skibeerr
Well-known
Sad, beginning middle and end.
What if it was your kid lying there?
What if it was your kid lying there?
newspaperguy
Well-known
I started as a cub in the photo biz on police the police beat in Gary, IN. I had seen more blood than most surgeons by the time I enlisted. Then of course, I ended up shooting crime scenes for the CID. (Think the Army version of NCIS or CSI)
Like a forensic scientist, you have to get used to it. build a wall.
That said, there's a huge difference between someone shooting for a living, someone who has to be there, and some looky-loo with a cell phone and a gore complex.
Like a forensic scientist, you have to get used to it. build a wall.
That said, there's a huge difference between someone shooting for a living, someone who has to be there, and some looky-loo with a cell phone and a gore complex.
Darshan
Well-known
Interesting perspective presented by all, makes me think what would I do.
The original article specifically mentions "lay dying", it does not mention that she was already dead. And I believe if a person is in need of help, anyone can help him/her regardless of his/her capacity. I disagree with the person who says that he couldn't have helped even if he wanted to. I don't know if this belief is related to my profession or not (I am a physician), but that is my opinion...you can always help someone who is dying.
Talking about profession, a lot of people who said that would photograph a dying person are/have been PJ's, makes me think that they have overcome that horrific feeling of seeing someone dying/dead.
I don't think morality is a part playing in your decision to/not to photograph such an event, just as the OP asked; "would you photograph..?", I can ask; "why wouldn't you photograph?". I believe there is a component of decency or courtsy to the dead that can play a role here. If your job is dependent of photographing as event like this, it is not immoral to do it, on the other hand I would refrain myself from doing it as a hobby.
So my answer is: NO, I wouldn't photograph such an event, but I can't say that for everybody out there.
Commiting suicide is a pathological state of mind and that person needs help. You cannot photograph someone jumping off the bridge and not help him/her thinking he/she has the right to do so.
@JSU: man, you have 4294967189 posts since you joined (July, 09), that's 10578737 posts/day, 440780 posts/hour and 7346 posts/minute!!!! Is it even possible? or someone is manipulating the #s?
Cheers,
Dan.
The original article specifically mentions "lay dying", it does not mention that she was already dead. And I believe if a person is in need of help, anyone can help him/her regardless of his/her capacity. I disagree with the person who says that he couldn't have helped even if he wanted to. I don't know if this belief is related to my profession or not (I am a physician), but that is my opinion...you can always help someone who is dying.
Talking about profession, a lot of people who said that would photograph a dying person are/have been PJ's, makes me think that they have overcome that horrific feeling of seeing someone dying/dead.
I don't think morality is a part playing in your decision to/not to photograph such an event, just as the OP asked; "would you photograph..?", I can ask; "why wouldn't you photograph?". I believe there is a component of decency or courtsy to the dead that can play a role here. If your job is dependent of photographing as event like this, it is not immoral to do it, on the other hand I would refrain myself from doing it as a hobby.
So my answer is: NO, I wouldn't photograph such an event, but I can't say that for everybody out there.
Commiting suicide is a pathological state of mind and that person needs help. You cannot photograph someone jumping off the bridge and not help him/her thinking he/she has the right to do so.
@JSU: man, you have 4294967189 posts since you joined (July, 09), that's 10578737 posts/day, 440780 posts/hour and 7346 posts/minute!!!! Is it even possible? or someone is manipulating the #s?
Cheers,
Dan.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
<aside>
And then there's stuff like this story that "broke" via "The Chive" this past Tuesday August 10 (never heard of the site before):
http://thechive.com/2010/08/10/girl-quits-her-job-on-dry-erase-board-emails-entire-office-33-photos/
It actually got picked up by mainstream media - more as an "entertainment" piece I believe. Apparently MSNBC picked it up. So did NY Magazine:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/another_excellent_way_to_say_i.html
The next day, August 11, The Chive revealed the whole thing was a hoax:
http://thechive.com/2010/08/11/a-word-from-jenny-16-photos/
Yet it goes to show just how "trusting" people can be to what is online.
So, personally, I don't believe sh!te I read in a blog - a blog is someone's opinion, someone's point of view, someone's skewed way of looking at something. The same can be said for Fox news or for NPR for that matter.
There are at least 3 sides to every story so without hearing from all it's hard to paint or have a complete picture... (pardon the pun)</aside>
Now back to your regularly scheduled posting..
Dave
Just remember some of the photos that were posted in the NYC papers (daily news for one) the day after 9/11... very gross and morbid stuff.
PKR
Veteran
Do I think it's immoral? I dunno.
Well:
I think it's all in your reaction to the situation. Is a F###ing photo more important than aiding someone in trouble? If you have trouble with this kind of decision, I don't know what to say..
Well:
I think it's all in your reaction to the situation. Is a F###ing photo more important than aiding someone in trouble? If you have trouble with this kind of decision, I don't know what to say..
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Correct. There is no difference.
And do you believe everyone who disagrees with you lacks intellectual rigor?
dave lackey
Veteran
Jeez, sounds a lot like bunch of lawyers.
No one yet has discussed sensitivity which is part of each one of us or it isn't. Personally, no one in my family has become that de-sensitized and it is one of my goals to make sure my grandchildren are not de-sensitized as well.
As for me, taking such photo's outside of police photos is a good example of de-sensitivity. No way would I even think of doing it.
As for writing, it is no different than talking about it....but the graphical display of such is over the top. One can discuss many things but photos of certain things are certainly prohibited and illegal...and you all know where that line of thought is coming from.
No one yet has discussed sensitivity which is part of each one of us or it isn't. Personally, no one in my family has become that de-sensitized and it is one of my goals to make sure my grandchildren are not de-sensitized as well.
As for me, taking such photo's outside of police photos is a good example of de-sensitivity. No way would I even think of doing it.
As for writing, it is no different than talking about it....but the graphical display of such is over the top. One can discuss many things but photos of certain things are certainly prohibited and illegal...and you all know where that line of thought is coming from.
antiquark
Derek Ross
So for you there is no difference between a newscaster saying
"someone had sex" and a video showing actual people having sex?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Is There A Difference?
Is There A Difference?
After reading these posts I'm left wondering if the debate isn't more about the human psyche than about the incident itself. For example, I can imagine that if the scene was one where a horse had been in collision with a car and was so injured it was about to die, would you take the photo whereas if it were a human you would not?
Would you feel as compelled to go to the aid of a dying horse as to a dying human? Even if you're neither a veterinarian or a doctor?
In the case of a human, would it make any difference to your intent if the fatality were due to a traffic accident than a suicide?
The atheistic rationalist (and I'm probably close to that position) might say we're just another evolved species - that there is no heaven or hell - and what you're seeing is just a dead or dying body. Basically no difference.
But as a species we seem to be hard wired to protect and preserve our 'selves'. A horse is a horse. A human is one of us, and we are inclined (unless desensitised) to feel vulnerability, threat, compassion - any number of emotions which are not entirely rational.
Arising out of this of course are the concepts of "sanctity of human life', the Hippocratic Oath, and interwoven are beliefs in an afterlife.
What I'm trying ask is whether the answer to the original question is about a lot more than opportunity or potential use of the images - it's probably much more about some of the things (values) that make us different as a species, and why this is so.
I'm not wanting nor inviting any discussion or examination of what any may interpret as my personal beliefs, and if you hadn't guessed already, I don't think it's anything to do with religion. Humans came along a lot earlier than religion.
Is There A Difference?
After reading these posts I'm left wondering if the debate isn't more about the human psyche than about the incident itself. For example, I can imagine that if the scene was one where a horse had been in collision with a car and was so injured it was about to die, would you take the photo whereas if it were a human you would not?
Would you feel as compelled to go to the aid of a dying horse as to a dying human? Even if you're neither a veterinarian or a doctor?
In the case of a human, would it make any difference to your intent if the fatality were due to a traffic accident than a suicide?
The atheistic rationalist (and I'm probably close to that position) might say we're just another evolved species - that there is no heaven or hell - and what you're seeing is just a dead or dying body. Basically no difference.
But as a species we seem to be hard wired to protect and preserve our 'selves'. A horse is a horse. A human is one of us, and we are inclined (unless desensitised) to feel vulnerability, threat, compassion - any number of emotions which are not entirely rational.
Arising out of this of course are the concepts of "sanctity of human life', the Hippocratic Oath, and interwoven are beliefs in an afterlife.
What I'm trying ask is whether the answer to the original question is about a lot more than opportunity or potential use of the images - it's probably much more about some of the things (values) that make us different as a species, and why this is so.
I'm not wanting nor inviting any discussion or examination of what any may interpret as my personal beliefs, and if you hadn't guessed already, I don't think it's anything to do with religion. Humans came along a lot earlier than religion.
photogdave
Shops local
Journalists have MANY essential qualities bloggers don't have: education, experience, resources, editors to check your work...
PKR
Veteran
I agree Dave, but I think things are changing.
Chris101
summicronia
Bizarre juxtaposition of name, method of death, and the importance of a post mortem picture:
http://www.phxart.org/slideshow/index.html#/COL/72157606224219494/2677532119/
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I wonder, would the Wile photograph been as "beautiful" had her body been more mangled, her face unrecognizable due to it being battered and bloodied from potentially hitting "objects" on the way down and if it were in colour.
I think this truly is more about how each of us deal with this "sort of thing" - as I said earlier, some of us don't care too much and are hardened to it and therefore would snap away while others can't even take watching a doctor draw blood from a baby's arm and look away or try to comfort the child.
We are all wired differently.
We should be thankful for that..
Dave
I think this truly is more about how each of us deal with this "sort of thing" - as I said earlier, some of us don't care too much and are hardened to it and therefore would snap away while others can't even take watching a doctor draw blood from a baby's arm and look away or try to comfort the child.
We are all wired differently.
We should be thankful for that..
Dave
ampguy
Veteran
A book I recently read called "The Model Wife" discusses, and shows a few contact images taken by a photographer named Seeichi Furuya, who photographed his wife just after she jumped out of a building to her death. Hen na ko? desyou ka?
Later he printed some 400 photos taken of her while she was alive and exhibited them.
I highly recommend the book. It goes into the relationship between some photographers and their wives, and sometimes models.
Later he printed some 400 photos taken of her while she was alive and exhibited them.
I highly recommend the book. It goes into the relationship between some photographers and their wives, and sometimes models.
PKR
Veteran
Warhol was a strange guy. Go have a look at Avedon's photo of Warhol's stomach. It should be easy to find. His face, as I recall, isn't in the photo (Avedon did a head shot too, it's a different image).
here it is:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Richard_Avedon/3.L.htm
Last edited:
Darshan
Well-known
I have seen at least 2 incidents where a car collided with a horse, and in both those instances the cars were seriously injured and the horses ran away
.But I see what you mean, I think I would try to help the horse but won't feel too obligated to do so compared to if it were a human.
Moral is a moral, not a law. I can't stop anyone from photographing something. Everyone needs to draw a limit to what is acceptable to them not to others, as far as no laws are broken.
Dan.
benlees
Well-known
Being an open minded person, I would love to see the intellectual rigor involved in the exercise of maintaining that an event recorded as it is happening is one and the same as broadcasting/publishing interpretations of that event in the future.
I suspect push ups might be easier, but much less interesting.
PKR
Veteran
If the issue is with a press photographer, then I place the photographer in the same "job" criteria as a EMT. Other than that, i think it has a bit to do with the value we place on a life. In some parts of the world, life has little value. Maybe things are changing in our part?
flip
良かったね！
0.02
0.02
That is exactly the photo that came to mind for me when I read:
What does this mean for war photojournalism? Is it equivalent to snuff footage? I guess intent is the dividing line.
Personally, I am a cautious type. I tend to err towards respecting perceptions of space, privacy, feelings. That's probably a factor that limits me as a photographer, really. However, having spent time with my friend's corpse at his funeral, I already have an image that I cannot shake. Enough for me.
In regards to
I did not enjoy this movie. (Who would, really?) ...But documentation of events has its place. I am not sure how one can morally rebuff a photog for documenting reality (presumably with some intent to start dialog) and not impugn society for doing nothing (at that time) about statistics that evidenced a continuing suicide trend at that location. To the extent that the movie is sensationalistic, it lacks taste (IMHO). I just wish we didn't have a world that supplied fodder for such films. I wonder if the movie had any positive impact on bridge safety or suicide prevention. I hope that was part of the intent.
Context is everything.
[ Incidentally, Bob, I think our personal tastes on the matter are not so far apart, and I have no issue with your personal reaction to the media we've discussed. So, please don't take exception to the references above. ]
0.02
That is exactly the photo that came to mind for me when I read:
What does this mean for war photojournalism? Is it equivalent to snuff footage? I guess intent is the dividing line.
Personally, I am a cautious type. I tend to err towards respecting perceptions of space, privacy, feelings. That's probably a factor that limits me as a photographer, really. However, having spent time with my friend's corpse at his funeral, I already have an image that I cannot shake. Enough for me.
In regards to
I did not enjoy this movie. (Who would, really?) ...But documentation of events has its place. I am not sure how one can morally rebuff a photog for documenting reality (presumably with some intent to start dialog) and not impugn society for doing nothing (at that time) about statistics that evidenced a continuing suicide trend at that location. To the extent that the movie is sensationalistic, it lacks taste (IMHO). I just wish we didn't have a world that supplied fodder for such films. I wonder if the movie had any positive impact on bridge safety or suicide prevention. I hope that was part of the intent.
Context is everything.
[ Incidentally, Bob, I think our personal tastes on the matter are not so far apart, and I have no issue with your personal reaction to the media we've discussed. So, please don't take exception to the references above. ]
Last edited: