Some shots are best left unmade

[tom h.]

I think what sets truly great artists apart is utter fearlessness

when it comes to what they do. They are voracious in their output

and don't care (and I mean REALLY don't care) about possible

failure, what people think, how it will turn out, etc. etc. And I don't

just mean Leica-taken-people-pictures, either. This applies to

peppers, nudes, seascapes, whatever it is before your lens(or

easel, or typewriter, or piano, etc). I've hesitated in front of

scenes I knew would have made a memorable photo, just for a

heartbeat, and as I'm sure we've all experienced-it's gone.

Forever. I can't imagine Capa, or Doisneau, or Lartigue, or Bravo

ever hesitating- not for a second. BVA, don't you regret at all not

raising that camera?

[chip l.]

Maybe BVA is feeling some regret that the shutter was not snapped. I know that I am better at the "visual" word than the written word; hence I use a camera. Either way the "image" was nice....

 

 

Chip

[alfie wang]

Shoot what you like as long as you maintain personal conscience.

[jackflesher]

Let's shut off the bold </b> if possible.

[jackflesher]

Okay. Let's look at what B VA said he intednded, instead of guessing... "I wasn't suggesting a code of conduct, just relating a personal experiance others might have an interest in."

 

Folks, this one is simple. He saw a moment and did not act on it. He felt maudlin about having let it go, but upon reflection he felt okay that at least he had the image in his head for himself. His experience, his choices, his decision. Period.

 

What's interesting is how all of us (me included) related to it --

[preston_merchant]

I don't understand how there can be moral issues in raising a camera. You are simply pressing a button on a machine. There may be ways you can malign a person or a cause with the image later, but how is someone abused for having appeared within your viewfinder for a fraction of a second?

 

And when I read BVA's original post, I sense a note of regret--NOT a sense of superiority for not snapping!

[cd thacker]

<I>we're not necessarily going to use an image of the WTC collapsing in an advert for a new vacuum cleaner, right?</I><P>

 

Crap! Scrap that new campaign . . . .

[michael_franc]

IMO, in a way, the moment we take a picture of ANYONE, we are on a certain level exploiting them. It may be legally right, ethically justifiable, but for the photographer morally wrong. How can be something wrong with just firing off a camera? Well, when there is an accident for example and people stand around just staring at the victims bleeding, we could say that they have a right to look--does it make it moraly right? I don't have any problems with photojournalists, I am only saying that every photographer should have a choice over how far he or she wants to go impose themselves on the lifes of others.

[iván]

Moments in memory go away with us. Photos tend to last somewhat longer . . .

 

And though I tried real hard I couldn't share what you saw, based on what you told us here. Because you really were willing to tell us, didn't you ?

 

And then again,if some shots are best left unmade why should we tell others about them . . .?

 

Sorry if this prevents you from feeling better, BVA.

 

-Iván

[wind.dk]

I'm just trying to figure out what's so interesting about the described scene, but although I understand all the words of the description, the combination does not convey anything I would find worthy of regrets or pride in not photographing.

 

Maybe there's a deeper significance to purple and black, or PATH in association with police has other meanings besides "Police and Teacher's Homeownership Program". Maybe I'm just not supposed to understand, I can live with that.

 

I've sometimes missed a shot because I didn't have a camera with me (or the proper film in it), and I've sometimes missed shots because I didn't feel like taking them at that moment, for any number of reasons. I'm not proud of either, but as for regrets, I'll reserve them for more important things than releasing the shutter or not.

[dan_brown4]

"Presumably they were staging a public event, so where's the

problem in taking some snaps?"

 

This coming from a guy that exploits crippled children in the

slums of India for his portfolio, and then criticizes Americans for

wanting to retaliate for the terrorist attacks last September 11.

Ya, he would have taken the shot, so some good would come to

him from the tragic events of others.

 

B VA, I admire your personal conscience and decision to commit

the event to your memory and not film. Be true to yourself.

[wgpinc]

Nothing against B VA who I'm sure is a sensitive guy but I'd have taken the shot.

 

One vote for Rob Appleby and one boo for the mean spirited comment about him. While I don't necessarily agree with his politics sometimes, I admire both him as a person and his photography. Cheers.

[ray .]

Sometimes you take a photo thinking it's going to be a masterpiece, then when you see the results on film you realize it isn't.

 

There are times when you see a photo and think, no, that would be too easy, I already know it, there's nothing to learn by

photographing it, so, what's the point?

 

Other times you don't give a particular shot a second thought, until you see the film frame that has more to it then you realized.

 

There are times when the situation does not present itself as an appropriate time to photograph, and you follow accordingly.

 

There are indeed times when you should have snapped and you didn't out of fear, that happens too. Next time you decide it's important

enough to overcome the fear and just do it.

 

BVA, old (boy?), you may have overestimated the greatness of the moment photographically, and therefore it would not be worth

losing sleep over anyway. Like the girl you passed by and thought if you had just said something your life may have been changed

forever- well maybe, and maybe not.

 

Or if it's as you say you decided she was the girl that you just wanted to hold in your memory, and not go further, because maybe the

dream would be better than the reality.

 

Maybe you're in the process of becoming truly inspired, and this moment was a stepping stone to making photographs in the future.

You had your eyes open, a prerequisite for the visual artist. Maybe what you're holding in your memory is inspiration enough to build

on something else, another time.

[ray .]

P.S. There is something to be said for taking the shot not just because it produces a photograph, but because in a way it crystallizes the moment for you. The photograph becomes a reference point and reminder to you of the happening, the physical arrangement and relationship you had to the scene, and what transpired there. Maybe it sounds cliche, but a point in time and space- it's a concept that fascinates me endlessly. It's all pinpointed audibly by the snap of the shutter.

 

The sound of the shutter.... There was a post not too long ago asking something to the effect of- What's the most important thing to you about a Leica camera? The answer to me is the sound of the M shutter. So silent, so familiar, and speaks volumes when associated with that moment when you were there watching things unfold.

[cd thacker]

Wait a minute . . . I thought it was, "Some <I>beds</I> are best left unmade." Never mind.

[nesrani]

"...exploits crippled children in the slums of India for his portfolio..."

 

Dan, this is the second time you've said this about me, so I have to assume it is your well-considered opinion.

 

I'd like to understand, though, whether you're making a general poiont here - that photography of the socially disadvantaged is exploitative per se, or whether just mine is? And if the latter, who has the right to do it and why?

 

Do you extend the same condemnation to Salgado, for instance - and if not, why?

 

Seems like it would be worth exploring the issue.

[dick_van_nostrand]

Bill Allards famous photo of the Peruvian shepard boy and his dead sheep is a good example of the effect that we can have on people. Allard's photo in National Geographic caused massive fund raising to replace the boy's sheep and provide funds for his village. If the picture hadn't been published, would it be exploitation ? If I document the working conditions of migrant workers,with the intent of publishing the photos to make their plight known, and can't publish them, does that become exploitation ? It's a real tough call to make when you aim that camera at another person and their plight.

[sal dimarco]

B VA, Yes, you committed the image to YOUR mental library. But, by sensitively making a photograph you allow the rest of the world to have the same experience. I spent 9/11/02 in New York city photographing the people and the fringe activities. There were many tender moments. Be considerate, and polite and you should be OK. Yesterday, showed me how resilient and strong the American people are. Yes, there are sometimes when you do not make pictures. Yesterday wasn't one of them.

[dick_van_nostrand]

For those interested in photojournalism, there is an excellent book Associated Press' "Guide to Photojournalism", second edition, authored by Brian Horton. There is a chapter called "News: Sensitivity, Thinking, Instinct and Curosity", which discusses the issues we've been talking about and gives the opinions of photographers who must work in many of those gray areas on a daily basis.

[b_va]

Thanks all for your insights.I did not anticipate such interesting responses, even Mr. Dixons':). Maybe Doc Knapp can help me figure myself out. Ray, I did say something to that girl and she eventually said "I do", so with that in mind, next time, if I am so lucky, I'll screw up my courage and just do it.

[lee_shively]

When I worked as a newspaper photographer, I passed on a number of opprotunities to make good photos. Sometimes, the camera can take more than it gives. It can remove dignity from a place where dignity should remain. It can remove privacy from a place where personal thoughts should be respected. I respect your judgement and the decision you made.

[david www.davidazia.com]

When I was in Algeria last November I witnessed the worst floods in living memory in Algiers. Over seven-hundred people died. I wanted to take photographs, to act as a witness of this event - but found it hard to take the step and actually take photographs. This was for a number of reasons: 1. This is the first time I have witnessed an event where so many people have died, and I felt uncomfortable taking photographs of peoples' suffering 2. Algeria is not the safest of countries, especially for photographers/journalists 3. People did not need photographers, but doctors and money to rebuild their homes.

 

I am very interested in photojournalism, but somehow I found it difficult to actually take photographs and the general mood that people were in, indicated that they had no will to be photographed.

 

I suppose that the fact that my girlfriend is also Algerian, and lived for most of her life in Algiers made it all the more sensitive - I knew that this was her home, her town.<div></div>

[raymond_tai]

It is an understatement you will never make it as a PJ. A PJ would have made

the shot and left it to the editor. So are you a photographer only for happy

moments? Birthdays, weddings, Bar Mitzvahs? I guess I must be a total

bastard but I think you blew it.

[raymond_tai]

>People did not need photographers, but doctors and money to rebuild their

homes.

 

There are many places on this world where the press has little freedom and

thus the outside world never knows about the sufferings. You were there in a

place where few outsiders venture. One photo from you could have done a

lot for these victims. So are you a doctor or did you have money to rebuild

their homes? Well, you had a camera and your pictures could have helped in

obtaining some sort of humanitarian relief.

[msitaraman]

"Could have" is not the same as "will".