Have You Ever Felt You Crossed a Line?

[spanky]

By that I mean have you ever felt that you were invasive or exploitive in your

street shooting? I understand that we all have our own views of what it

acceptable and what is not. It's one thing to say that anything in public is

fair game and this might be true in the legal sense but what about moral side

of it all? Have you ever taken a shot or series of shots that you later

regretted?

 

I never did until last weekend when I took the first image below. This was a

young couple who was having an argument. I shot about six or seven frames

(even stopping to load another roll) before they got up and left. So far this

is the only print I've had time to make. They were fighting about if they

should stay or go. At one point the boy got up and left and the girl looked

about ready to cry. Normally when I'm shooting my mind kind of goes blank and

all I see and hear are my subjects. Yet seeing this girl about to cry stopped

my in my tracks and I felt so bad for her (and for her boyfriend) that I felt

like saying something but I had no idea what. So I kept shooting when the boy

came back and then they got up and left.

 

Driving home that day I replayed the senerio in my mind and for the first time

since I've been shooting in public I felt that I had breeched some moral code.

 

I discussed this with a older friend who is an accomplished photographer

himself. I told him that since I have no idea why I do street photography, the

whole thing seems pointless and that being the case I felt that there was

something wrong with recording another persons misery even if it was just a

couple of teenagers having a fight. We were all teenagers at one point and we

can laugh now about how important some things were to us back then but during

those years such things were important to us. Maybe I wouldn't have felt this

way if I had an actual reason to be sitting there in front of them snapping

away.

 

My friend went on to explain that it was good I felt this way since it showed

integrity and that most photographers grapple with this issue from time to

time and I would now be better prepared for it should the issue come up again.

 

This also made me think about the second image below, taken a year or two ago

under similar conditions. I didn't feel anything other then elated that I had

been able to pull off shooting a number of frames at close range.

 

So I'd like to read about your own experiences with this and how you've sorted

through it.

Thanks, Marc<div></div>

[spanky]

<div></div>

[john_elder1]

No problem with shooting this subject matter. Misery is just as important as happiness, maybe more so. However, I think twice before shooting the handicapped or homeless; I ask myself why am I shooting this shot? If I have a good reason I shoot.Otherwise, I don't. More and more I pass up the shot. Oddly enough, the situation I remember the most was a nude desperate woman wrapped in clear plastic just as it started to snow in NYC. NOBODY paid any attention to her. I was with my wife which was unusual, becuase I spend most of my time in NYC shooting by myself. I really regret not helping her and I also regret not shooting the situation.

[jeffrey_blake_adams]

Photographs of pain and tragedy have changed the world. Shining a light on such has made the ones causing the problem think twice. Too bad you can't give the kids one of those photos. Jeffrey

[michael j hoffman]

I once photographed a drunk, handicapped man who was passed out sleeping. He was asleep, mouth hung open, and sitting up against the locked door of a church. There were two cross shaped windows above his head in the double doors. The doors were the same crimson shade as his t-shirt. One of his shoes had an orthotic lift. There was a walker about three feet away from him, and a bottle with the last swallow of spirits running down the sidewalk.

 

After working and printing the digital file, I realized that the image had taken more from the unfortunate, drunk man than I could envision it offering to anyone else. My policy of "shoot now, ask questions later" ended as my Epson 2200 spit out the print. Now I only photograph individuals who have some reasonable opportunity to object, to capitulate or to choose to ignore me altogether.

 

As a photograph, the image is technically excellent. With the moral compass applied it clearly goes against my overall nature. Though I will never use this image for any purpose, other than as a reminder to myself as to where to draw the line, it is perhaps the most important image I've made so far.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[arond a.]

I'll second Michael's comment. Even if people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, they still deserve dignity. They may not exercise their right to dignity themselves, but that doesn't mean you can't help them out in that department. Arguing couples, at least to me, do seem like fair game. Some couples argue a lot. Why should this be ignored? Not every argument is necessarily a dramatic tragedy that we should turn our eyes away from. Now, a legless old grandma throwing up in the gutter, for example, that's where I would draw the line. (James Kim might disagree.) As for your picture, I think it's not half bad. The body language you can read like a book. Don't beat yourself up. Leave that to the boyfriend of the next arguing couple you photograph.

[john_elder1]

To James Kim: diagree with you about other peoples kids. See Helen Levitt's work, mostly children and HCB photographed many kids.

[cenelsonfoto]

I don't have a personal line. I answer only to the muse. If that sounds arrogant or flip, pretentious, I do not mean it to. I just don't see photography as a morality/ethics test for me to pass or fail.

[spanky]

Thanks for the replies folks. It's not that I object to the subject matter I shot, I was just not expecting the reaction in me I got from doing so. I certainly will not shy away from arguing couples or most other senerios for that matter it's just that, well, maybe this was a particular day where I was feeling extra sensitive maybe. I've had a rather rough year so far so maybe as my emotions spin around I'm bound to have unfamiliar reactions to some things. For the first part of the year I wanted nothing to do with photography and it took a real effort to hit the streets. Now all I want to do is photograph everything I see. Besides, what could be better then to be able to photograph something that has a strong emotional effect on you even though it may not surface until after the event?

[michael_reese1]

Would not do porno type stuff as it's all the same boring crass stuff. Anyway who's line are we talking about? Not someone who wants to stuff their own little moral niceties down someone else's throat. I usually find that type are either weirdos or some sort of religious zealots.

[bruno]

Whatever the law allows to shoot is, for me, also moral. There also some other things that the law disallows, but I shoot them anyway. Oh, I forgot to tell that I had my morals surgically removed some years ago.

[cenelsonfoto]

Bruno, your Cuba shots are some of the best I've seen from you. Just a quick hello and thank you for those.

[kent_tolley2]

If it's a stranger on the street I'm photographing I wouldn't get my picture without their contribution, whether they know they're contributing or not. So I feel an obligation to show them in a good light. I'm aware I am taking something even if only their image and I want them to feel blessed by me and not ripped off. <BR><BR>

On the other hand, if it were someone I disliked like a sleazy politician, a bully, or someone mocking another I would enjoy showing that. I love Eisenstadt's picture of Goebbles, surprised and malevolent, tightly grabbing the arms of his chair while this brave little Jew just walks up and snaps his picture. Eisenstadt stepped over a line but the picture is truthful. People hide their darker nature and the sleazy politician or the bully cop usually wears a benevolent face so you have to be fast.<BR><BR>

 

I'm okay with the shot if it shows the truth about the subject. If that truth is meaningful to others then it's a good shot.

[v_s8]

crossing these lines makes for best photography & lenghty lawsuits. diluting them gets you blurry pictures & hangover. sticking to them makes top pages & causes permanent impotence. drawing these lines makes for a tortured life and a huge collection of dusty M-bodies in your closet.

[chris_waller]

Micheal (Hoffman),

 

I once took a picture almost identical to the one you describe. I printed it up and then tore up the print. It diminished the subject, who was already pretty abject, and otherwise achieved nothing. The only good thing to come out of it was that I declared never again to take photographs that belittle people in any way.

[kent_tolley2]

Whatever. Your vigilance is awesome.

[kent_tolley2]

Jeff can remove the image if needed. Here is a link. <BR>

<A HREF="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9911/icon02.htm">Goebbles by Eisenstaedt</A>--

[bruno]

BTW, thanks for your appreciation.

[bruno]

I drive every day in a one way road (in the opposite direction) with my motor scooter because it saves me a lots of time. Is this against photo.net rules?

 

If somebody takes a photo of me doing something illegal, does this cross a line? Or maybe are you afraid that I'll come to punch you? If I take a pic of someone doing something illegal and post it on photo.net does this break any rule?

 

And if I take a pic of Kent posting something he shouldn't do on photo.net and post the pic of Kent with the copied picture on photo.net, does this break a rule?

[cenelsonfoto]

Bruno, the kudos are well-deserved. It was a fine set. I'm champing at the bit to go to Cuba one of these blue-moons.

[david j.lee]

looks like this conversation have been sanitized for our protection. at least my comment

was deleted. did i offend mr.goebbels in any way...?

[sarahunderhill]

Take the picture.

 

Photos of homeless-sleeping is a no-no.

[Landrum Kelly]

"Have you ever taken a shot or series of shots that you later regretted? . . . It's not that I object to the subject matter I shot, I was just not expecting the reaction in me I got from doing so." --Marc Todd

 

What about posting? Does it bother you that you posted the picture? I must be missing something here. I think that, if I regretted taking a picture, I would feel even worse about posting it.

 

--Lannie

[spanky]

It's not that I regret taking the pictures, I no longer feel that way it's just the point that my photographs have yet to have a reason for being. I think maybe my point was lost somewhere. I think I speak for most of us that I'm not being paid to take these pictures, nor am I looking at putting a book or an exhibit together. Some of you out there may think differently and that's ok but for me I want nothing to do with any of that. So what's in it for me? Enjoyment? Sure I enjoy getting out there and photographing the ever elusive unguarded moment. Yet this does not mean I enjoy witnessing and recording other people in turmoil even something light like this. Like I mentioned, it's easy to say "Well they're just kids" but we all remember what being like that is. So I don't regret the photographs I took of them, I just regret that for the time being there doesn't seem to be a point to it. Maybe that's as it should be. I hate to sound corny but sometimes it's really about the journey and not the destination.

[Landrum Kelly]

I understand, Marc. I don't have many shots that I regret taking, but there have certainly been plenty that I never took because I really didn't want to be clearly intrusive. If we're doing this for fun, then it ought to be fun--and it is hard to have fun when one feels that one is intruding into another person's space, whether it is into their misery or into their joy.

 

--Lannie