Ethics and taste and what we can do.

[ClaremontPhoto]

A woman just died right outside my office. One hour ago, maybe less. Big truck small woman.

I went with everybody else to see. The fire and rescue were fantastic.

But even though I had my camera on me could I have photographed the 'brave and talented' fire and rescue people or would it have been 'the poor crushed woman photo?

 

[Skinny McGee]

My Pop was a journalist.. I think he would have believe that once the rescue got to the scene It would not be ethicly wrong if it was your job to report it. I remember him commenting on when they had to pass the law saying that if you were filming or photographing someone in parrel and did not help you could get in trouble....Its sad when you have to pass a law for someone to help another person.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Thank you.

War photographers likely have to make similar decisions.

Yet I could not there and then.

 

[foolproof]

i photographed a guy who had had a fit in front of a bus a few weeks ago - right after a similar thread on ethics and what nots. i just had to or i would kick myself. prob because i want to do documentary ork in the future, so this jst added another layer of skin onto me. will post pics when i scan them, for a bit of fuel to the fire 🙂

 

[kully]

Everyone has different ethics. I couldn't stand to take photos of someone else dead or suffering. If it was a war or a famine and the message needed to get out then that is a different story.

However, taking photos for your own pleasure (which is all it would be) seems slightly odd.

A car pulled out into a speeding bike down my road this summer. Both of them got killed - I saw someone with a videocam - I'm wondering what he got out of it?

Your post was thought provoking in other ways though Jon, I know I'll be giving the missus a hug when I get home tonight.

 

[FrankS]

Do what feels right to you. No one should judge without knowing your motives. Perhaps you have to do it once to find out that it's wrong for you. Whatever.

The motive part is essential in this issue I think. An illustration is that some folks take photos of kids because they represent joy and innocence, while others take the same photos and get off on them in a sexual way. Same photos, different motives.

Unless one knows/understands the motives of a person taking accident scene photos, one shouldn't judge. One can say that it isn't what they would do, but imposing your beliefs/standards/whatever on others is wrong IN THIS INSTANCE.

If the behaviour is something universally reprehensible, then society has an obligation to impose standards, but this is not the case here, IMO.

 

[foolproof]

heres the shot i mentioned earlier. opinions welcome ...

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Robert Capa would have done it.

Jon Claremont leaned on the wall of the of the nursery school feeling ill.

Woman in bodybag being pulled out of under a truck. Image of the road traffic carnage every day, and the bravery of the fire and rescue volunteers. And I couldn't hack it.

 

[Ash]

I'm not sure on this one... I'd be compelled to take the photo. I would have to document it out of a need to never miss a moment. I think something as distressing as people have said will be stuck in our memories forever, so a photo of it isn't making it any more or less vivid. That said, I wouldn't consider it a piece to go in my portfolio. It would be archived and maybe never looked at again.

I try to push myself to the limits. I've been brought up in a culture of sex and violence on tv and everywhere around me (just recently a girl about 17 was found dead around the back of the shop I used to work in, by the car park), I personally find no pleasure in it, and I lose my appetite at the thought, but at the same time I'm quite numb to it.


Many war photographers take some very, very sick photo's, but never have them published. Maybe I possess the same gene? If I was in a situation, personally I wouldn't mind having a photo taken of me, no matter how horrific. As long as it wasn't used for some sick pleasure or to distress people. So in a sense I would document as I wish to be documented - in the most brilliant and the most brilliantly upsetting situations.

 

[Xmas]

Capa's last photo is of french troops who he was following through a rice paddy field, then he tripped the mine they had missed.

The agency still published his last shot...

Noel

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I know how you feel; I believe. There are circumstances where I feel I'd be "exploiting" the situation, and it feels downright wrong to "take advantage" of it.

As long as your mind and conscience is fine, I think that's what matters. At least to me.

Paparazzi, on the other hand, oy.

 

[wlewisiii]

As I read through the thread, I'm reminded that some of my favorite shots by Weegee are of the people observing rather than of the tragedy itself. "Who will watch the watchmen?", indeed... Something to think about if there is ever a next time.

William

 

[photogdave]

This was discussed very heatedly (is that a word? I should know...) in a thread a few weeks ago.
When I was a newspaper photographer it was my job to show up in these situations and shoot something. I was trained to show the emergency service people doing their job and to not show the victim in a way that would be embarrassing.
This was a very difficult and uncomforable part of the job. Many people at these scenes don't appreciate a photographer there, and it makes it worse when a non-professional is there snapping away. I don't know a single news photog who enjoys covering accidents and deaths.
Jon, I'm glad you kept your camera to yourself in this case.
Foolproof, nothing personal, but your photo is weak from a storytelling point of view. It's just a snapshot of a guy in a stretcher. It's not interesting, it would never run in a newspaper, and you could have potentially made the situation more uncomfortable for everyone by sticking your lens in the situation.
I'm sorry if that sounds heavy-handed but that's exactly what my photojournalism teacher would have told me if I had showed it to her!

 

[foolproof]

photogdave: if you went to college and studied photography you should know that images are all about signs - signifiers - denotations and connotations. i think if you look closer at my image you will see that the sign on the top was included in the shot very much on purpose. it reads 'edge'. on the edge of life? on the edge of death? who knows, but i know these signifiers are the basis of what good images are made of. mine happens to be a sign.....of a sign.

 

[Ash]

In an attempt to avoid you two gettin in an argument over this, I think photogdave is talking about a bigger story and mystery behind the image, whereas you have gone for a very deliberate and obvious framing, with an obvious sign.

It's all about interpretation, and you can't please everyone, and with images like yours its even more difficult to impress anyone - i'm not saying my opinion on the shot, i'm speaking broadly

 

[photogdave]

I went to college and studied journalism. Photojournalism was part of the program. Signs can be an important part of a strong image but images don't have to be "all about signs" as you say.
I've made some strong images incorporating signs - check my gallery - and some without.
Unfortunately, from a journalistic point of view, yours is not a strong image. Please take this as constructive crtisism and not a personal attack.
I would say "keep trying" but I don't believe anyone has any business photographing these kind of situations unless it's their job.
Just my humble opinion!

 

[foolproof]

opinion taken in good heart dave. im just learning, and pushing myself, and learning some more. my want is to be a documentary photographer not a photojournalist, but even the documentary photographer needs a tough skin. we'll just have to agree to disagree on the ethics part 🙂 myself and the other half do too 🙂

 

[foolproof]

looking at it again myself, its got the 'edge' sign as i said, but its also got a garda waving on traffic and a man giving a statement to a garda in the background. are these not also good signifiers within the image ? sorry, just trying to deconstruct my own work here a little

 

[MelanieC]

Unless one knows/understands the motives of a person taking accident scene photos, one shouldn't judge.

I completely disagree. Actions mean something. If it isn't your job and there isn't a "greater good" being served, if you're taking pictures of death or suffering purely for your own amusement, then sorry, you're just a vulture. End of story.

Jon, I'm glad you kept your camera to yourself.

Everyone's got their own standards, these are mine. We may disagree about things. I just know that how people behave in these kinds of situations tells me something about that person.

 

[FrankS]

We'll simply agree to disagree on this, Melanie. I think that because of your personal experience, you may have personalized this too much to be objective.

"..and there isn't a "greater good" being served,"

This is a value judgement you're making for someone else, maybe.