To photog or not to photog...

[ray .]

"What we have here is a failure to comm-U-ni-cate."

 

Sorry OT but that was one damn great flick.

[constance_cook]

Gary:

 

I have a grip. I have never lost my grip. I will never lose my grip. I don't need advice from you about grip.

 

Conni

[stephen_martin2]

I would like to restate my last post and add a little more.

 

"I think it is un-ethical for a PJ to aggrivate the sitiuation. this is not getting the true story when the people start focusing thier attiention on you as the photographer. I think the PJ should step back until the attention is focused back onto the story they are thier covering."

 

you know these images that where created because a photographer agrevated the people involved will some day be used for historical purposes. I think we have an obligation to state the context that these images where taken under. if the photographer is mocking the protester to get them mad and he/she takes the photo "The Money Shot" the photographer has an ethical duty to point out that he/she was mocking the protesters. when a photographer does this they become the story and not just achivist for history. the PJ that are out there are our national achivist.

 

for the sake of our nation tell the truth with your images. dont create something that wasnt there until you as a photographer came along.

 

 

I would like to know what you think about the ethics part of telling the truth with an image.

[erin.e]

You still have the means to create change for a while, the second amendment to the US Constitution "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" Maybe what is happening in Iraq now is in your future America, civil war again.

[roger krueger]

Do I think she should be surprised at what happened to her? No, but that doesn't make it

right.

 

The "other side" of the scooter-cop story shows how vitally important to national security

it is to be sure all film and digital images from protests are destroyed if possible.

 

It would seem a wi-fi webcam and a buddy with a laptop a safe distance away is a better

weapon than an SLR for this kind of situation. How long before the cops have the sense to

start bringing jammers to these kind of events?

[beeman458]

Moderator.

 

Are you there? Is this a political forum or a photography forum?

[absinthe]

Let me reiterate... I had no problem being photographed and even wanted to be. My issue isn't with being photographed personally, but rather a personal quandary over seeing the reaction of two kids who didn't want to be who were scared and stood behind me. I concede that it is necessary to photograph such things and one should go in knowing one will be photographed (even though I doubt very much if those two kids banked on being arrested), however, I think I would personally skip the opportunity if I was witness as a photographer. I think I would choose to photograph the peripheral stuff instead, the police, the crowd, and leave the rest to actual press. Its a good compromise for me. Everyone has their line & mine just moved a little because of what happened. <p>

For the rest...

<br> As far as those of you who think that what happened to me & many others is OK, I really feel sorry for you. Its not OK, it was ILLEGAL in many ways. And for those of you who live in NY, yes, your tax dollars will be going towards the multiple class action lawsuits. Think about that next time you vote in someone who is willing to break the law to look good. NYC behaving like pre-Gorbachev USSR isn't a NYC I care for too much.

[bacsa]

No, no:) this is just the post-Gorbachov USSR. The pre one is still to come. <p> I don't think Heather was asking about the stupid politics here. The following sentences had the question mark in her post:<br> "18?" - We can't answer that.<br> "funny how they (photographers)appear out of thin air! Do we really do that?" - There's a large number of threads on the people and street photography forum discussing how to appear out of thin air, take the pic and disappear. I guess it's possible, yes.<br> " I guess I am just curious as to what you would do & why?" - I would probably not ask if it's ok, in this case, i'd just take the pics if I already had the guts to be around... but, in case of being asked not to take pictures, I would stop doing it. For me, it has nothing to do with law and rights in public and other blah blah, for me the right of asking not to be photographed is one of the differences between people and animals.<br> On the other hand, teenagers do lots of stupid things and then get scared, that's the way they can learn. (I mean the being photographed when arrested part, not the protesting part.) You shouldn't worry too much about that. It's more important to get out from the jail in good health and with an unaltered shape. <p> On arresting photographers during a protest (a question without the question mark): nothing new for me. Not personally - i was too young - but my sister was locked up when about 19, (first year univ. student,) for about 48 hours. It was quite a big protest. Resulting in the end of communism (more or less). Some of the guys had a camera - most of them fully recovered their sight after a few days but they have never seen their camera back. I hope you guys over the sea won't ever get this far.

[________1]

csab': just for the record, what country are you speaking of?

[will_perlis]

"Wow Ray, pretty harsh..."

 

{sigh} I guess there's a need for a satirical hyperbole icon.

[maria_s.]

I am not surprised at the prevailing 'it's your fault' outcome you got -- you should have never brought these issues up for discussion here, Heather. After the response to my protest shots I knew right away I had hit the most conservative audience on photo.net. And most of them have no idea what you are talking about because they get their news from the Fox News Channel and never switch to any other station (right, like that would help) or bother to think on their own. So, are you out of your mind or are you just up for a little provocation here?

 

Returning to your original question -- as I told you in my e-mail, it was my first time covering protests of that magnitude and I've chosen not to publish several photos for ethical reasons -- yes, I would stop shooting if anyone clearly asked me not to photograph. What I hold against you, is that you actually haven't taken any photographs.

[maria_s.]

I just remembered that many of these who say you should have not gone out with your camera have had vehemently defended their rights to shoot on the street in any and all single thread posted on a Leica or a Street forum. I guess, sometimes the street is a public space and sometimes it isn't, depending on which party are you a member of and how little photo credentials in the area you have. I am too disgusted to even start puking. On the other hand, what do I care about wannabebutitneverworkedoutsoiwillputeveryonedown photographers?

[Brad_]

<I>After the response to my protest shots I knew right away I had hit the most

conservative audience on photo.net. </I><P>

 

I think you'd be shocked to find out that most here, including myself, lean way liberal.

Your confusing conservatism with pragmatism and are assuming that thought and

positions on various issues must align to a single political ideology. <P>

[Brad_]

<I>I just remembered that many of these who say you should have not gone out with your

camera have had vehemently defended their rights to shoot on the street...</I><P>

 

Huh? Who's that? I got the feeling most carried the position that as this was a news event,

there are no photographs off-bounds.

[maria_s.]

stop that Brad, I can't puke anymore.

[Brad_]

Whatever Maria - you're makin no sense...

[maria_s.]

now i can puke.

[lucas_griego]

Heather interesting thread.

All the detainment, plasti-cuff etc. comes with the territory. For all that trouble you should have been there with a camera. As for the issues of being arrested, detained, etc. - that is part and parcel with protests. It's the chance you take - and that includes being put in the limelight of the media.

 

Having shot many protests myself I have been asked/yelled at/ordered not to keep shooting. LOL. Yeah right. It's public space and fair game - I've got an assignment to complete. If you don't like it. Don't go. If you do and you end up on the raw end - well - that sometimes happens so deal with it. A photographer has every right to be there shooting and every right to ignore your requests to stop.

[Brad_]

<I>NYC behaving like pre-Gorbachev USSR isn't a NYC I care for too much.</I><P>

 

OK, I'll bite. How many 100,000 person anti-government protest demonstrations were

allowed under stalin/ malenkov/kruschev/brezhnev/andropov/chernenko, anyway?<P>

 

Careful Lucas, you're going to make Maria puke again...

[jtdnyc]

I am struck by the tacit assumption behind some posts that First Amendment rights are enjoyed only by anti-Republican protesters.

 

Republicans, too, have First Amendment rights, which they came to New York to exercise, in the form of a lawful and peaceful political convention. Ominously, a number of protest groups announced that their goal was not simply to "protest" against the Republicans, but to disrupt the convention and interfere with the right of the Republicans to convene.

 

In light of this specific and credible threat, the NYPD did a magnificent job of balancing the rights of the Republicans and the law-abiding protesters. The convention went off without a hitch, and a truly massive -- but peaceful -- anti-Republican demonstration snaked down Broadway for hours on the Sunday before the convention, during which there was little trouble and few arrests were made.

 

On subsequent days, hundreds of thousands of protesters continuted to demonstrate. Ninety-nine percent were not arrested. About one percent -- much less than one percent, if you believe the organizers' figures as to the total number of protesters -- was arrested. Of that one percent, some, apparently including Heather, may have been innocent bystanders or lawful protesters who were, unfortunately, "swept up."

 

Of course, if you are one of those swept up, it is understandable that your focus should be on your own inconvenience rather than on the bigger picture. At times, I guess we all feel we are the center of the universe. And if you were cuffed too tightly, I do feel sorry for you; that can really hurt. But -- and I'll try to say this gently -- how much savvy does it take to recognize where and when trouble is about to break out and to move away before the police are obliged to take action?

 

I live within walking distance of Madison Square Garden and I walked near the convention site every day it was in session, several times with a camera. The police appeared alert but were always courteous. The only trouble I witnessed came on Tuesday night, when a band of troublemakers started a fire on Madison Avenue, not far from the restaurant I was en route to. I was thankful that the police were there to lock them up. If I had been swept up, sure, I would have been annoyed, but mostly at myself for letting my curiosity get the better of me and walking toward the trouble instead of away from it.

 

To answer the specific question Heather raised: I know I would continue to photograph teenagers who were just arrested, because I have done so in the past, even when the police unlawfully told me to stop. But whether you should keep photographing is a personal question that no one else can answer for you.

[ray .]

Maria = pure bitch.

 

How's that for a critique?

[stephen_martin2]

Lucas did you read my last post? what do you think about what I said?

[travis1]

I will shoot it and expect to be similarly shot. That's the way it is.

[stephen_martin2]

what about becoming part of the story. is this the objective? or is it to record the actual event?

[leslie_cheung]

There goes the female population of the forum...thanx alot ray.