emre Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I usually take candid pictures, usually without asking for permission.Usually I have no problem, but once in a while I encounter a personwho vehemently objects, claiming that I am stealing their soul. Ithappened to me recently in the Caribbean island of <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bequia">Bequia</a>, when an oldwoman covered her face long before I had any idea of taking herpicture, and waved me away. In situations like this I simply passbecause I have no interest in taking pictures of people against theirwill, rather than because I sympathise with their beliefs. In fact, Ihave no idea what these people are thinking. Can someone explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbing Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Those cultures that retain a belief in 'sympathetic' magic (where something that was a part of the person, like nail clippings, hair, blood or even an article of clothing) could be used to cast a spell or curse. A part of the 'victim' is essential in creating a 'voodoo doll'. The 'voodoo' doll is an 'image' of the person and it isn't a far stretch for superstitious people to view a photographic image as having similar 'power' and be afraid. I think you are correct. It is good manners (and in some situations good sense) not to take pictures of people who object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted October 8, 2005 Author Share Posted October 8, 2005 I forgot to mention: would a painting of a person also be taboo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Take two pictures, give her one back, she's still got her soul, you have your picture. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 In some cultures any image (photo, painting, drawing) may cause distress because of religious beliefs. Best if you read up on a culture you are unfamiliar with before photographing them so as to not create ill will. Your present sensitivity suggests that you will take that to heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dglickstein Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Using a digital camera does NOT steal the subject's soul. Film cameras do. dG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 <i>The 'voodoo' doll is an 'image' of the person and it isn't a far stretch for superstitious people to view a photographic image as having similar 'power' and be afraid.</i> <p> One man's superstition is the next man's religion. Religion aside, the average 21-century American or European, despite many years of education, believes so much nonsense (old wives tales, urban legends, paranormal b.s. and other myths, fallacies and misconceptions) that third-world Voodoo believers probably deserve a little slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Just think what 3rd Workd Voodoo believers would think of US after listening to a couple of minutes of Rush Limbaugh on the Radio! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslan_ivo Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Actually, their idea that the camera can steal your soul is really no more weird then our idea that photographs can deprive the subject's intellectual property rights in her image. Heck, nowdays even building can't be photographed because they've been protected by trademarked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Perhaps you're seeing "tourist burnout" I know that in Mexico, I can see from the expressions on some people's faces that they are not excited about being the subject of somebody's photography, especially when that kind of stuff goes on all day to varying degrees. Often re-appearing and socializing before the photography starts or even offering a few pictures can make a HUGE difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I can only speak of East Africa and it was said that in the early days many of the people had this belief. It is quite understandable to be very wary of something that you have never seen before being pointed at you by a strange ( non-indigenous ) person. I suspect a larger part of the problem came about because of the insensitive behaviour of a large number of the photographers. I say insensitive but I have in fact seen examples of downright rude and arrogant behaviour. Ultimately tourists got round the problem by proffering a few shillings to the subject. This practise became widespread and expected and a way of making some money directly out of the tourists. Just one of the downsides of tourism ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 "Can someone explain?" Yes, like all superstitions, insecurities and prejudices (ignorance,) as you suggested, you just politely get on down the road cause they're not gonna listen to you anyways. Too me, it's not "what to understand" other then what you already understand cause it seems you already have an excellent handle on what's really going on. Don't get the shot, cause polite, as you wisely exhibited, in this sort of situation, ignorance aside, is more important then not. Even the best educated among us exhibit this sort of primordial behavior in various shapes and mannerisms. All one needs to do is turn on the daily evening news to verify this point and if this sort of behavior is widely rampant in well educated civilizations, then it would reasonably be normal to see this sort of behavior in the less educated or sophisticated venues. Wishing you well with your future photographic efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Keep in mind that lots of people don't like their pictures taken for whatever reason, having nothing to do with souls. And if you ask them why, you normally won't get a cohesive well-thought out response, you'll get some mumbled meaningless answer, that's really not any better than "it'll steal my soul!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Yeah, people are afraid that they look ridiculous in pictures. This is usually the case if the picture is randomly taken as the motion is stopped in a way which we don't normally see by naked eye. So having a picture taken may be bad PR. :-) However, a skillfully taken photo can enhance the subject. What might work is showing your work to your potential subjects and maybe they will change their mind (if they think your work is good). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray robertson Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The answer to the question is, No. Photography cannot steal a subject's soul. Those who believe it can are in error. Having said that, we still have to be mindful of peoples' feelings. Who amongst us is not free of error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinekr Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 That is pure nonsence but you've got to try standing in their shoes and try to understand them. People can't change themeselves. People change through generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray robertson Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 People can't change themeselves. People change through generations. Ah! That indeed is the problem. People can't change themselves. They are victims of their upbringing and are conditioned by their environment. Few of us can escape that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramiro Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 "Using a digital camera does NOT steal the subject's soul. Film cameras do." ...not only does digital steal your soul it digitizes it too! :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 "...People can't change themeselves..." wrong...actually, they are the ONLY ones who can change themselves. ...as far as photography stealing a person's soul....heh, yeah right...but I think someone above said the reason some people think that. The image of them is supposedly a part of them, so a little of them is taken....in this case the soul. Definitely a primitive mind's type thought. However, like you, I would not take the pic if they objected...the really good shot has already passed by anyhow, why bother!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray robertson Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 <i> wrong...actually, they are the ONLY ones who can change themselves. </i> Nice idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I didn't know that there was a soul to be stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I am stealing their soul Tell them you are just examining it to see if it's worthy of an afterlife. Just think you could become a famous Guru pockets full of money and the swooning willing girls. Anyway, where's this place you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_p Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 About 4-5 years ago I was taking a photo of the clean up of the Notting Hill Carnival in London when a Rasta man approached me accusing me of taking his photo. I very politely informed him that I wasn't photographing him but the clean up efforts. He couldn't believe I was taking pictures of dump trucks. Despite my best efforts to keep things calm, things got ugly when he began grabbing at my camera, demanding the film. There was no way I was going to sacrifice a roll of film for him, heck I didn't even know if he was in the photo. He started getting very aggressive and there was lots of pushing and shoving. I was on the edge of throwing the first blow to avoid having to throw the second. But my girlfriend was with me so I thought better of it and we went to the nearest bar where the bouncers were nice enough to defuse the situation by not allowing him in. Bob Marley he was not. It was a long time before I got the guts up to take a candid street portrait. Just goes to show it doesn't only happen in places like the Caribbean and it can happen when the person isn't even your intended subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mubeen_mughal Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Just wondering, is there a soul, or spirit, if you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Well I don't agree with voodoo-schmoodoo stuff but when you stop and consider the power of the camera to record aspects of a persons personality there may be a grain (no pun intended) of truth. For example while shooting some street photography along Melrose Ave. in LA I watched as a tour bus pulled to the curb and out poured a bunch of Asian tourists. As I scanned the crowd looking for interesting faces to shoot I zeroed in on a pair of 20ish women talking and laughing as they stepped off the bus. I ran ahead about a block in the direction they were walking. As I watched them come up the street I knew I had a winning shot. One woman was tall, very pretty with tight designer clothing and a designer handbag. Her friend was plain and dressed rather dowdy (is this still a word I wonder?). As they approached I wondered if these two opposites were longtime friends or if they just met. So when they came up to where I was waiting I asked them if they would stand for a second for a picture. Pretty Girl was more then willing but she had to encourage Plain Girl to go along which she did after a couple seconds of thought. I took the shot unposed, thanked them, and we went out seperate ways. The resulting print is just what I would have expected: Pretty Girl standing off to the side of the frame with her chest thrust out and her designer bag in front of her and a somewhat sultry look on her face. Plain Girl in front with a more casual relaxed pose and a warm honest smile. So did I take their souls? Of course not but who these young women are came shinning through the photograph. Of course I was there so I'm not sure if others who have seen this photograph can see this. Whatever the case this is what photography (for me anyways) is all about: Not just recording a persons likeness, but capturing part of who they are which some people may consider to be a part of their soul. Just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now