"Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"

dcsang said:
As mentioned, a police officer documenting the scene or a news reporter documenting the scene (however I know of no newspapers that would really outright show a suicide victim - but then again, I'm in North America.. perhaps there are papers elsewhere that actually would go ahead and show such a thing) is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

A bypasser who happens upon the scene who could have offered help (either to the victim or the ex-boyfriend or family member) but instead decides to take out a camera phone (or point and shoot or Leica M or Bessa R or what have you) for no other reason than to say "Hey, look at this cool street scene I shot !!" has no respect for the dead (or about-to-be dead), no respect for the victim's family/friends that may be present or, for that matter, no respect for themselves.

Just my opinion mind you - I just wouldn't do it.

Dave
Click to expand...
Dear Dave,

As Fred said: Weegee. Remember the dead young woman lying (surprisingly peacefully) on the crushed roof of the car? For that matter, public executions: Tom Howard's Ruth Snyder?

The America press has already done it. Lots of times.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
crawdiddy said:
Do we consider photography to be too powerful? Is that why so many people say they would not photograph a corpse? And yet no one has said that it's wrong to write a sensational news story about a suicide.

Why is photography special? Are we afraid we'll steal their souls?
Click to expand...

could it be that photography isn't so special but the last few moments of a persons life are? why not allow them their dignity, or try to help them?
i have no problem with photographing a corpse. i have a problem with witnessing someone about to become one and taking a picture instead of trying to help them.

bob
 
I would agree, from a logical perspective, that Dan is "correct" - with his logic mind you - but we all know humans are not entirely logical at times. :D

For example, put yourself in the "victims family's" shoes. Say your youngest son (or your mother, or your wife, or brother or what have you) ends up killing themselves and you are on the scene. How would YOU[/b} feel about me whipping out my camera and taking a photo of it for no reason other than I found it "interesting" ?

It's all about our "limits as human beings " in what we deem acceptable. The original post by Messr Kapsberger asks: If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?

So to Dan, the answer may be "yep.. sure.. why not" while to others it is or may be "nope... "

To some, clearly it's acceptable, and to others it is not.

Dave
 
I seem to hold something of an unpopular opinion: I probably would take the picture, I thought I could do something good with it, and I don't know how taking it could be construed as immoral. I think that one of the most powerful images I have ever seen was Kevin Carters 1994 Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo of a starving child. Google it if you don't know the image. The vast majority of the conversation in this thread so far would deem the taking of that image to be either wrong or immoral. If the image can impact others to do good, raise awareness, etc., then maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the photographer.


Separate point: I didn't ask the question, but this is where the question "would it be ok/better if it weren't a camera phone" comes in. I think the point being made was, this: Suppose that the folk taking pictures were wearing a photo vest or carrying a Domke (Think Tank, etc) and shooting with a D3 fitted with a 24-70 f/2.8 instead of cell-phones. If you were observing this scene, would that alter your perception of the morality of the person taking the picture? If so, then maybe the act of making the photograph is not immoral. Maybe our real concern in what we do with sensitive images. I, for one, would think it poor taste use the images to show off to your friends.

Jeremy
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Dave,

As Fred said: Weegee. Remember the dead young woman lying (surprisingly peacefully) on the crushed roof of the car? For that matter, public executions: Tom Howard's Ruth Snyder?

The America press has already done it. Lots of times.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yep.. like I said Roger.. I don't know of any but clearly that doesn't mean there hasn't been any.

With respect to public executions - I'm sure you know how Eddie Adams felt about photographing Nguyễn Ngọc Loan execute Nguyễn Văn Lém - granted it wasn't the victim that was heavily impacted but the surviving executioner...

Dave
 
I wouldn't have.

Between the internet as a publication device and the media now using the publics photos, I think we as a society set up a situation where anyone may view themselves as a photojournalist in any situation. Whether the individuals justification is altruistic or selfish, anyones work may be published and could be important.

The conflict is that these people don't know what to shoot, when to shoot, etc. It makes everyone into an observer instead of a participant in the moment or event. There are no ethics or understanding.

Frankly, I don't know how this gets resolved. When I photograph local events, there are almost as many photographers as their are participants. This all seems related to the same thing some how, though I can't put the pieces together in my head.
 
dcsang said:
As mentioned, a...news reporter documenting the scene...is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I can't see the difference, especially in sensational stories such as this, between looking at photos taken by a news photographer and at those taken by an amateur. There's an element of living vicariously, being at a scene by way of someone else's words and photos.

If you can allow yourself to be at the scene through a pro's photos, why can't you allow yourself to be at the scene through an amateur's photos or through your own photos?

In your previous post, you mentioned respecting the dead body. Does a photographer show more respect for the dead body simply because he's paid to shoot pictures?

Are an amateur's photographs of a death scene inherently disrespectful of the dead?
 
Here is a quote from Wikipedia by Shakespeare:

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
Click to expand...

How can we judge this situation, not being there?

I don't know myself well enough to know if I'd take that picture or not.

Socrates:
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Click to expand...

Be it wrong or right, it causes us to question. That alone can be reason enough.
 
crawdiddy said:
What's so special about photography? A writer describes a girl's suicide and publishes the story in a paper, and that's fine. But a photograph of the subject would be disrespectful?

I don't follow this logic.
Click to expand...
The coroner wasn't blasting working photographers, rather people stopping to photograph the scene for their own interests. Your comparison of a writer documenting the event works if the photographers were similarly working in the public interest, but they were not. Their photographs are inspired by morbid interest. The event could be written about in a morbid, sensationalistic fashion too, and that would not pass the smell test.
 
J J Kapsberger said:
Dave,

I can't see the difference, especially in sensational stories such as this, between looking at photos taken by a news photographer and at those taken by an amateur. There's an element of living vicariously, being at a scene by way of someone else's words and photos.

If you can allow yourself to be at the scene through a pro's photos, why can't you allow yourself to be at the scene through an amateur's photos or through your own photos?

In your previous post, you mentioned respecting the dead body. Does a photographer show more respect for the dead body simply because he's paid to shoot pictures?

Are an amateur's photographs of a death scene inherently disrespectful of the dead?
Click to expand...

I suggest you refer to my last post (before this one) on this topic:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1388984&postcount=47

It basically sums up my feelings on it.

You asked if *I* would take the photo.
I would not.

Clearly others would.

Dave
 
crawdiddy said:
What about amateur bloggers? Are they entitled to write about news events?

I'm not buying this at all.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think they are. They don't have the same skills and resources as a trained journalist. I think it's a sad state of affairs when people believe blogs are legitimate news.
 
crawdiddy said:
Do we consider photography to be too powerful? Is that why so many people say they would not photograph a corpse? And yet no one has said that it's wrong to write a sensational news story about a suicide.
Click to expand...

Do you really discern no difference between a written account and a photographic one? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse about a tragic subject?
 
It's a little ironic, the more skilled I become as a photographer, the less I want to shoot any kind of trauma. There's no point and seems to be merely exploitative and self-serving. That said, I can understand someone taking a photo of this scene if there was nothing they could do to help. Having been in some circumstances like this, my first instinct is to help, not to reach for my camera.

RE: are blogs news? Of course they are. What is real news anyway? In these days of fox news, journalistic integrity and neutrality is out the window. There have been tons of stories that have broken in blogs way before the mainstream media catches on.
 
I saw this happen at a local train station. Some one was injured and rather than call for help, the youngsters photographed the victim with their cell phone cameras, hoping to be the first to post the images to some social network. I heard them talking about the accident. The new "photo journalism"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom