Picutures of death, yes or no?

[Bryan Lee]

How do you feel about taking pictures of car accidents, motorcycle accidents, natural disasters, and just the remains of the human person once expired? A couple years back I turned down the chance to make money photographing the dead after the Tsunami. I dont really blame the guys who went there to make extra money but I do question how far some took it to add drama to their photos.


Recently I have arrived on the scene of a few horrible accidents and agonized over whether to photgraph them. I ended up not taking any pictures but Im not sure why. Its not like I have not seen death or even touched and held dead bodies for that matter. Im actually quite comfortable around death and even morgues and the only time I have ever been emotional about the matter was years ago in Gaum (Around 91-92 sometime) when we had a plane load of American GI Coffins arrive directly from Vietnam as part of the MIA recovery efforts. On the plane one could not help but be overcome with emotion and feelings as you viewed the alluminum American Flag covered boxes containing the remains of boys and men who left so long ago and were now back on American soil. Then it was a honor to be with men of the VFW to salute their arrival quietly in the middle of the tropically overheated night.

One of the strange things is I would have had no problem taking pictures back then during the repatriation cerimony nor do I have any issues with war photography, flag draped caskets, or even breaking the rules of governments to get those kinds of pictures. Maybe because death in war is so political or even expected. Its not the same somehow as the death of someone who just was ordinary and living a ordinary life until life was stolen. I realize this is a pretty heavy topic but its one im dealing with at the moment and one Im sure others struggled with before me. This is not really a exercise in right or wrong but more of a exercise into trying to understand why I take pictures and where I set the boundries of my imagery. Please feel free to comment but keep the politics generic, this is about pictures and not who anyone chooses to vote for.

 

[M4streetshooter]

I think your dealing with respect and moral fiber. If your questioning making images then your probably not that guy. Just let some one else do it. I photographed in Nam as a grunt and the camera actually was a protective device for my psyhe and emotions. I think the same thing applies in this situation. It's more a question of how close you will let yourself in.....
how you let yourself... attach...or...detach. I do Patriot Guard Missions and it's the same feeling in that scene to. I photograph being aware that I am intruding in the privacy of the deceased and the mourners. But it's my job to record and I do so by detaching...somewhat...I can never detach completely from a fallen hero......it's early...no coffee yet....good day...later don

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I was recently at a vehicle accident scene with my camera and decided not to photograph it.

Although the center of interest of my photos would have been the brave fire and rescue workers wriggling under the truck rather than the woman trapped there.

 

[DavidH]

In my opinion, its all about context...if you just happen upon an accident then I see no real legitimate reason to photograph the dead. If you are 'news' then it's your job to convey the story - but that doesn't always mean showing dead bodies - sometimes reaction shots are more moving and can often connect better with your audience. But you would have your brief and will have to work to that anyway.

I have filmed with the emergency services - traffic accidents and death and serious injury - as well as law enforcement and CSI - crime scenes and bodies and human autopsies. Always, the context of the story will guide an approach to what is covered and in how much detail - and it can be complex - too complex to go into too much detail here...but as a professional, working with professionals, I am always aware of not over-stepping the mark and finding a way to demonstrate the emotions and activities of those involved without the all-too-typical media drama-and-gore approach.

Everyone has their own opinion - and this has been debated here before - but we should perhaps empathise with those involved - families, professionals, witnesses and ask how we would feel in their shoes if someone popped up and started taking photos...

Of course when you expand the debate to include war zones, political violence and so on around the world...well it gets even more complex...but we should examine our true motives first...

David.

 

[leif e]

How do you feel about taking pictures of car accidents, motorcycle accidents, natural disasters, and just the remains of the human person once expired? A couple years back I turned down the chance to make money photographing the dead after the Tsunami. I dont really blame the guys who went there to make extra money but I do question how far some took it to add drama to their photos.

Thanks for an interesting post on an improtant topic! What you´re dealing with is maybe the limits of human decency? I haven´t been in the situations you describe, but had an experience many years ago with a photographer friend. We were doing - or trying to do - a documentary on asylum seekers in Norway at that time. We talked to lot of people, spent hours and days listening to various stories, more or less dramatic. My friend took an endless row of photographs, mostly good, but he was never really satisfied (I was doing the writing). Then; at a couple of occations some of the individuals broke down, really broke down physically and mentally; couldn´t take the pressure, the insecurity, the total diffenrence in cultural reference and so on. The "funny" thing was, we more or less stopped taking pictures and even notes. We turned into some kind of social workers and good helpers (of course some of these people had developed into friends, more or less). Still; afterwards we´d have to think about professionality - we "lost" a lot of strong, REAL, human distress and agony - very relevant to our project, but we left it, more or less.

I don´t know if you see the connection, but the story of the failed documentary - it failed for a lot of other reasons - came to may mind at once when I read your post.

As well as the story the same photographer friend told me at the time about an american photographer known for never leaving his Leica. The guy, living with his wife, picked up the phone one night, said "Hi", got serious, but said very little. After a short while he said "just a minute", put the phone down, went to get his Leica, THEN told his wife the call was for her - and he was ready to take her picture as she was told her dad was dead.

I´ve used that story a few times in discussions with young media students about documentary and truth. It always lifts the moral level of discussion several notches, I´m glad to say.

leif e

 

[Pherdinand]

i think this is one of the very few cases, when it depends on your intentions. What do you want to do with the images?

 

[kunger]

I must say that this is a very interesting topic.

I am a photojournalist based in Jerusalem for the last 14 years. I've worked with many publications, well known (Time, Newsweek, Figaro, Paris Match, etc.), to the not so well known.

I have photographed death and destruction so often, that I have become numb to it. Whenever a bomb would go off here, I was there. On a few occassions I was the first photographer on the scene. Why, because I was just a few meters away when the blast went off! It was my job to cover these events and to convey the story that was happening around me. Whether it was bombs going off, clashes erupting, tear gas being fired or being caught in cross fire, it was my job to get the shots and make sure that they were/are strong images. Images that the public can not only see, but also feel the emotional impact from.

I think that I can safely speak for a lot of PJ's when I say that the camera is not only a tool, but also a shield. It protects you from the gravity of the situation. It wasn't until after I would edit and transmit my images that I would look them over again and say to myself "sh*t, I was just there!" Then I would pour myself a double whiskey to calm my nerves.

If you're going to shoot that stuff you have to have a strong stomach and you have to be intrusive. You will have to get into peoples faces and you will have to take it when they yell and scream at you. There's no other way.

I haven't shot news now for about a year and a half. I've photographed too much death and destruction. Not just here in Jerusalem, but also abroad (Kosovo... remember that?).

My focus now is more along the features and human interest stories. Feel free to check out my site http://www.kunger.com

Hope this helps,

Kevin

 

[Jeremy Z]

As well as the story the same photographer friend told me at the time about an american photographer known for never leaving his Leica. The guy, living with his wife, picked up the phone one night, said "Hi", got serious, but said very little. After a short while he said "just a minute", put the phone down, went to get his Leica, THEN told his wife the call was for her - and he was ready to take her picture as she was told her dad was dead.

I wonder if that story was true or "dramatized". If it is true, it is a horrible thing to do to a loved one. I would be a low thing to do, even for a tabloid reporter, much less a (loving?) spouse.

He may have captured the genuine emotion, but was it worth the consequences?

 

[Ken Ford]

I occasionally had to deal with this topic during my short career as a PJ. I agree with Kevin - the camera does become a shield. But I never did completely overcome the uneasiness I felt when shooting incidents such as these.

 

[40oz]

I'm puzzled by the choices in the poll. I just don't see any reason to take pictures of "random dead people" for personal amusement. I suppose if that was some sort of goal for me, I'd be all over it, but my focus isn't really on capturing disfigured bodies after tragic accidents.

I've seen friends die that way, and I can't see what purpose a photo of the event would serve - the memory is still vivid a decade later. I can't see the benefit of such a photo for his relatives or friends who weren't there. People die every day in tragic accidents, the pose and state of the body afterwards isn't news, it's evidence at that point.

I don't see any great dilemma when I see an accident. Running around with a camera pretending to be "reporting the news" is sad, not noble or "pursuing an art." If one wanted to photograph dead bodies, one could get a job doing it - I'm sure there isn't a plethora of people with such burning desire. In other words, I don't feel any need to do it, but that doesn't mean there is no purpose to it.

If I happened to have my camera when something truly noteworthy occurred, such as -god forbid- a market bombing or building explosion, I might pull it out after all the survivors were tended to, but I don't have any aspirations of winning fame and fortune from the misery and tragedy of my fellows. Of course, YMMV, 🙂

 

[flashover]

I didn't vote as i didn't see an answer that applies to me. I do take the kind of photos noted as part of my job. I don't enjoy it but neither dose it bother me I just do it. I guess you get numb to the graphic or traumatic nature of the subject. Most of the subjects I shoot involve Trauma related injuries and are never published or released to media. I in fact it is part of our SOGs that non-departmental Photographers or media are not allowed on site within the operational area.

 

[rbiemer]

Photography is my hobby. I do have a camera with me almost always. But, in the thankfully few times I've come across an accident, the first thing I did was to remember my first aid training. Then to get my phone to get someone more qualified to help.
I have, unfortunately, had to go to three or four calling hours/funerals in the last six months or so and those were among the few times I very specifically left the camera home.
I guess it comes down to I am not a PJ and have no desire to be one.
I don't think I could get the kind of emotional distance to do it.
Rob

 

[steve garza]

Kevin.....

Kevin.....

I must say that this is a very interesting topic.

I am a photojournalist based in Jerusalem for the last 14 years. I've worked with many publications, well known (Time, Newsweek, Figaro, Paris Match, etc.), to the not so well known.

I have photographed death and destruction so often, that I have become numb to it. Whenever a bomb would go off here, I was there. On a few occassions I was the first photographer on the scene. Why, because I was just a few meters away when the blast went off! It was my job to cover these events and to convey the story that was happening around me. Whether it was bombs going off, clashes erupting, tear gas being fired or being caught in cross fire, it was my job to get the shots and make sure that they were/are strong images. Images that the public can not only see, but also feel the emotional impact from.

I think that I can safely speak for a lot of PJ's when I say that the camera is not only a tool, but also a shield. It protects you from the gravity of the situation. It wasn't until after I would edit and transmit my images that I would look them over again and say to myself "sh*t, I was just there!" Then I would pour myself a double whiskey to calm my nerves.

If you're going to shoot that stuff you have to have a strong stomach and you have to be intrusive. You will have to get into peoples faces and you will have to take it when they yell and scream at you. There's no other way.

I haven't shot news now for about a year and a half. I've photographed too much death and destruction. Not just here in Jerusalem, but also abroad (Kosovo... remember that?).

My focus now is more along the features and human interest stories. Feel free to check out my site http://www.kunger.com

Hope this helps,

Kevin

You do wonderful work. I would encourage everyone to see your website.

 

[uhligfd]

How about personal death, friends, family who are going towards death, getting weaker, disoriented, bed-ridden, comatose?

Would you (or I) photograph their last days? weeks? or last moments?

I have pictured my aging grandmother, months before her time of dying. The pics were too personal for one of my aunts. but I love the look of her in high age and her approaching her death in my memory and in the pictures, seeing a great person suffer towards death and me and her knowing about it, too.

But I did not, do not photograph death, as the poll asks us about. What is death, visually, how can one picture death? (W H Smith did superbly in Japan!) And why? (He had a reason!) I do not, i hope.

 

[Avotius]

I have been in situations to photograph death many times, the first time I couldnt do it, after that there were many times that I have

 

[FrankS]

I very recently photographed my deceased father in law at his visitation and funeral (with the consent, expectation even, of the family).

Framed photo enlargements I took of him (alone and with family) during the years and months before his passing were displayed to help celebrate his life.

My wife's famly will appreciate the images for posterity.

If I came upon a fatal accident scene, I do not have the constitution to take pictures.

If there were a purpose for taking photos, say of a political atrocity, I believe I then could.

 

[RdEoSg]

There are car accidents at the corner where I live all the time. I rarely ever take my camera when I go watch what is happening. On the few times I have, it was because they were using big cranes to pick cars up from a ditch and lift them high into the air. Now THAT is something you don't see every day!

As for shooting death and so forth, I guess it would depend on the situation. If people needed to see it for some greater good then I would, but just for some accident I don't see the need. We don't need 5,000 photos of deaths caused by drunk driving to show people it is bad. Everyone knows what can happen. Many have seen those images.

On the other hand. Pictures of famine, of genocide, etc. Those photos need to be taken and need to be seen. It is easy for people on the other side of the world to turn a blind eye to it, but not so easy when the photos are on the front page of their paper each day.

 

[Xmas]

The dead person wont mind. You wont mind if some one does it to you, one day.

If you make money give it to charity, if you have a problem.

Noel

 

[Steve Bellayr]

PJ's. as uncomfortable as the job could be at times, and for some this could certain ly be that time, do provide us with invaluable proof and insight into the event. Years later the written word looses its power but the photograph remains vivid. Last night I was looking at the photographs of my wife's late father that he took at the time of the Battle of Leyte Gulf. For her it was a realization tht he had taken part in one of the major battles of the Pacific campaign. She could actually look through his eyes and see what he had seen for brief moments.

 

[sherm]

I think as some have already posted that it would be justified if the pictures were used to aide in a cause of human suffereing like Dharfur or the Sunami. Photography in many ways is a truly personal experience both for the shooter and the subject, in this case the deceased's relatives and family. I received Annie Leibowitz's book for XMAS and note that she recorded not only the last days of her partner Susan Sontag, but also her own father. To her it seemed perfectly natural to do so, I think this subject border's on one's own beliefs, religion and morals. Let's be careful😱

Scott