Are you an ethical photographer?

[samstevens]

Thats the situation. Person with camera on a nudie beach in California, with all state and federal laws pertaining to photography in public applying to the beach. The naked or topless female running about...

 

The way you asked your reply would make me worried about your ethics.

Honestly, I’m old enough to feel comfortable in my own skin without caring too much what an anonymous person on the Internet who I don’t know thinks about my ethics!

 

With that out of the way, I’ve seen photos of nude strangers on the beach, male and female (why’d you single out nude females?), that I thought were unethical and others that I was OK with, some that made me uncomfortable but that I was still glad were taken, some I thought were exploitive and wish hadn’t been taken. So, like I said, for me much of these kinds of ethical questions are often relative to context rather than driven by universal rules. No nude pics of strangers on the beach is not an ethic I would accept. It’s too dogmatic and doesn’t allow someone taking the picture freedom of expression, which is also a matter of both law and ethics. And, yes, I can generally tell when someone is hiding a lack of ethics by declaring their freedom of expression.

 

Art and ethics often find themselves running up against each other, as artists can sometimes push boundaries. Certainly, they can cross lines. But I need to see the pic and hopefully the body of work before I’m going to judge. There are extremes, of course, that need no context to know they’re wrong, such as child pornography. But, nude adults on a beach I’d take on a case by case basis.

[samstevens]

yet then ethically in your opinion child porn is wrong, yet what is your stance on sturges and sally?

Sorry, I’m not on trial here and don’t intend to be cross-examined. Why not stick to the beach scene and address my response with your own thoughts on what I said before you move the goalpost down the field?

[tommyfilmist]

Honestly, I’m old enough to feel comfortable in my own skin without caring too much what an anonymous person on the Internet who I don’t know thinks about my ethics!

 

With that out of the way, I’ve seen photos of nude strangers on the beach, male and female (why’d you single out nude females?), that I thought were unethical and others that I was OK with, some that made me uncomfortable but that I was still glad were taken, some I thought were exploitive and wish hadn’t been taken. So, like I said, for me much of these kinds of ethical questions are often relative to context rather than driven by universal rules. No nude pics of strangers on the beach is not an ethic I would accept. It’s too dogmatic and doesn’t allow someone taking the picture freedom of expression, which is also a matter of both law and ethics. And, yes, I can generally tell when someone is hiding a lack of ethics by declaring their freedom of expression.

 

Art and ethics often find themselves running up against each other, as artists can sometimes push boundaries. Certainly, they can cross lines. But I need to see the pic and hopefully the body of work before I’m going to judge. There are extremes, of course, that need no context to know they’re wrong, such as child pornography. But, nude adults on a beach I’d take on a case by case basis.

 

yet then ethically in your opinion child porn is wrong, yet what is your stance on sturges and sally?

[Ian Shalapata]

Ethics, like morals, are not a line in the sand where, if we cross it, we are now unethical. They are not either a colour with which we can paint everyone. They are within ourselves, each of us with our own line which may or may not shift over time. If someone says, "That photographer is unethical because they baited an area to attract wildlife," only speaks to the ethics of the speaker and not of the photographer. I couldn't care less what others think of me. Where one person may say I am unethical, another may agree with my actions. I can't waste time getting wrapped around the axel about what others think. I can only abide by what I feel is ethically right or wrong.

[mikemorrell]

TBH, I'm surprised that this thread is still running. I'm pretty sure I've said this before on this thread but 'ethics' are always 'personal ethics'. So the 'ethics' of one photographer are often different from those of another. It's valid to debate 'ethics' but IMHO not to criticize the personal ethics of one photographer just because yours may be different. Everyone has their own personal (human and photographic) conscience and they have to live by that.

 

Perhaps a case in point is the situation in Ukraine. On the one hand, photographers and video journalists (and the public) decide on the ground which interviews, images, and videos they feel comfortable taking and sharing with News outlets. These News outlets also decide which images and videos they feel comfortable sharing with their viewers. I'm pretty sure that there are many horrific 'on the ground' images and videos that don't make it to the News outlets. Either because photographers and video journalists pre-select what they feel 'appropriate' to record and submit or because News outlets select from these images and videoclips that they feel are informative but also 'appropriate' for their viewers.

 

From what I see on the BBC and CNN coverage of the situation in Ukraine, the tradition of 'factual but also empathic photography' for which Dorothea Lange rose to fame is still alive and well,

 

For clarity (also to mods), this response is not in any way meant to express any personal opinion on what's going on in Ukraine. Just meant (as an example) to highlight the ethical considerations of photojournalists and videojournalists there.

[samstevens]

I'm pretty sure I've said this before on this thread but 'ethics' are always 'personal ethics'. So the 'ethics' of one photographer are often different from those of another. It's valid to debate 'ethics' but IMHO not to criticize the personal ethics of one photographer just because yours may be different. Everyone has their own personal (human and photographic) conscience and they have to live by that.

____________________________

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Morals often describes one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong:

 

“It would go against my morals to help you cheat on the test.”

 

While ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct behavior within a relatively narrow area of activity:

 

“Our class had a debate over the ethics of genetic testing.”

 

In addition, morals usually connotes an element of subjective preference, while ethics tends to suggest aspects of universal fairness and the question of whether or not an action is responsible.

___________________________

 

I’m not big on things like this being subjective. Because I don’t think they are. Usually the kind of actions we’re talking about when we question photographers’ ethics involve another person or persons. So there is a built in sense of objectivity in that we’re not talking about one person, we’re talking about a relationship.

No one lives in a vacuum of subjectivity. When we take and share a photo, it rightfully has an effect on others. When I’m in a movie theater and I begin to text on my phone, the bright screen affects others who’ve also payed to see the movie.

 

So, of course, ethics are in some sense driven by others, how one’s behavior affects another.

 

Because ethics are a public matter, there will be a somewhat shared sense of right and wrong within a community. Rather than seeing my own ethics as subjective, I simply see them as an often present and necessary but not bothersome tension between differing interests, the expressive desire of a photographer and the privacy of a subject, etc.

 

I have and will continue to criticize others’ ethics. I think that’s necessary in a civilized society. We’ve come up with laws for bottom lines on punishing people for behavior, but our being critical of each other on non-punishable behaviors helps keep an equilibrium.

 

I don’t mind being criticized by others. I will weigh their argument and consider the source and may learn something. If I’m stuck inside myself, how can I learn? Of course, we can all feel free to reject others’ criticisms, and I imagine we all do that a lot of the time. It actually may take as much or more strength of character, however, to recognize the validity of the well-meant and genuine criticism from another, which I think we need if we’re going to live in a safe, caring, and thriving community.

Edited March 21, 2022 by samstevens

[samstevens]

I'll give you an example:

 

In the recent thread in Casual about the Future of Photo.net, I criticized a fellow poster for his words about people with mental illness. Why would I not? While his saying those words is perfectly legal, as I think they should be, I feel perfectly ok calling him out for their ignorant and hurtful nature. Society is a dialogue, not a system of subjective monologues. I said what I said as a response and not only as a teaching moment to him but to anyone listening. If someone wants to criticize me for having done so, they may, but that wouldn't stop me from taking the initiative to criticize the ethics someone else exhibited.

[tommyfilmist]

I'll give you an example:

 

In the recent thread in Casual about the Future of Photo.net, I criticized a fellow poster for his words about people with mental illness. Why would I not? While his saying those words is perfectly legal, as I think they should be, I feel perfectly ok calling him out for their ignorant and hurtful nature. Society is a dialogue, not a system of subjective monologues. I said what I said as a response and not only as a teaching moment to him but to anyone listening. If someone wants to criticize me for having done so, they may, but that wouldn't stop me from taking the initiative to criticize the ethics someone else exhibited.

this is the modern society we live in. Where up is down, good is now bad..

[AlanKlein]

ethical implies the person HAS ethics.

 

Most do not. As genuine and true ethics are unfailingly applied. See requirements united states military code of justice.

 

there are nude beaches in california. In the united states it is LEGAL to photograph anyone in public places due to the legal fact there is no legal way for a person to say "i was in the train station with 600 people but i expected complete privacy when i took my pants off".

 

A person on the beach sees a really nice girl running around naked or topless, its LEGAL to take photos, but is it ethical?

Hmmm. If it's not ethical to take her picture, maybe it's not ethical to run around naked?

[AlanKlein]

Just to add, I think photos can influence without that being the intent of the photographer. Photographers may just opt to show and make visible different worlds and people may see them and respond in all sorts of ways. One of the joys of photography is watching photos take on lives of their own well beyond attempts of the photographers who made them. Another joy is watching photographers able to influence the world in a positive way. This, of course, does not make photography a moral compass as much as it can sometimes make it a moral vehicle.

Wouldn't you say that photos are light or dark depending on what side of the issue you stand? Morality and ethics are humanly defined. Therefore they're open to interpretation from culture to culture and from time to time. We all believe differently. It's why many people refer to the bible and religion to define these things as declared by God. These are immutable and unchangeable. Man can't reinterpret them, or shouldn't.

[AlanKlein]

Honestly, I’m old enough to feel comfortable in my own skin without caring too much what an anonymous person on the Internet who I don’t know thinks about my ethics!

 

With that out of the way, I’ve seen photos of nude strangers on the beach, male and female (why’d you single out nude females?), that I thought were unethical and others that I was OK with, some that made me uncomfortable but that I was still glad were taken, some I thought were exploitive and wish hadn’t been taken. So, like I said, for me much of these kinds of ethical questions are often relative to context rather than driven by universal rules. No nude pics of strangers on the beach is not an ethic I would accept. It’s too dogmatic and doesn’t allow someone taking the picture freedom of expression, which is also a matter of both law and ethics. And, yes, I can generally tell when someone is hiding a lack of ethics by declaring their freedom of expression.

 

Art and ethics often find themselves running up against each other, as artists can sometimes push boundaries. Certainly, they can cross lines. But I need to see the pic and hopefully the body of work before I’m going to judge. There are extremes, of course, that need no context to know they’re wrong, such as child pornography. But, nude adults on a beach I’d take on a case by case basis.

Most pictures of nude people on beaches are ugly, certainly not artsy. They would all look better if they were dressed. ;)

[samstevens]

Wouldn't you say that photos are light or dark depending on what side of the issue you stand?

Yes.

Morality and ethics are humanly defined.

Yes.

It's why many people refer to the bible and religion to define these things as declared by God. These are immutable and unchangeable. Man can't reinterpret them, or shouldn't.

There are centuries of interpretation and reinterpretation of the Bible. Most people selectively abide by it and interpret it to suit their needs and, too often, to oppress others.

[Gerald Cafferty]

If we're waiting for God to sort things we are in trouble.

[Supriyo]

Wouldn't you say that photos are light or dark depending on what side of the issue you stand? Morality and ethics are humanly defined. Therefore they're open to interpretation from culture to culture and from time to time. We all believe differently. It's why many people refer to the bible and religion to define these things as declared by God. These are immutable and unchangeable. Man can't reinterpret them, or shouldn't.

 

Morals and ethics taught by the Bible and other religious scriptures are also from a different time and culture, and a sizeable part of these teachings may not be directly handed down by God, but tweaked by mortal human beings, based on their own ethics and morality. So, declaring them as God given and immutable is just another way of deceiving oneself. Then, there is also the issue of differing interpretation, after so many centuries. May be, we should accept that no society or time or culture is perfect and can have differing morality, but what matters is whether we can learn from them and improve in our treatment of one another. Keeping an open mind and willingness to learn and self-reflect are in my opinion, the only ways in which we can improve our morality.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Supriyo

[je ne regrette rien]

I must admit that this thread is too long for me - it is over two years old - to understand where it comes from and to understand what it is exactly about.

 

I would say that ethics is not necessarily the same as religion or morals. I may have ethics and not religious at all and assume a religious position and not being ethical at all.

 

From the "Britannica"

Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong.

 

The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical principles where it once would have been more accurate to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy.

 

My ethics therefore guide me in my judgement about what is right or wrong. Here it is applied to photography and requires additional specification. What are my ethics in respect to

1. what I want to see in a photograph
   
2. what I want to be told by a photograph
   
3. the subject/theme I want to photograph
   
4. my relationship with the subject photographed
   
5. etc?
   

I believe that all of us have developed our own ethics, i.e. our judgment of what is good and bad and that informs our behaviour and choices. In photography as well.

I don't believe it is about photographing little children, the homeless, nudes, wounded, corpses. You name it.

It is about, as I believe

• my motivation
  
• my reason
  
• my reasoning
  
• the relationship with my subject
  
• the preferences of my subject
  
• my responsibility to and for my subject.
  

[samstevens]

I believe that all of us have developed our own ethics, i.e. our judgment of what is good and bad and that informs our behaviour and choices. In photography as well.

I don't believe it is about photographing little children, the homeless, nudes, wounded, corpses. You name it.

It is about, as I believe

• my motivation
  
• my reason
  
• my reasoning
  
• the relationship with my subject
  
• the preferences of my subject
  
• my responsibility to and for my subject.
  

I think it's a really good point you make about ethics not necessarily being about subject matter. I think both in how we respond aesthetically and how we respond as a matter of ethics, way too much is subject-focused when it should be photo-focused. How is the photo handling the subject? How may the photo both focus on the subject and transcend it as well?

 

Nevertheless, I think certain things are off limits, and child porn would be one among several. Of course, we might each determine what is porn differently. Even the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't really narrow it down (the famous "I know it when I see it" standard). If someone wants to consider Mann and Sturges purveyors of child porn, I'm happy to argue with them. But, I'm hopeful that more blatant and obvious cases can be agreed upon in a civil society.

 

Also, for me, ethics goes well beyond my own motivation and reasoning. Certainly one's motivation plays a key role and often can actually be gleaned from a photo. But we are dealing with an object, a photo, which doesn't always show the motivation of a photographer and may very well transcend the motivation of a photographer. And, as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I take this to mean, you can have the most sincere and "clean" motivation and still produce an unethical photo.

 

Plenty of people, I believe, have pure motivations (perhaps also misguided) when they photograph homeless people or nude people on the beach. I've heard photographers respond who I believe are being sincere when they say why they took the picture. However, I may still find the photo exploitive. And I may tell the photographer that. In that sense, we're responsible for our photos beyond our own ethics. Because all of our ethics are evolving. No one is perfect. And I'd claim that even the most ethical and well-meaning photographer is capable of taking an unethical photo ... and it's a learning opportunity, if we're open to criticism, rather than something we need to beat ourselves up about.

[AlanKlein]

Morals and ethics taught by the Bible and other religious scriptures are also from a different time and culture, and a sizeable part of these teachings may not be directly handed down by God, but tweaked by mortal human beings, based on their own ethics and morality. So, declaring them as God given and immutable is just another way of deceiving oneself. Then, there is also the issue of differing interpretation, after so many centuries. May be, we should accept that no society or time or culture is perfect and can have differing morality, but what matters is whether we can learn from them and improve in our treatment of one another. Keeping an open mind and willingness to learn and self-reflect are in my opinion, the only ways in which we can improve our morality.

The problem with leaving it up to humans to decide what's moral and ethical is that they can change them at their convenience to fit their current circumstances. We can come up with all sorts of lame-brained reasons why it's acceptable to steal or murder. There are no standards, nothing basic that you can start with. As an aside most moral and ethical and legal precepts came from the bible, ie don't steal, don't murder, etc.

 

Of course, when it comes to photography, it's not the photograph that's immoral or unethical but rather the photographer. A photo has no soul, brain, etc. So it's not ethical or moral, but rather it's the photographer who is faced with these decisions and will be judged. If the photographer lies about truth in the photograph to make a political point or use it for propaganda, then it's the photographer who's lying and facing moral and ethical judgment.

[Allen Herbert]

Yes, my ethics, not yours.

 

Why would I follow anyone else? Maybe they consider themselves a special moral person...holy in some way;). My mate Sam told be that God spoke to him...not so sure, methinks he was telling pork pies.

[samstevens]

Ahh, you make it sound so simple. It's not. Thou shalt not kill (which is really meant in the sense of "thou shalt not murder") is already context-driven, so let's not pretend the Bible comes with absolute answers to all these questions. It starts off with a qualified commandment on killing, excluding killing on the battlefield for instance and allowing for a lot to be written about one's responsibility and punishment for "accidental" killings. So, man has always had to make judgments, and pretending that the Bible gives us the answers is a fairytale.

The problem with leaving it up to humans

There is no problem with leaving it up to humans, even if you believe in the Bible, since humans wrote the Bible, so it's already been left up to humans. Even so, all of this is up to humans and unless you prove to me scientifically that some fantastical entity called God actually exists, and that the people who wrote the Bible had some special means of communication with God to know exactly what to write, I'm going to rely on my fellow humans for clarifying ethics and not the tooth fairy, leprechauns, flying horses, or God.

[Allen Herbert]

"A photo has no soul, brain, etc. So it's not ethical or moral" Sup.

 

Deep man. Who would have thought of such a obvious thought. Deep man.

[Allen Herbert]

"some fantastical entity called God actually exists,"

 

There you go. Lets not believe in the divine; as in Jewish texts...gay folks go straight to hell. Really, is God such a simpleton. Putin would agree, especially if you are a Ukrainian. ,.

 

Really? Is that is what it is all about. That simple someone's sexual preferences Wow.

 

Anyway, to add a bit of science, quantum physics tells us we exist in two places simulant. Bit more going on than our limited perception can understand Hey, Ho, the little frog in the little small pond. King of the pond.

[Allen Herbert]

Time for a smile...

 

[je ne regrette rien]

Nevertheless, I think certain things are off limits, and child porn would be one among several.

I am fully in agreement with that. Child pornography is totally unacceptable.

 

We enter a very complex terrain here, which I would name "the exploitation of the weak". Very difficult to define, because if a child is always weaker than an adult, this is not the only case: there are adults who are weaker than other adults.

 

Also, for me, ethics goes well beyond my own motivation and reasoning.

I could not agree more. If you consider my last three bullets they are precisely about the relationship and therefore the subject, far beyond the subjective motivation of the photographer. They concern a broader assessment of ethics, which the photographer is responsible for:

• the relationship with my subject
  
• the preferences of my subject
  
• my responsibility to and for my subject
  

Keeping these aspects in mind gives the acting person (the photographer) the responsibility for their subject. Therefore I make the photographer responsible, not only for the purity of their own intentions, but also, and most of all, for their subject. Always considering and assessing that:

the most sincere and "clean" motivation and [can] still produce an unethical photo

 

As you say, the most sincere photograph may still be exploitive in a broader perspective, and I make the photographer responsible for judging the comprehensive effects of them making a photograph beyond their own ethic. And there is no justification for being misguided: we always need to check whether we, or our work, is exploitive.

 

As regards Sally Mann, I am aware of her approach and reasoning - also ethical - beyond her pictures. I have read about her bond with and connection to her children, which are exactly about her relationship with her subjects; the considerations of the preferences of her subjects; her responsibility for her subjects. No power game here.

 

I'm less aware of the reasoning of Jock Sturges.

[samstevens]

As regards Sally Mann, I am aware of her approach and reasoning - also ethical - beyond her pictures. I have read about her bond with and connection to her children, which are exactly about her relationship with her subjects; the considerations of the preferences of her subjects; her responsibility for her subjects. No power game here.

For me, a lot boils down to the photo. The photographer’s reasoning may influence me, but what the photo shows will ultimately determine my judgment of ethics.

 

Others have heard Sally Mann’s reasoning and still judge her work unethical. Her reasoning simply doesn’t persuade them. Though I am ok with her photos and would defend them, I leave room for others to judge them unethical. We are not always going to agree on these matters. There’s no universal assessment of most ethical questions.

 

Some people on PN have defended their sexy girl on the beach photos with a whole lot of sincerity that doesn’t persuade me in the least. I judge some ethical and some unethical NOT solely because of the reasoning or motivation of the photographer but because of what the photo says to me. There’s something in the photo I find exploitive regardless of the photographer’s sincere reasoning.

As you say, the most sincere photograph may still be exploitive in a broader perspective, and I make the photographer responsible for judging the comprehensive effects of them making a photograph beyond their own ethic. And there is no justification for being misguided: we always need to check whether we, or our work, is exploitive.

Yes.

 

I think the relationship of photo and viewer is another key. A photographer can certainly make a photo, for example, that is a denial of the holocaust or that is in some way racist or misogynistic that is a problem between photographer and viewer more than between photographer and subject.

 

I made a photo recently with a female statue and two close women friends were offended. I stand my ground on my own intentions and at the same time I had to recognize the offense they took once I saw it from their point of view. It’s an important photo for me precisely because it exists in a murky area that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Photos take on a life of their own. Viewers take photos personally, so ethics very often is about the relationship of the photo and the viewer. What a photographer does about that is anyone’s guess.

[je ne regrette rien]

Photos take on a life of their own. Viewers take photos personally, so ethics very often is about the relationship of the photo and the viewer. What a photographer does about that is anyone’s guess.

Yes.

 

Photos are just one of many mediums and ways to reflect humanity in all its manifestations. We must be aware that both Sam and I have referred to the distinction between right and wrong and that's exactly it.

• a pair of leather shoes may be wrong for somebody opposing to the killing of animals;
  
• a pair of shoes in synthetic material may be wrong for somebody aware of the environmental impact of oil extraction, of child labour in the far East;
  

Photos are a way of representing humanity and relationships.

• there's the photographer's intention
  
• the subject's intention
  
• the idea of good or bad and right or wrong that both have
   
  
• it's good when they coincide, if they don't, there may be an issue, which may lead to a power game
  
• and then there are the others, the beholders, the spectators, who have their own framework of what is good or bad or right or wrong.
  

Society and era shape this framework: what is acceptable for some societies at a certain point in time may not be acceptable for other societies at the same time or for the same society at different points in time.

 

Definitely there is not one-size-that-fits-all, we all know that. There are ethical and moral frameworks. Photographers, in our case, have the responsibility for what they put in their pictures, specifically considering their subject and their relationship with it, which may be equal or not, emphatically respecting the subject's preferences and weaknesses, avoiding exploitation at all costs.

 

Whether it is possibile to satisfy any possible beholder or spectator and their ethical and moral frameworks, this is very hard to tell, given the variability of such frameworks in different societies and social groups.