Is my work ethical?

[karthick_ganapathy]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p> I am an amateur photographer. Oflate i have been more attracted towards street candid and people photography...Most of my shots are shot with a telephoto lens unaware by the subject. I shoot unaware as I feel I cant capture the real moment if the person get to know I am capturing them and result in the person being camera cautious.<br>

here is a comment made by a friend of mine after looking at my pics<br>

"Well i would say that you should not capture people unaware, its like stealing moments. Capturing people unawares is against the very ethics of street/documentary photography. I am telling you since I do interact with a lot of documentary photographers, both local and ones on a world stage. Hope you get my point. "<br>

Please clarify if I am doing the right thing? or am I being unethical? I am sure I would not want my pics to be floated around in the internet with some jokes around but in none of the pics i have made a joke and used their image for wrong reasons..<br>

I knwo its easy to spot these shots whoever has a telephoto lens and the real challenge is capturing such candid shots in the people's space with their knowledge..I am just developing my skills and I seek ppl's permission wherever i could.<br>

here is the link to my pics - http://flickriver.com/photos/gk-photography/sets/72157619554477128/<br>

Many thanks,<br>

GK</p>

 

[podstawek]

<p>Karthick,</p>

<p>Certain ethical standards are universally accepted, but in the end all boils down to individual cases, and to relations between people.</p>

<p>Do you feel in any way wrong when photographing people as you do? If yes, then stop doing this.</p>

<p>I believe that you do not do any harm to people you photograph. I also would not mind if you photographed me, unless I was doing something I would be ashamed of, or unless I was expressing a strong and uncontrolled emotion. I don't think any of the people in your photographs are in such situation.</p>

<p>So, if <em>I</em> was on any side of the camera -- the photographer or the subject -- I would say: continue shooting. However, bear in mind that some people are sensitive to being photographed, and some would mind finding themselves in publicly available imagery. There may be various reasons to that, including personal, cultural, religious. They may be wrong, may be oversensitive, may sound stupid to you, but you should respect their view.</p>

<p>Therefore, I prefer situations when my subjects know they are being photographed. They have a chance to react then. If they give me the slightest hint, even with their face expression, that they do not feel comfortable, I don't take the picture or don't use the picture I've taken. I would probably not even like that picture anyway.</p>

<p>This is a delicate subject and there is no general answer to your question. There is nothing ethical or non-ethical about taking pictures of strangers; ethics is about relations between individual people.</p>

<p>In practice, I would do these: shoot with a shorter lens and make people aware that you are shooting. Where possible, simply ask them if you can take the picture. This is more difficult, and requires you to be braver, but you can be sure that you will be more satisfied. Regardless of whether they agree or not to you taking pictures. Also, suddenly you will realize that in the new relations you have established, even if momentary, taking a picture has become only a side-effect of something much more important.</p>

[Brad_]

As you are talking about ethics rather than law, it's a personal decision. And as a result, no one can tell you how to

approach street photography or how you should feel about it. It's no more complicated than that.

[spanky]

<p>As stated above, it's only unethical if you feel it is. Others may take a different view such as you friend but if you want to create work that is true to you then what other people say or think should have no influence on you at all. SP is a little more difficult for such reasons then taking landscapes for instance. One really must really want to do this if they are to be able to continue and create work that is meanginful to them. Most of the issues I've been reading about on this forum relate to social conditioning one may have had growing up and/or the psychological make up of the person such as accute shyness. If one wants to shoot candids in the street (Myself, I shoot both candid as well as asking people beforehand) then they simply have to wrestle with these until they are not issues anymore. The best way to do this is to simply keep shooting.</p>

[dele_omotosho]

<p>I hate people loosing the moment I really want to capture after telling them I want to capture them; they get very (though unconsciously) camera-ready and I loose the shot.<br>

I hardly shoot with telephoto and with the short lens, I try and conceal it but somehow people know I have a camera (they not sure if I'm shooting ore not). I'm often asked, did you just take a photo, depending on the case I just say "sorry" and move on. Most usually end there -- I don't see anything unethical about it.<br>

And again as many correctly said, it depends on your approach.</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>"I am sure I would not want my pics to be floated around in the internet with some jokes around but in none of the pics i have made a joke and used their image for wrong reasons.."</p>

<p>I looked at all the images at the link you provided, and while considering the above quote from your post, I make the following observations:</p>

<p>I don't see anything wrong with the images themselves...but...in my opinion, the text you inserted in or under some of those images could imply a certain (possibly incorrect) context that may be offensive to the subject(s) of the photo.</p>

<p>In light of your stated ethical concerns, a simple "ethical test" for me would be this:</p>

<p>would I take those images, complete with the added text, introduce myself to the subject(s), in person, face-to-face, and give them a printed copy of the photo?</p>

<p>If the answer is "No", then, I would not post the image on the internet.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Karthick,<br /> I agree with Jay's comments. The pictures themselves are interesting, it's your comments that put an edge to them. I think, what sounds like guilt from you stems from putting your words into <strong>their</strong> actions." You are placing values (sometimes, unkindly and very possibly incorrectly) onto the actions and feelings of others. That's not fair.<br /> <br /> Why is the woman at the store window "dangerous"? Would she agree? What about "Charlie's Angels"? A very unfortunate choice of title, considering the recent death of Farrah Fawcett. And what does Charlie's Angels have to do with these women? How do you know how the father feels in "A father's plight"? It's the words that hurt.<br /> <br /> The pictures should stand for themselves and they do. Leave out the the smart*ss commentary. You'll feel better and viewers will enjoy your pictures<br /> Howard</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>You're braver than me if you're prepared to take candid pictures of children in the UK!!</p>

[karthick_ganapathy]

<p>Thanks a lot for all your ideas and opinions..that was helpful analysing and how should i approach from here after..Yeah the caption could be of vary as how ppl see it and some of them could be offensive to ppl...no where i would have mentioned with an intention of hurting others sentiment from my heart..when i say which is most dangerous women or tobacco..I in no sense mean that girl is dangerous but what i am trying to say is that both are tempting and the temptation few have for girls could end up dangerous when it exceeds the boundaries...about the charles angels - i saw the three old women curiously awaiting something for a long time..since they are being three i though charles angels would be ideal and wanting to go back to those enthusiastic days..i am a very ignorant about charles angels..i have not even seen the movie..i just know that there was movie in 2000 which featured three young women investigators..only now i googled to know it's been there from 1976..that is only my ignorance... I can rectify these things in future.<br>

Howard, with due respect I am not entirely sure what is the * in your smart*ss stands for..If it was of any abusive language I think you can make comments in a better fashion in a better language..Thanks a lot.</p>

[karthick_ganapathy]

<p>Mark - I dont take pics of kids unaware as I know the sensitiivity here in this country..I 100% make sure I seek permission of the parents before i take pics of kids..if not while taking pic after taking ill let them know that i took the pic..if they ask me to delete..I say sorry and delete it..</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you have to ask, the answer is probably yes. but it's entirely a subjective thing. street photography works best when there's a sense of engagement witht he subject, but i suppose some of it is also the thrill of voyeurism to a certain degree. your solution could be to get closer, make eye contact with people, and see how they react to the camera. often i've found that perfect strangers are amenable to having their picture taken, but you--as the photographer--must make them comfortable with what you are doing. it helps to have a business card so you can email them pics.</p>

<p>here's a shot from this past weekend:</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and here's a telephoto shot from the balcony of a venue which is more, er, voyeuristic in nature:</p><div></div>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>With due respect, Howard gave you good advice, smartass or not.<br>

Does the phrase <em>bearing false witness</em> say it "in a better fashion in a better language?"</p>

 

[karthick_ganapathy]

<p>my apologies if i misjudged the statement..</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Karthick,<br>

Were you offended by what I said? I actually thought twice about putting in "smart*ss". I thought "that could be offensive, I should take it out" and then "Wouldn't it make my point?" So I left it in.<br>

Quod est demonstrandum.<br>

I've just taken a second look at your photos - the photos say it all. The titles are unnecessary. Let's take "Black and white-redefined". It's a neat picture because of the juxtaposition. It's nice to get there slowly and let it rattle around. We don't need to be told. We don't want to be told. Besides, maybe we'll have our own interpretation?<br>

So, none of your pictures are exploitative, you don't intend to be exploitative, you don't need to be exploitative, so leave the commentary out and you will feel better because there will be no unintentional misunderstanding.<br>

Check out the many W/NW threads and forum (b+w - redefined would have been perfect for the juxtaposed thread). The threads in other forums have comments but none comment on the people, just circumstances.<br>

I will look forward to to seeing more of your work, it's quite interesting.<br>

Howard</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>its like stealing moments. Capturing people unawares is against the very ethics of street/documentary photography.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

How can someone steal a moment? You're recording it, not taking it away. Capturing people unaware against ethics of street photography? Capturing people in such a way IS street photography. If taking a picture of someone without announcing that the picture is about to be taken were required, photographic journalism as we know it would collapse. The fact that you are taking a picture for art instead of a newspaper or somthing is immaterial.</p>

<p>Having said that, it is well known that there is so often great offence when sonmeone realizes their picture has secretly been taken by a stranger for no apparent reason except their own pleasure. This suggests there are sensitivities and mores easily violated by so called street photography. Its hard to describe in set terms but the more people, in general, will take offense at having their likeness captured for someone else's fun, in a given situation, the less ethical it will be seen.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p><em>'Well i would say that you should not capture people unaware, its like stealing moments. Capturing people unawares is against the very ethics of street/documentary photography. I am telling you since I do interact with a lot of documentary photographers, both local and ones on a world stage.'</em><br /><em></em><br />I think is a bit strange and I'd like to know how they came to that conclusion, and which 'global' photographers they are talking about. Most of the great street photographers shoot/have shot candidly. Personally I agree that if you pose the photo, it's going to be less effective. I just find the comment about the 'ethics' being wrong really strange, as street photography has a long history of candid shooting. Although some shots are definitely posed.</p>

<p>Documentary may be very different, in that you might be documenting a place where people need to know what you're doing. You still don't have to pose individual shots.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It's the captions. They're editorializing. The pictures are stronger without them. Are you making the captions with the frank fact-collecting that would match the photos? You're free to do what you want, but when you make a comment about people in the photos, and the readers don't necessarily agree with the comments, then it becomes easier to dismiss the photos altogether. </p>

<p>I don't know how else to tell you this, but as I was reading a long line of these photos and captions, I felt like I was listening to young or middle aged girls at a coffee klatch. It's not bad, but a quick cruise through some blogs would appease that sort of shortage. </p>

<p>If I had to identify an ethical problem with the photos, most of them would go back to editorializing in the captions.</p>

<p>Have a look at this photo. I made this photo at a political rally; I didn't agree with most of the opinions expressed, but people were doing this, so I went there and made some photos. When I got there, I walked up to this guy and made his picture. Now, have a good look at him. This is an otherwise ordinary grown man, standing there barechested, in a bathrobe, with a baseball cap, holding up a cardboard sign showing his political views. The cardboard sign is made from oatmeal creme pie boxes, they're cookies. Now, he probably knows full well that he's putting on an act, dressing up as a Libertarian Jesus. He's got a huge smile on his face. He probably knows there's some clowning for attention getting there; meanwhile, he probably deserves the same respect for his personal political views that everyone else in the community deserves. </p>

<p>Now, I made his picture. Would it be right for me to make fun of him with captions? Maybe he'd care; maybe he wouldn't care; maybe we'd argue; maybe we'd blow it off and have a beer. I made his photo. I wouldn't want to editorialize too much with the captions.</p><div></div>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Don't worry about the fly being open on the bathrobe. Jesus is also wearing pants. ". . . they got themselves britches."</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>"Capturing people unawares is against the very ethics of street/documentary photography. I am telling you since I do interact with a lot of documentary photographers, both local and ones on a world stage."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Take a look through some of the pictures featured on <a href="http://www.worldpressphoto.org/">World Press Photo</a> and <a href="http://www.poy.org/66/winners.html">Pictures of the Year International</a> . Then come back and tell us the name of your "friend" who has the audacity to call world class documentary photography "unethical." Or you can send him this personal message from me: The world stage is a lot bigger than Podunk Hollow.</p>

[katzpjs]

<p>Karthick,<br>

I would never ask a person if I could be allowed to photograph them. I use a 300mm lens and I always look for the candid views to capture because I am usually looking to show person(s) in their natural interactions with the scene I am viewing, and I don't want the person(s) to be reacting to my camera. On occasions I have been noticed while I am setting up for the photograph and that will provide a different, and sometimes better image. However, I really prefer candid shots and will usually delete any I have taken when I have been sighted during the shooting.<br>

I say, "Keep doing what you are doing as long as you are following your own ethical values."</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>looking at your flicker set, karthick, i think the ethical problem isnt with your photos per se but with your captions. to be frank, you over-editorialize, projecting your own interpretations onto these pics, to the point of creating a context which is pure imagination (i.e. surveillance photo) and somewhat of a stretch.</p>

<p>this is just a suggestion, but you may want to choose just a simple title--'strawberry girl' works as it faithfully describes the picture--and let the viewer come up with any additional interpretations on their own, if any. leave the snarky captions to The Onion and Maxim, those folks are professionals.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>My personal view after looking at the link is most of it is fine. Don't photographers also add their interpretation to the capture? We capture what we see, not a truth.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>I'm in the camp that says the captions rub me the wrong way. I prefer to let people see what they like in the photo.</p>

<p><em>'Don't photographers also add their interpretation to the capture?'</em><br /><em></em><br />To me, the capture <em>is </em>the interpretation, and I don't like captions telling me what I should think about the content. I was always a fan of the Cartier-Bresson (and others') style that just names the place - gives a context, then lets the photo do the rest.</p>

<p>But they're your photos...</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>OP should read "On Photography" by Susan Sontag RIP. With your internal conflict, you will probably throw your camera away after that, but you'll know a lot more about issues in phtography and image making.</p>

<p>One thing I don't understand is, why taking candids is considered by some to be more interesting moment than actually capturing the moment a connection is made with someone? Connecting on the street is such a wonderful aspect of life and photography, so why shy away from it? I do both, candids and otherwise. It's all good. Just know and come to terms with the fact that when you try not to be seen taking someones photos, you are being a voyeur in every sense of the word. Many here are very good at taking fresh, vital photos of people they actually engage on the street.</p>