perhaps, once I do that, a picture can be of some value. You end by saying, "You were there. You did see." So what? I've said before that the reality of what you saw at the time and what a photograph expresses may be two very different things. Saturating the public with pictures of everything we see may just water it all down. Most pictures of homeless people don't show anyone's shame. They show pathos and they show an often cheap desire to <em>appear</em> compassionate, which involves little or no <em>real</em> or <em>practical</em> compassion. Most pictures of homeless people show the self interest of the photographer and not the interest of the person who's made out to be the subject.<br /> <strong>Mike</strong>, thanks for that addition.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't post photos of anyone who paid me for their pictures on the web without their written permission. That's why you don't see any of my wedding photos or portraits on my PN gallery. I worked for a newspaper and I took pictures that were offensive to me that I was paid to do and were in the public realm because of the journalistic exceptions to obtaining permission. I do not photograph other peoples kids unless paid to do so or have explicit permission to do so except in a journalistic capacity; namely sports. I have, with permission, taken pictures of homeless. I do it with a dialogue with the subject. I have a couple of street pictures that I will not post on the web because the pictures might be embarrassing to the subjects. I do, on occasion, take street pictures but cannot bring myself to post them, actually. Ask me, in saying all this if I feel like a hypocrite. I do. It does bother me to invade someone's privacy but sometimes I do and have done it anyway. I did it a lot when I was working for the paper (anything to get the picture). Speaking of cariicatures, I have to admit I used direct flash to make some politicians look their worst and enjoyed doing it while I tried hard to make my more sympathetic subjects look their best in the paper.

 

As far as my photo business went. I delivered what I promised in a timely manner. I have had very few unhappy people but I never argued fault I just refunded all or part of their money if they were not pleased (I only did it twice in seven years). I worked very hard to please my customers. I also know that that effort was not totally altruistic because it paid off in referrals. I had a roommate when I flew in combat who believed in situational ethics as we both struggled with our calling in air strikes on the enemy and innocent victims. That still sits in my craw as the ultimate ethical struggle of my personal existence. It overshadows all else and will to the day I die. I got into photography after that experience has had a profound effect on my life to this day. I do not really believe that one can use "situational ethics" to excuse certain forms of conduct either in photography or in war. We all have to live with our sins as we perceive them. That's as far as I think I will go except to say that life for me is a continuing struggle to be self-honest about my own motives and ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><strong >Dan</strong>, you bring up many great points. I appreciate your talking about ethics in terms of the environment in which you shoot, the world you're affecting. Your first paragraph mentions painterly photographs and composites. You even begin it with "I don't care for" rather than something like "I think it's wrong." I don't see that particular one as an ethical consideration, more a matter of taste. Are you saying more than that. Are painterly photographs in some way wrong for you, or you just don't like them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the comments. I guess I wasn't thinking of 'ethics' in terms of "do it my way or it's wrong." I was rather thinking in terms of what decisions I would make and why.</p>

<p>I'm not necessarily opposed to most of the practices that I avoid (except disturbing wildlife and the environment). If someone else wants to make a "painterly" image with lots of post-processing that's fine. I'd even find it interesting to LOOK at, but I'm just not interested in DOING it. I prefer to work on developing a more "natural-looking" portfolio for now, but that said my tastes my change in the future.</p>

<p>So, yes, some of my points are more matters of taste than ethics. As I mentioned, I hadn't thought this through previously and was essentially brainstorming. Thanks for clarifying the difference!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Julie Heyward<br>

[going into Devil's advocate mode]</p>

<p>On photographing people without their consent, I think that *not* shooting is being rationalized as virtuous in order to suit the comfort level of the given photographer.</p>

<p>If we start with the (unavoidable) assumption that you were there -- you did see, you looked at something enough to think about photographing -- and yet did not to photograph, then consider more closely what you did not do. I would suggest that what you did not do was accept a burden. I would suggest that what you did was deny a relationship, a connection, a responsibility however small. You did not document your seeing and your knowing. You denied your shame; you denied your prurient interest; you denied your voyeurism; you denied your comparative evaluation; you denied whatever it was that made you *want to photograph.*</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Devil’s advocate mode or not, Julie, this strikes a chord in me.</p>

<p>Without going into a lengthy explanation, suffice it to say that I have recently been working on a paying project involving photographing Chicagoland residents who are from, or descendants of people from, the Balkan region. Rewind back to 2007 when I lived in San Diego. I had a slight interest in, but not a great knowledge of, the Balkans (sparked by my interest in the Balkan conflict of the early 1990’s). I was in downtown San Diego on an errand and happened to come across some kind of demonstration by what appeared to be foreign students from a Balkan country. I wanted to stop and photograph, but hurried on to my errand, thinking I would go back. Lost opportunity number 1. On my way back, I could see that the demonstration had broken up. But walking toward me were 3 or 4 students from the demonstration still carrying flags and signs. I hesitated and did not lift my camera to get any shots. Lost opportunity number 2. I do not think that there would have been any great objective significance to any photos I might have taken that day. But on a personal level, I regret having missed taking those shots to this day. More so than any other missed photo opportunity I can think of. In Julie’s “Devil advocate” sense, I violated my personal photographic ethics that day. (It’s a separate regret unrelated to this thread, but given how much I now know about Balkan history and current politics, I wish I had at least paid attention to what country the demonstrators were from.)</p>

<p>Not indulging in reality altering manipulation is a strong photographic ethic with me. I do not want to release a firestorm of debate over this. This is a personal preference and an admitted prejudice…but I should at least give an example of the kind of manipulation I mean.</p>

<p>Those who read Popular Photography are familiar with the “how to improve your photo” articles…where readers send in an image, or series of images, and Pop Photo editors explain how to make them “better”. Last year there was someone who took a series of shots of a bridge…all from the same perspective, but each shot had different people in them. They showed how to remove an “unwanted” individual on a cell phone, and rearrange the placement of some “desirable” runners for a “better” composition. I cannot do that. I have the PS skills to do it (and have done it in the past…but ended up discarding the altered images) but I just can’t. Not out of a “holier-than thou” position…it’s just something that seems to be hard-wired in me. I don’t care that my photos are not for journalistic or forensic purposes…I just do not like to do that. It doesn’t feel right to me. What others do is their business.</p>

<p>Homeless people. I am torn in this regard. Personally, I no longer take such photographs (I think I’ve taken 2 in my photographic “career”). While I might think disparagingly of someone who photographs homeless people and applauds themselves on either a.) being a gonzo-gritty street photographer or b.) showing “the plight of the homeless”, I also get tired of reading self-righteous posts by those who chastise such photographers.</p>

<p>Tons more to mine on this subject (and many tantalizing branches to explore) but that’s all I have time for. Good thread, Fred!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rethinking some of the things said so far, there seem to be really 2 points of ethics, which I feel are different.<br>

 

There is the ethics when you have the camera in your hand. Do you raise it to your eye, or leave it? A common decency, cultural values, differences in how one engages with people or not, shame - this is - to me- the level where your personal ethics speak. Steve's story on the Balkan students' protest.

</p><p></p><p>

Slightly different seem the ethics towards display. The use of a photo; Dick's post lists some very clear points on that. The intent of a photo may start to play a role here, but also its potential social impact. Decency and cultural values still play a role, but in a wider sense, and not personal. I've not been in the situation, but I could fully imagine that as a photojournalist one takes a picture which feels completely right in capturing something significant, but which should not be published because it could be explained wrong.<br>

</p><p>

Rethinking my first post after Julie's devil mode made me feel evil, this came to mind. Mainly because I don't want to be evil, of course :-) A proper distinction, or just needless putting labels on things?

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred,</strong> you said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"You end by saying, "You were there. You did see." So what?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it matters. It documents, it accepts, it commits to the encounter. I am eternally grateful to whoever it was that took the photographs at Abu Ghraib. I claim that it is more ethical that they -- the torturers themselves -- made those pictures than it would have been if they had not done so. They documented themselves; who they were/are and what they did. The making of, the existence of those pictures removes the option of denial.</p>

<p>This (the question of photographic ethics) is not about the doing of what you see, it's about documenting what has already been done; what is there in front of you.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>,</p>

<p>You're not evil. I promise. I, on the other hand ... (after all, I work for Mr. Devil).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I do life and photography. "Ethics" is a word. It's a favorite of Jesuits and other peripheral verbal-philosophic types, which may tell some of us something.</p>

<p>Everything I do is defined secondarily by ethics, primarily by "good habits" or "good practices" or "balanced action" that I learned from friends, parents, and mentors. In other words, I value my culture and upbringing. Note especially that I respect, sometimes admire, character flaws. fun-seeking, risk taking, and various other erratic behaviors.</p>

<p>Photographically, my nominally "ethical" concerns are rarely challenging. When I was working professionally I didn't like to work with models...because they seemed empty people. My Navajo friends might think them damaged animals, even "skin walkers", but I gave them more credit than that. I did, however, like to work with ballet dancers, actors, and business people because when I spoke with them and watched them do what they do, they seemed to be fully human.</p>

<p>My current work is concerned with various minor issues of drama, which to me has to do with tension and unresolved questions. Tension and unresolved questions exist in universes parallel to 'ethics," if one gives "ethics" credit for existing conceptually.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, while your point about Abu Ghraib could be persuasive (it's not to me), the greater point your devil is making still doesn't wash. There are, of course, many cases where it is ethical to take pictures. That doesn't mean there's a moral imperative to do so. The reason even your point about Abu Ghraib doesn't persuade me is that, while the existence of the pictures is considered by many a good to society, the intentions of the photographers were not necessarily good at all. This goes to my own point that what happens in the moment of capture does not always translate either interpretively or ethically to the pictures themselves. A good can come of a bad and a bad can come of a good (the old saw: the road to hell is paved with good intentions . . . well, bad intentions can also lead to good results). The ethical good may be in the photos but doesn't redound to the photographers. What we're talking about is the ethics of the photographer in his or her decision-making. By your logic, we'd have to take every picture we possibly could and never stop because we'd never know whether we might capture that one picture that could change the history of the world for the better. The Abu Ghraib photographers would have HAD to take those pictures not knowing any good would come from it on the chance (which turned out to be so) that the pictures would do some good. Since that certainly didn't seem to be on their minds at the time, we can be happy they took them without having expecting that they should have. I could see maybe hoping that someone present would have seen the potential good in taking photos and done so, but even then I'd really hesitate to burden them with the obligation to do so . . . because . . .</p>

<p>. . . An imperative TO REFRAIN from doing something bad is not equivalent to an imperative TO DO something good. Many systems of morality talk about the wrongness of actions that cause pain and the rightness of actions that promote happiness/general welfare. But they're not really two sides of a coin. That's why we have laws against rape that few rational people would question but there's a much more gray area centering around good samaritan laws, whereby we might enjoin people who witness a rape either to step in and stop it or to report it. There are often many significant reasons -- often risks to one's own safety or well being -- why one wouldn't or shouldn't have to accept a burden to do good. There are far fewer good reasons why we shouldn't have to avoid doing others harm.</p>

<p>There are laws against stealing but there are no laws saying you must give charity to those less fortunate. There's a reason for that. It's relatively easy to comply with the injunction against stealing (for most people). It would be an unbearable burden to be compelled to give to those less fortunate. You could never fulfill the latter, because there will always be someone less fortunate than you and, to fulfill it, you'd have to sacrifice way too much than should reasonably be expected. Insisting that people ethically photograph homeless people is not only impractical, it's not really morally compelling any more than insisting everyone give to those less fortunate.</p>

<p>Your claim that we would have a burden to photograph homeless people because it documents is unpersuasive. Documenting can be repetitive and can render itself useless when repeated with no new insight or information. There is plenty of documentation of homelessness. Much more of it would be simply redundant.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
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...