Ethics

Fajitas!

Do you have them? Would you have them? What level would you draw the line at?

I was watching a documentary on a street photographer today who basically says "f**k ethics, there's no such thing... I prefer to get good photos"... He was an asshole anyways, but it just made me think, would I act the way he does? Forcing his camera and flash in a random chaps face and shooting... As long as he got his photo, he's happy. Which I'd consider an alright theory if a) I was getting paid for it or b)it was a situation where it wouldn't be considered completely random and rude... Not people crying on the street.

I asked my mate, who had showed me the documentary, who's into his rangefinders, and street shots, if he could... He didn't know if he could.


Moving on to a more morbid topic, I was recently asked about shooting a funeral... I didn't really want to do it, I thought I'd be waaaay too intrusive, and the click of a camera isn't what I'd want to hear at the passing of a loved one. I have however, taken photos of the afters of some of my friends funerals, but I'd see that as being different. Different ethical standard I guess.

But... I would be interested in sneaking in to a funeral of someone I don't know - completely random - and taking incredible discreet photographs on one of my more silent cameras, for the artistic merit of it. I guess pure artistic merit. Nothing commercial. Different ethical standard again.

So, would any of you lot do it? Where and how do you deal with ethics?

What's the lowest you'd stoop, or is it stooping if it's for the art?

AnimalRights

Never thought of a funeral b4, I'd love to do one.

Fajitas!

Actually. Taking photos of dead babies/kids and whatnot was the done thing a while ago - Especially by those not so rich - People'd normally ever only get 1 portrait done of them in their life, so this was the last chance to get a photo of the kid.

People were specialists in that kinda thing. Getting those kids alive looking and whatnot. Being Morbid these days though... unless you're CSI: Miami'ing it up.

Paulw

Photographing funerals and such is now the new photographic money area in the US. It's starting to rank up there with weddings. Weird. In some ways I can understand it - final moments, family and friends who don't meet often, etc.

Certainly not something I'd do.

I did see a show about some street photographer in NY. He was an old guy, and did similar - sticking his camera/flash in someone's face just to get his street photo. Some of his images did look very different and cool, but it's certainly not how I'd go about photography.

There are many things, and many ways to get your images. It goes back to personal choice and personal feelings. To each their own.

soccerc

In the past I had to take images from a number of what would be considered high profile funerals involving a gang land shooting victim and it was not a pleasant experience.

On another occasion I had to snap friends and family while the bodies of loved ones were searched for and removed from the canal.

That too was difficult but I did approach one of the the families telling them who I was, what I was doing and explained I didn't wish to intrude upon them or cause them further grief. Thankfully they were understanding and thanked me for speakign with them unlike every other snapper.

Some of the pics were published and through a third party was asked to provide prints to the family.

Ethically had the family said no I am not sure how I would have proceeded

stick-dan

I actually was having this conversation with a friend the other day. She was asking me of my favourite photo and other things and we she started talking about the photo's of war victims. Like for example there is a photo of a refugee in kosovo a few years ago handing her baby through barbed wire and instead of helping the photographer just snapped. I never got how that could be considered ethical.

Is ethics actually practised in photography? I mean yes surely they should go hand in hand but do they? It's a really indepth topic. Like how can that photographer just remain impartial? It doesn't make sense to me and definitely doesn't seem ethical to me.
Be very interesting to see the responses this thread gets.

nilhg

Fajitas! wrote: »

......Forcing his camera and flash in a random chaps face and shooting........

Paulw wrote: »

I did see a show about some street photographer in NY. He was an old guy, and did similar - sticking his camera/flash in someone's face just to get his street photo. Some of his images did look very different and cool, but it's certainly not how I'd go about photography.

.

You'd want to be very careful where you did that here, unless your nose has a hotshoe..........

As for funerals, it would obviously depend on whether I was doing it with the blessing of the family, though I believe that funerals in the UK and US are quite different than here,with much smaller attendances.

quilmore

have you heard of http://nilmdts.org/
all ran by volunteers and donations but a bit on the edge of what I think it's correct

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas, you're talking about Bruce Gilden I suspect, right ? I don't think there's any harm with linking that you-tube video into the conversation is there ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

I have to admit that I was pretty shocked when I saw it first. And amazed that he actually gets away with it. OTOH he gets pretty dramatic results. I would find it completely impossible to do this I think. But on the original subject I think there are actually two questions ..

1. Is what he is doing completely rude and dis-respectful and, if so,
2. Is the end result worthwhile ?

I'd say yes and yes

magicbastarder

it really gets my goat up when newspapers publish photos of mourners at funerals - whatever about the family organising a photographer, i don't think other people's grief is news, so the press photographers should stay well clear, unless their presence has been okayed.

and i don't like candids of homeless people - i don't have any issue with what thebaz does, as he talks to them and gets their permission, but i have little time for people who take candids of others who are down on their luck and pass it off as gritty documentary stuff. it's rude and hackneyed.

pete4130

When I was in NY in October I was unfortunate enough to see a middle aged man being wheeled out to an Ambulance by a paramedic and convulse and grop to the ground. My initial reaction was to help (qualified 1st aider) as the other paramedic was called away to help some guy 100m down the street who had tripped over. As I dropped my cam and bag on the street in Brooklyn to rush to help, I realized the guy had gone into cardiac arrest (CPR started and defibrilator taken out immidiately and CPR was ceased so I couldn't assist). I knew there was nothing I could do to help that the medic wasn't already taking care of.
It was really surreal for me. Everyone on the street was terrified, scared, mesmorozed and some people were crying at what they were seeing. It was as if the world was in slow motion around me as I stood there, looking around at the everyone and their reactions while I contemplated what I was to do. I had the perfect lens on (24-70mm) for the situation. I looked around some more and several thoughts went through my head.

1) Probably never get an opportunity like this again.

2) Is it morally correct to shoot these photos (yes as its documentary, no as it's a taboo/sensetive subject).

3) Will a member of the public beat the crap out of me?

4) How intrusive/close do I get as I shoot?

5) Will my photogrpahy hinder the work of the medic(s) in reviving this man?

6) Will my actions have an influence on his survival?

7) What would I ever do with the photos (put them up on a forum and get praise/abuse for them)?

I still think about that day and if I made the right choice. I knew if I wasn't going to shoot photos of what was happening I didn't want to stand around and watch as some guys life hung in the balance. I'm torn between regretting and standing by the choice I made that day. I felt it was too opportunistic to shoot the photos and walked away. I don't know if they guy lived or died. I knew that for a cardiac arrest to happen it cou'dnt have happened in a better situation (in the presence of a medics with a defibrilator kit) and that he hadn't suffered a significant amount of time with oxygen deficciency to his brain and that they were doing all they could do.

It was a split second decision for me. If I had have run the thought process through my mind again I might have justified taking the pictures. I wonder what they would have turned out like. I imagine if they had have been s**t how would I feel about them? It really was a tough decision. I do see it as possibly one of the greatest photogrpahic opportunities that I encoutnered and I walked away from it which was a hard thing to do.

ThOnda

That guy is just a$$hole without any respect. Personal ethical attitude and respect to the people I am taking pictures of is the highest value I can have as a photographer. At least I think.
Yes, I would have to consider taking up job at the funeral. I could do so, but I would have to specify in advance what the customer wants and expects. And I would make my decision based on this facts.
Taking pictures of people in need - if I had the possibility to help those people by taking pictures of them, of course.

unreggd

I dont think people would care about gettin their photo taken, its just the way he springs on them, flash in the face

it'd be startling

AnCatDubh

It is very hard to define and in my opinion extremely subjective. The closest i've come to in assimilating it is that I'd think i'd be ok for anything(?) that didn't willfully cause harm to another individual.

But, then i'd think how about the scenes that we all became so numbed by then immune to, during the 80's of famine stricken Ethiopia (which in recent years somehow i had the privilege to visit). It can be a sobering experience when you think about it. <<Insert Any Other Disaster You Like>> How about victims of a fire that you could try help or you could take a pretty dramatic shot - Ok, you'd hope the choice would be a no brainer at that stage.

Does not taking any action or simply fulfilling your role which may be your job i.e. taking your picture and getting your sorry ass out of there, be the cause for willfully committing harm? Not necessarily but probably. I mean you wouldn't be stopping a famine or probably not going to be able to put out a building fire but perhaps you could make a difference to one scrap of pityful humanity.

monument

He gets fantastic results, but I'd personal be against his flash-in-your-face method.

My general views on photography in public places is there should be very few limits. This doesn't mean people can be harassed, there are other laws for such.

If people are captured while I'm taking a photo of a street, or at a public event, I have no problem putting the photo on flickr etc. But on the other hand if I'm directly talking photos of friends, I'll limit viewing to friends.

On talking photos of homeless people... if the person is identifiable I don't see the problem.

TelePaul

Is it unethical to take a pic of a hot chick JUST because she's hot?

sineadw

quilmore wrote: »

have you heard of http://nilmdts.org/
all ran by volunteers and donations but a bit on the edge of what I think it's correct

Just wondering - why wouldn't this be correct? I'm curious as to why you'd think that as its the area I work in. I'm not being confrontational - I'm genuinely interested in why you say that as its good to get an outsider's view sometimes. PM me if you'd prefer...

I haven't looked at the guys work Faj as I'm off to bed and it sounds like something that'd annoy me no end. I don't think art gives the right to harrass though in general. I can't stand people being rude anyway, so no I wouldn't put a photograph above someone's feelings. When I think of the images I see as iconic though most of them are taken at times of great distress to the subject - war photos and the like. Its a tough one to call. I think if its in the public interest to report using an image then its ok? So no - candid shots of mourners at a funeral I don't get (how is that news??) but showing the brutality of X regime or the devastation wrought by Y earthquake is acceptable IMHO. Not sure if *I* could do it though.

I'd have no moral or ethical problem with taking photos at a funeral if I was asked to. I honestly don't know if I'd be able to handle it emotionally though. I guess it would depend on the funeral.

Interesting topic..

thebaz

I'd like to think I have decent ethics on what i shoot, over the year and a bit , i have turned down offers to shoot gun dumps and topless / sex things - the more i do it the more i hate intruding on peoples space and my outlook changes - as i've said before its a fine line between the natural real look, and the posed agreed shot - i know which i prefer , but people have there dignity. I have made mistakes in the past that i regret , but overall i'm happy with what i have taken - I have no time for what Gillden does, invading peoples space , taking the shot is one thing , but what use is a great image if you can'nt use it or display it - i'd like to think most of the time people are happy with what i've taken , but i know i make mistakes, but sometimes i've recorded the last image of someone before they pass on - and i always delete something if someone asks - i think its important to be able to stand by your work

Phototoxin

Fajitas, you're talking about Bruce Gilden I suspect, right ? I don't think there's any harm with linking that you-tube video into the conversation is there ?


1. Is what he is doing completely rude and dis-respectful and, if so,
2. Is the end result worthwhile ?

I'd say yes and yes

Wait until he snaps an epileptic.. then the fun will begin..


Also my experience of street photographers recently has been largely negative [seriously the only one to break the mould is thebaz :S], I find that most seem to have an attitude and an ego rather irritating. Also they seem to have some fetish for leica and kodak trix400 like that guy in the vid. [btw baz you're not a REAL street photograpgher as you dont use leica or tri-x so I'm told..]

That guy is just a$$hole without any respect. Personal ethical attitude and respect to the people I am taking pictures of is the highest value I can have as a photographer. At least I think.

I agree. It gives the whole industry bad rep. Like I'd have an issue randomly snapping people on the street I think, but not if it was for forensic reasons. I'd happily snap a knife sticking out of someone eyeball or whatever because its to help them as opposed to helping me by;

i)being an @$$hat which the guy in the video seems to get off on, his sheer level of @$$h@ttery

or
ii) to get cheap 'gritty' things. If you want gritty go to africa and document aids orphans or whatever.

He gets fantastic results, but I'd personal be against his flash-in-your-face method.

that approach though isn't necessary the ethical one. 3 sick patients, one needs a heart, the other a liver and the last a lung, one guy totally healthy but has a flu. Its not ethcial to cut him up, kill him and take his organs so that we get the result of 3 cured for 1 dead. The flash in the face is irriating, I'd pretend to collapse and twitch or something just for the craic and to teach him about actions having consequences

Fionn

we had a mini festival celebration thing 'Clonmel Charter 400' on in town over the weekend that i covered it was public obviously with music, dancing and speeches etc. anyone thats in the photographs are out in public and are fair game, however there is a limit to how far people will put up with intrusion and personal space, as for yer man Gilden i'm surprised he hasn't been murdered or seriously injured the way he behaves!!!
About 10/11 years ago here there were reports of some guy (not me) going into funeral parlours in town photographing the corpses in th open caskets -dunno about ethics but downright creepy if ya ask me!! there was some complaints about it at the time but i remember people saying it wasn't against the law and that, eventually it stopped and no more was heard about it.
People have to live with their own conscience as to what they do is ethical or not in the end.
Last year a guy was killed off a motorcycle not a hundred yards to my house, i heard the impact, went down with a camera but what i saw when i got there (his family had come on the scene) i just thought it was entirely inappropriate to photograph the scene, even though i know it might have made a great documentary / reportage shot, but i sleep a little sounder in the knowledge that, for me at least, i did the right thing!!
I pass the spot every day on my own motorcycle and think of that fateful day.

thedarkroom

I haven't watched, yet, the clip of Bruce Gillen but usually these guys create the 'interesting' or 'newsworthy' moment by goading the subject (should be called victim) in to a reaction that then shows the person in a compromising situation. Look at how some celebrities reacted by lashing out at the paparazzi and it was this event that made the photo. The person would have been going about a normal daily activity that was otherwise escalated into confrontation by a photographer so that they could create the controversial snap. I can't see how this could ever be justified, it's harassment and incitement.
Look at the series of images that appeared when Britney Spears went off the rails a while back. While her activities undoubtedly instigated her predicament, the ensuing harassment during this vulnerable period should not have been allowed as it only served to inflame her downward spiral. It would appear that someone who has a vulnerable swing from glory is fair game to be pursued, goaded, photographed and vilified at the very time that they need support and privacy. Who could justify that. (I'm not a Britney Spears fan, before anybody asks)
How about occasions where someone is harassed purely for being associated with a celebrity or royalty - girlfriends, boyfriends, siblings, work colleagues, etc. etc.
I know that the argument can be made that some people welcome any type of publicity, the commonly heard mantra is 'any publicity is good publicity' but surely someone with an ounce of moral fiber should be able to distinguish between what is acceptable and what would be considered destructive and corrosive.

sunny2004

TelePaul wrote: »

Is it unethical to take a pic of a hot chick JUST because she's hot?

Not sure about the ethics of this, but by god it sounds like fun

Trojan911

Fajitas! wrote: »

So, would any of you lot do it? Where and how do you deal with ethics? What's the lowest you'd stoop, or is it stooping if it's for the art?

Great thread.

I always carry my camera & would shoot most things, on my travels, that would be newsworthy. I then sell my images to the tabloids as they pay the most.

I would have no problem shooting a traffic collision whether it be a fatality or not, however, I would review the images & decide if I would send them forward for publishing or not, depending on the circumstances & what the image depicts. I would consider the what the family would be going through, but more than likely, I would probably send them on.

With funerals, well, I've never done one but I would have no problem doing one, with or without permission, if it was newsworthy.

If I happened upon a suicide I would shoot it but would not put it forward for publishing (it probably wouldn't be published anyway as they are not reported). It would be kept for my own collection.

I prefer to to take covert images & not be seen but recently I had to show out to get the image the tabloid wanted and it caused me a minor inconvenience afterwards.

I will sail as close to the wind as possible to get "The Image" that will sell when acting on a tip off.

In my opinion I think that every images tells a story whether it be happy or sad.

trishw78

This is something I've thought about since seeing thebaz's work and Joel Meyerowitz's work. He was in the BBC Series talking about street photography. About just standing there and shooting the streets and the people going about there daily life around his studio. How people didn't even realise or see him. For him it was capturing the moment, a man walking his dog and a woman passing him carrying her dog. This type of street documentary photography I can deal with. I could probably deal with looking at the shots of the people's faces of the man the was in Cardiac arrest and think thats great work.

Could I stand there and be the one taking the shots, probably not. Could I stand on the street and take random people photo's without them realising I'm doing it, probably not.

But then that's the difference between me and documentary/street photographers, they have to put their ethics to one side and get on with it.

4sb

Perhaps I need my ethical compass checked.

In my humble opinion, Bruce Gilden captures something of what I imagine it feels like to live in Brooklyn.

Do the means justify the end? Is it just the flash thing?

I think there is something deeper than that, to do with respect and dignity of the subject.

Move from Brooklyn and put the photographer in a war zone or a natural (or man-made) disaster. The photographs of human suffering - grief, loss, pain - there are great images out there we have all seen. But in each case did the subject lose some of their dignity - was the photographer a little disrespectful. These photos may have made the world at large more aware and concerned about what was happening, but that is just the means and the end thing again.

As others have said, I would not be able to do what Bruce does - but I'm not sure that it is ethics that prevents me. More a cowardice in reaching out and engaging with people.

I would have larger ethical concerns with the (mis)use of Photoshop by news / documentary / paparazzi photography.

nilhg

Trojan911 wrote: »

Great thread.



I would have no problem shooting a traffic collision whether it be a fatality or not, however, I would review the images & decide if I would send them forward for publishing or not, depending on the circumstances & what the image depicts. I would consider the what the family would be going through, but more than likely, I would probably send them on.

How would you feel if you were the one standing on the side of the road as the emergency services try to extract your loved one from an accident?

I don't have any problem with taking pictures once the deceased and injured are gone from the scene but can't see any justification for shooting peoples distress, and would also have a major problem with any rag that would print them just for financial gain.

I've had personal experience of an accident scene and one of the things that gets you through the experience is the great kindness shown by 99% of folks, the thought that somebody's first thought on hearing of a tragedy is how can I make money out of this saddens me.

Trojan911

nilhg wrote: »

How would you feel if you were the one standing on the side of the road as the emergency services try to extract your loved one from an accident?

Ok, maybe I should have clarified the paragraph a bit better. I wouldn't take those images (not overtly anyway), it's the aftermath I would capture i.e. the cordoned off scene, police doing measurements, state of vehicles etc.

sheesh

Bruce Gilden kicking him in the nuts goes on my to do list if I ever get to new york

had a big long spiel about ethics written last night but didn't post it (verbal diarrhea).

My ethics are if you are publishing on web/print whiten teeth eyes, remove spots do the best for the person.
there is a difference between shooting and displaying.
In street photography if the person being shot does not know it is ok.
I take photographs for my own pleasure it is wrong to make other people feel bad for that.


I have done some street photography I have even photographed a disabled man in a wheel chair without his knowing (it looked crap).

kjt

I'd be very reserved in taking photos, always having some admiration and/or respect for what I'm shooting. I wouldn't run over to somebody on the ground who'd just fallen in front of me. On the other hand if I had my camera out and was already taking a picture, if this person happened to be in my shot falling I'd take a picture of it happening but wouldn't instigate it. That being said I wouldn't use this picture if the person hurt themself!

Regards to Bruce Gilden, I remember seeing this video last year and he is just an absolute AssMole!!! I'm an extremely timid person but if somebody did that to me I'm pretty sure I'd punch them right in the face and smash their camera. Your invading somebodys space, being a major nuisance and just plain annoying!

trishw78

4sb wrote: »

As others have said, I would not be able to do what Bruce does - but I'm not sure that it is ethics that prevents me. More a cowardice in reaching out and engaging with people.

I would have larger ethical concerns with the (mis)use of Photoshop by news / documentary / paparazzi photography.

I would agree with this whole heartedly

nilhg wrote: »

How would you feel if you were the one standing on the side of the road as the emergency services try to extract your loved one from an accident?

I don't have any problem with taking pictures once the deceased and injured are gone from the scene but can't see any justification for shooting peoples distress, and would also have a major problem with any rag that would print them just for financial gain.

I've had personal experience of an accident scene and one of the things that gets you through the experience is the great kindness shown by 99% of folks, the thought that somebody's first thought on hearing of a tragedy is how can I make money out of this saddens me.

Trojan911 wrote: »

Ok, maybe I should have clarified the paragraph a bit better. I wouldn't take those images (not overtly anyway), it's the aftermath I would capture i.e. the cordoned off scene, police doing measurements, state of vehicles etc.

Ok Here's two famous photos


From flickr


From Flickr

Both of these images are famous and both could be seen as unethical but these are the horrors of war and if you were standing there with a camera and had the opportunity to tell the world that this is what you witnessed are you saying that you wouldn't take the shot because of ethics, I'd seriously have to question what I was doing or about to do but I'd probably take the shot, and question what I had seen before letting the world know (and probably look for some sort of counciling while I was at it).

In essence I think the world needs a certain amount of unethical photographers to do this work, otherwise whats the point. I have great admiration for war photogs because they know they are helpless to stop what they see through there viewfinder.

Could we also argue that taking the shot of football player missing that crutical goal is also unethical because he is showing the pure emotion of losing.

superflyninja

since im nto getting paid for any photos I usually jsut stick to getting pics of what Im comfortable with. I dont really take any photos of homeless people as i think its a bit iffy documenting other peoples lowest point. though if i was getting paid I probably woudl do it but slip the homeless person a few quid or something.

conair01

in relation to photographing funerals i've pinched this from the american chronicle an article that was written in sept 30 2008,


"There are oftentimes no other time that all these people gather in one common place other than to say goodbye to their beloved friend. Capturing the funeral and reception in still photography provides the family with beautiful artistic photographs that display the sensitivity of the moment and emotional content of the loved ones gathered there"

"Reliving those emotions can make us feel closer to our loved one. In this hectic world, where we sometimes get too busy for emotions, it is invaluable to sit and allow ourselves time to feel, grieve, give thanks, share, heal, and remember."

sheesh

Yeah look if people want photographs at a funeral and you are a professional photographer its either a gig or a favour to some one in distress.

also if you are a pro and you are covering a story its acceptable to photograph people suffering

What I hate is amateur photographers come on photography websites with their pictures of homeless people and think that they're great because they photographed a homeless person as if it made a difference.

If you want to take the picture just be honest enough to admit you were doing it for your own gratification.

I must qualify this theres a guy on boards who actually goes out a talks to homeless people and gets to know them and photographs them in my book this is completely different. I cannot really explain why it is different to me it just seems ok. There is a human interaction there he's not treating them as objects but as people.
I'm not referring to him.

Hugh_C

Fajitas! wrote: »

Moving on to a more morbid topic, I was recently asked about shooting a funeral... I didn't really want to do it, I thought I'd be waaaay too intrusive, and the click of a camera isn't what I'd want to hear at the passing of a loved one.

One of the most amazing photos on flickr (imho) is of a dead person, an old man who'd passed away, photographed by his grandson.

WARNING: the link leads to a picture of a DEAD PERSON which some people might find upsetting.

humberklog

Snapping visitors of prisoners leaving the grounds and making their way back through the general enviroment has raised some peoples eyebrows and indeed the authorities attention.
Had my collar felt a few times now but I find the subject matter rather addictive and the clandestine manner in which they are taken very exciting. Arbour Hill prison always reveals at least one snap oozing in pathos. I've followed some subjects all the way from the prison onto busses, through the city and to the train station/Busaras. Trying to capture the seed of social isolation disolve into social immersion.
I do keep this collection (as most of mine) very private.

I'd never ever let ethics get in the way of creating. I'm glad others do though as it'd be a free for all and possibly with some unheathy results. But I'm glad of those that leave the ethics on the higher ground whilst they root around in the lower depths.

gandalf

Hugh that is an absolutely amazing photo and one I am glad to have seen. Thanks for sharing it.

soccerc

gandalf wrote: »

Hugh that is an absolutely amazing photo and one I am glad to have seen. Thanks for sharing it.

Agreed, a very dignified image captured

Phototoxin

Yeah the dead guy is good. Its not even disturbing thoug. To me disturbing would be a forensic textbook I read

with a *lovely* photo of a fox eating a dead persons face

[if squemish dont unspoil it]

I dont think the grandfather was unethical though.

Hugh_C

humberklog wrote: »

Arbour Hill prison always reveals at least one snap oozing in pathos. I've followed some subjects ...

You have a deathwish, people have been murdered for less.

:eek:

Or do you only select weaker subjects? I don't get it, if you don't find the ethics questionable, then why do you keep them very private? I wouldn't consider this creating since it appears to be only for your own thrill, it's more like voyeurism than, ummm, art.

thedarkroom

thimblefull wrote: »

Agreed, a very dignified image captured

When I saw the big red lettering I thought "I don't want to go there" but when I read the two favourable comments I thought I'd give it a try. Yes I agree, it is a excellent image and one that the photographer was right to take and be proud of. It's not a distressing picture, sad in some ways, complimented by the text, dignified.

Dragan

It could be argued that as photographers it is our job to bring things to the public eye which might he harsh, or hard, or shocking. That we should throw the OTHER interpretation on what was happening at the time.

I mean, there was a great story about the hard decision around taking shots of that man going into cardiac arrest and the medic trying to help him but the simple question is......one person might be dying, the other is trying to save his life.

Which are you taking the photo of?

humberklog

Hugh_C wrote: »

You have a deathwish, people have been murdered for less.

:eek:

Or do you only select weaker subjects? I don't get it, if you don't find the ethics questionable, then why do you keep them very private? I wouldn't consider this creating since it appears to be only for your own thrill, it's more like voyeurism than, ummm, art.

Indeed they have. Only last week a chap was murdered in Limerik because he resembled someone else.

The subjects are selected randomly. Strength or weakness doesn't enter equation.

You don't need to 'get it'. I keep them private as it wouldn't be fair to place them on general viewing or to show collection willy-nilly to people I haven't learnt to trust. It's very delicate material of people in very sad and upsetting states.

I consider it creating on a very high level. The ends of creating needn't necessarily lead to publicly displaying works. A further example to this is...I'm regularly commissioned to take nude photos. My most recent project was with a severely physically disabled couple. The shoot was amazing. They left very happy costomers and they were happy that I kept a copy of the few outstanding images. I keep these too...very privately. I show them only to those that would appreciate such imagery and to also advertise the service I provide. Some clients are happy to do this and some would rather not.

Some images/projects do have an essence of voyeurism others don't. Does voyeurism negate the creative process? I don't think so. In fact I feel it can add to it. When I'm creating something that holds a certain voyeuristic quality the image or project gains a little (or a lot) in the passion projected through the art form.

Voyeurism (though not the only tool in the box) is a natural curiousity that lets the subject feel a connection with a twist of distance. A very important sense to impart on my clients/subjects.

As for voyeurism driving the prison shoots? No and I am honest enough to say. Strong subject matter is where the reason lies.

Again though...I don't think the purpose of creating is displaying and I wouldn't dismiss voyeurism as a drive for passion in a subject matter.

rahtkennades

humberklog wrote: »

Arbour Hill prison always reveals at least one snap oozing in pathos. I've followed some subjects all the way from the prison onto busses, through the city and to the train station/Busaras. Trying to capture the seed of social isolation disolve into social immersion.

I'm sorry humberklog, but I find this to be almost at the level of 'American Beauty bag blowing in the wind is beatiful art'-type w*nk. These are real people that you're talking about. They've done some Very bad things (Arbour Hill houses a lot of sex offenders if you're not aware). I just find it offensive that you take images of them for your own pleasure.

humberklog wrote: »

Snapping visitors of prisoners leaving the grounds and making their way back through the general enviroment ....
.....but I find the subject matter rather addictive and the clandestine manner in which they are taken very exciting.

humberklog wrote: »

As for voyeurism driving the prison shoots? No and I am honest enough to say. Strong subject matter is where the reason lies.

These two statements together are in opposition. By definition finding clandestine activity of watching people both addictive and exciting IS voyeurism.
Call it what you will, but it just strikes me that you get some kind of jollies (not necessary sexual) out of taking the pictures.

humberklog wrote: »

I'd never ever let ethics get in the way of creating. I'm glad others do though as it'd be a free for all and possibly with some unheathy results. But I'm glad of those that leave the ethics on the higher ground whilst they root around in the lower depths.

This too is utter tosh. You think ethics are a good thing (for the majority), but you don't need them. I'm trying to figure, are you more enlightened than the rest of us proles that are scraping around the bottom of the barrel?


I agree with some of what you've said, but I just find some of the statements above to be ridiculous.

Also, sorry if it looks like I'm being selective about how I quote you, I'm trying to bring together the arguments I disagree with you on.

humberklog

rahtkennades wrote: »

These are real people that you're talking about. They've done some Very bad things (Arbour Hill houses a lot of sex offenders if you're not aware). I just find it offensive that you take images of them for your own pleasure.





These two statements together are in opposition. By definition finding clandestine activity of watching people both addictive and exciting IS voyeurism.
Call it what you will, but it just strikes me that you get some kind of jollies (not necessary sexual) out of taking the pictures.



This too is utter tosh. You think ethics are a good thing (for the majority), but you don't need them. I'm trying to figure, are you more enlightened than the rest of us proles that are scraping around the bottom of the barrel?


I agree with some of what you've said, but I just find some of the statements above to be ridiculous.

Also, sorry if it looks like I'm being selective about how I quote you, I'm trying to bring together the arguments I disagree with you on.

I'm more than aware of the nature of some of the prisoners of Arbour Hill.

these two statements work fine together. You've put 1 and 1 together and got 1. The prison project's excitement is derived from finding and tracking a subject. The same excitement that a nature photographer may feel when he spots something that he's been planning then tracking it. Very different.

Nope not more enlightened just glad that most don't. just glad. Simple as. Not judgemental on other people(or proles as you would say).

The thread is on ethics. I enjoy looking at a lot of the works on this forum but seldom input as I don't upload photos onto computer so feel that it isn't right to comment on other's works. My work however does lend itself to inputting into this thread. I'm not posting in order to put myself through a bacon slicer. I'm saying what I do knowing that some wouldn't agree with it on an ethics basis. But lets try and keep it to reflecting on that as opposed to slapping the poster around because you find it offensive.

If many artists through the centuries hadn't broken many taboos and ignored ethics of the day the world would be a far less enlightened place.

Disagree away but try and reel in the attack nature.

ThOnda

Isn't discussion more about expressing your own opinion that attacking opinion of other people?

The ethic for me is simple - Don't use the people in the picture just because of their appearance, situation or troubles. And always respect them.

Taking pictures of dead is nothing new, especially in France it has really long history. If I was asked to do so by family members, I would consider such job. I'd be however terrified to produce good quality work. It is just a task/job, so get ready to do your best.

AnCatDubh

i'm intregued by the prisioner project and think it would make an incredibly powerful exhibition in an appropriate forum (with permissions etc..) - I don't find it unethical as such but just very different, a niche perhaps . There may be privacy concerns but thats such a subjective thing anyway - opinions will differ considerably as to whether its wrong or right to photograph anyone in public be it children, two lovers being intimate, or prisoners families. You may need to settle in your own mind that photography is an art (or is it a science???? hmmnnnnn.... perhaps for another thread). Art or even genres of art may not be for everyone - I love some styles of painting but don't get much from a plain canvas with a dot on it. Someone may love people photography but set among the context of arbour hill, they may find it an assault on their inner beliefs of right and wrong - that's not criticising the form of art but to say that life has formed us all very differently. It think ThOnda's point of respect is an important one. I remember Sinead expressed an 'unease' in photographing Maggie (as appears on page one of the boards photography book - so go buy, buy buy ). To me, it was a subject that was treated with great respect and captured the isolation, loneliness, sadness, and respect of that magnificent animal. To me in certainly wouldn't have been unethical. At times you need to satisfy yourself.

La La

interesting discussion - but i think there is a clear difference between the kevin carters of this world and hobby photographers (like that awful bruce gilden whose photos are admittedly something else, but his approach disgusts me). while i think both have to be ethically aware, i believe photojournalists (as mediums when it comes to reportage) should be able to honestly capture the faces and landscapes of conflict without armchair critics wagging their fingers at them.
i personally know a photojournalist who, as we speak, is in the DRC. as opposed to previous conflict portfolios, this time his work features many more bodies than before. I don't think he is in any way less ethical than before - if anything, his photos are reporting the ugly truth about what is happening in the region. That's what he is there to do.

With regard to the funeral thing: having buried someone I loved very much a few months ago, if a photographer had been present, I can tell you I would have lost the plot.

But there's something to be said for Todd Heisler's 2006 Pulitzer-winning essay on US Marines coming home for burial and the result, I feel, is a very quiet, respectful study on this issue.