Photographic Ethics: The "Weegee dilemma"

[Peter Klein]

Raid: Have a look at this site:
http://www.tinamanley.com

Tina photographs extensively in the "Third World." She's photographed extensively in the Middle East, and currently travels frequently to Guatemala and Honduras. She loves people, and I think it shows.

See the "Portfolios" off her main page. Also her "Statement." I'd be interested in your reaction. Note that some of the Middle East photos are 10-30 years old.

Despite my snapping a few pictures of one auto accident in my whole life, I am actually much more interested in capturing the beauty of life than its ugliness. Sometimes its best to catch people unawares, as they are much more themselves than if you make them aware you are photographing. Asking permission is a judgement call and can be a cultural issue.

But I don't think that the mere act of photographing someone poorer than yourself is in itself a violation or exploitation. If it's done with decent motivation and caring, it can be a good thing.

--Peter

 

[photogdave]

As a former newpaper photographer and a Weegee fan, I find this to be one of the best threads I've read on this forum.
When I was in college one of our assignements was to shoot a "hard news" story so we had to carry a camera around with us everywhere. During this time a young teenage girl had been abducted in our town and was presumed dead.
Driving home one night I saw a bunch of police cars and news trucks parked on the street near a wooded area. I knew in my guts they had found her body.
So I joined the pack with my Canon AE-1 and Sunpack flash, loaded with Tri-X and my college press pass. I was the only still photographer there but all the TV stations had camera crews. Occasionally people would walk by and comprehend the situation. If they started reacting or crying the cameras would swing around with their sun guns blazing, firing questions at them. If the people didn't know the victem personally, the cameras would shut off and the cameramen would turn away disgustedly.
We all waited for a couple of hours as the coroner came and slipped into the woods. The cameramen discussed all meeting up for pizza later. Finally the coroner's men came out of the woods with a stretcher. The cameramen were on them instantly and almost without realizing it I was right alongside them, firing away.
We chased those guys, struggling with the young girl's body, all the way to the coroner's wagon. Within seconds it was all over. The cameramen got their pizza, and I got an A+ on my assignment. My prof said I could have had the shots published but I didn't care to try.
When I went to work at the newspapers, shooting accidents and other gruesome events was really the worst part of the job, and often I couldn't see any real merit in it. I had my share of angry people yelling at me and cursing me and insulting me for doing this job but I never reacted to them because in part, I agreed.
At many of these accident scenes, amateur photogs would pop out, get in the way, and cause further resentment, and for what? A couple of poorly composed snap shots that have no value. This is how I feel about Mr. Klein's "bus stop" photos. No offense sir, but I don't think your photos made a positive contribution to that situation.
I'm glad you didn't get your camera Rafael. I wouldn't all your situation a "Weegee problem" because he never found himself in these situations - he went looking for them!
Regards,

 

[Peter Klein]

I seem to have become a lightning rod for the excesses of ambulance chasers and paparazzi everywhere. Despite the fact that I photographed no blood, viscera, or body parts. Nor did I impede police, obstruct traffic or shove a camera in a grieving widows's face. I just took a couple of pictures of a VW bus that trashed a bus stop shelter in front of my old workplace. I may have momentarily upset the errant driver, but he upset us when he nearly drove his vehicle into our first-floor offices at 45 mph.

Now a former news photographer chews me out, based on his own discomfort with his duties on the "if it bleeds, it leads" beat. Yet he says he is an admirer of Weegee. Huh?

There seems to be a bit of projection going on here. So, just for the record, I did not kill Princess Diana, either.

It is interesting to see the strong emotions stirred up over this subject, and I've learned a lot. But I can no longer contribute constructively to this thread. I'm leaving the building for a breather.

--Peter

 

[varjag]

 

[Pherdinand]

See, varjag, that's what I was meaning by not necessarily a strong picture.
It's just a wrecked car and some people around, faceless people, bored kids. No offense, but why did you take the picture? And why did you post it here, while you have much better shots?

 

[Sparrow]

Some years ago I was the subject, the chap trapped in the crashed car, I had difficulty seeing exactly what the photographer who was at the site was doing, due to blood running into my eyes, but was able to move my hand enough to put two fingers up in his direction. It wasn’t that I had a problem with him taking the pictures I just needed someone to be angry at and of the people who responded to the accident he was the best candidate.

regards

 

[varjag]

Why not?

Say, you have what appears to be an urinating man as your avatar. Would he object or feel offendend has he noticed you? He could've even tried beating the crap out of you 🙂 Still, did that stop you once you decided that taking the shot has a merit?

I find nothing wrong with photographing car accidents when photographer's help is not needed; it is certainly not a bigger sin than just idly gazing on the scene. And if anything, I find photographing homeless people a more cynical venture.. and am guilty of that too, although I constrain myself them only when there's anything else in the scene than finger-pointing value.

This particular shot was posted because it was the only car accident shot scanned I have at hand here, and is a concise way to state my opinion. It is not perfect, it's a quick scan of proof print on an ancient flatbed. I like it though.

 

[Kin Lau]

I understand how you feel Peter. I live at an accident prone corner as well. At one point, I was going to start documenting the number of accidents, since about once a month I'd find a car wrap around a telephone pole or on the lawn of our building. Thankfully the police took some action and the corners been accident free for some time now.

Really, many of these accidents weren't accidents at all, they were the result of someone deliberately ignoring laws and safety. I can't count the number of times I've nearly been hit due to someone running a red light, or taking the corner too fast.

I seem to have become a lightning rod for the excesses of ambulance chasers and paparazzi everywhere. Despite the fact that I photographed no blood, viscera, or body parts. Nor did I impede police, obstruct traffic or shove a camera in a grieving widows's face. I just took a couple of pictures of a VW bus that trashed a bus stop shelter in front of my old workplace. I may have momentarily upset the errant driver, but he upset us when he nearly drove his vehicle into our first-floor offices at 45 mph.
--Peter

 

[Pherdinand]

🙂 ok, since you're asking
A friend of mine did not believe that here in the Civilized Western World (Netherlands), such urinoirs exist on the street and people actually use them. Therefore i took the shot.
The avatar is just a very small crop of it. It's just an avatar.
Luckily he did not notice me. I would have ran away. I did take care that he's small enough not to be recognizable, though.
For that matter it has nothing to do with this thread. But i'm glad you asked, i hope it is clear now.
Don't misunderstand me. I myself take a lot of meaningless photos, or photos that make me wonder alter, why the hell was I wasting film on it.

I also do not find nothing wrong with photographing car accidents, or photographing anything that is legal to do so. If it is moral to do so, that's a different question.
In your case i also don't think you did anything immoral.
I just don't find it a "strong" shot. As i said, i think it's just a wrecked car and some bored kids looking at it. As documentary shot for the car owner probably it's a good shot, but for me, does not do anything.
I know you did not say it's a strong shot. I just used your example to illustrate what i wrote before, that a car accident does not necessarily result in strong (powerful) images. So, thanks for sharing it!🙂

 

[varjag]

Pherdinand, I have no problem whatsoever with your avatar, and I hope there is no impression that I was picking on it: I have similar shots too 🙂 And have seen such urinals in Amsterdam.

The point was though that we sometimes get out of our comfort zone if we see a promise for a shot. And if we think about, photographing a road accident is a lot about getting out of comfort zone: if you just stand there, doing nothing, looking at all that mess it is OK to everyone, but once you bring your camera up it somehow becomes immoral in the eyes of many. Some bystanders frown at you, and people on the forums say it's worse than farting on funerals.

Then, a value, or "strength" of such a shot is a tricky issue. Undoubtedly, no car accident shot gonna ever be an iconic image inspiring future generations. But a road accident shot isn't necessarily devoid of value. If a driver or two get cold sweat on their backs from looking at it and it makes them more attentive on the road for a couple of days, it served well.

 

[BrianShaw]

I seem to have become a lightning rod ... It is interesting to see the strong emotions stirred up over this subject, and I've learned a lot. But I can no longer contribute constructively to this thread. I'm leaving the building for a breather.

This was bound to happen... but it seems like anyone who posted a pic in this thread became a lightning rod. You're not alone, Peter... even avatars aren't sacred! The flack you took (are taking) actually seems to have made this a good thread. This is a topic that does raise a lot of emotion. When pics like this are printed in the news, the most common reaction seems to be "so what". Perhaps a major exception can be made for the Ferrari Enzo that some yokel split in two while he was going 130 MPH on Pacific Coast Highway in CA and hit a light post... now THAT'S a scene worth photographing! Pro newsgatherers are a PITA at times, but they have a lot more acceptance in society because they are "in the biz". Amateurs, on the other hand, seem to be more prone to being looked on negatively because they "have no purpose" in photographing events like this. Yes, they have "rights" and , yes, they may be PJ students but, in general, they seem to be just wannabe's-with-a-camera and don't contribute to the situation. But they are no different from the onlookers who stand there gawking, or the lookie-loos who slow down in adjacent lanes to stare a while at "the action". Since this seems to diescribe most of society (at least here in So California) I guess it's normal behavior and one can't be too critical of it. Several years ago one of my colleagues posted a pic on his office door of a car, after a wreck, sitting on it's roof rather than on its wheels. The general reaction of those seeing it mirrored this thread's discussion. Why bother... it's not a very interesting picture; why would you take such a picture; etc. We've heard it all. I asked all of these questions, too. His reply: "when was the last time you saw the bottom of a car." My response: "so what; what's the point?" Short of being two halves of an Enzo, these pics don't tell much of a story. But I do understand the value of documenting unsafe intersections, etc. Our public officials rarely understand these situations if fatalities haven't occured... so providing them with a visual experience might be of some benefit in terms of getting action to reconcile unsafe conditions that might exist. But showing car accident pictures with no specific purposes, or with no "spectacular" nature; or no overwhelming artistic value is sure to get a heated discussion going. Don't take it personally; I certainly understand how taking a breather will be good for you at this point in the discussion. Thanks for making it interesting!

 

[jonasv]

Pictures can make a difference. You can make a difference. You just have to know when and where. If you were going to take the picture for your personal enjoyment, that'd be horrible. If you were to take it in a journalistic sense, to show people not only what happened but what can happen, and if doing so would make a few people (or just one) wake up and drive more carefully, that's something splendid.

I just came back from Romania. I photographed some things I wish I had not even seen. But I know why I did it.

The kid on the left is mentally handicapped, the boy on the right has a skin disease. They have no homes. And there were many, many more kids like these. They live under bridges, in the sewers, at the railway station. During the day they beg, steal and sniff glue.

I wanted to take them to a hospital and pay for them to get proper treatment. Maybe I could have paid for two, or three, or even four or five of them. But I didn't. Instead I talked to them, laughed with them, cared about them... and photographed them. I know that once this series is finished, once I've compiled a documentary with photos and text, and once I show this documentary to the public, more money will be raised, and these kids will get proper care; not two or three of them, but who knows, all of them?

At the moment itself it is hard to press that button. Very hard.

But sometimes... you know exactly why you are doing it. And who you are doing it for.

 

[Silva Lining]

I think in life you gotta do that with which you feel comfortable. I agree with Raid, in a similar situation to him in a township in South Africa - some very intersting photos on offer, but my camera stayed in its bag.

I recently saw some guy floating face-down in the Thames (He was dead, He'd been in a while) I had my camera in my hand as the coastguard fished him out with a boat hook. I didn't shoot, although many others on the Wobbly (Millenium) Bridge did.

In many ways I didn't need to. The violent and poor lives of those in the townships is tsrak, but also the generosity and freindship is a feeling that will never leave me.

Neither will the black bloated face of the guy that fell (or was pushed) into the Thames, who's main claim to fame was to be dragged out the water infront of hoarde of random representatives from across the world on holiday in London.

For me I made the right decision, but for others , they would have felt it right to record and thats the right decision for them....

 

[micromontenegro]

Eleven years ago, my high school sweetheart died on a car accident. We had been off-again on-again for 15 years, and she was at that time the most important person in my life. To this day, the memory that hurts the most was seeing the newspaper picture of her dead body. That picture didn't serve any purpose, and left me a long standing bitterness. There's no need for that in the world.

 

[foolproof]

this is something my other half and myself argue over every so often. she would never take a photo or even a snap in any situations like the ones discussed, whereas i know i would have a little fella on my shoulder tellin me to take just one.

if the situation is been seen to by many others and help is abundant, and im just a passer by, i see noting wrong with it. if anyone standing around says anything to me **** em. if they were that concerned about the situation, they probably wont even notice me because theyll be too busy helping someone.

if my help is needed, im there for whoever it is. if its not, but i just happen to be there then so be it.

 

[John Rountree]

From reading this thread a couple of things come to mind. first, in other threads the right to photograph anything and everything in public is vigorously defended, But now that defense seems to stop when it is "my family" being photographed in public.
Secondly, does this thread mean that Weegee's photographs should no longer be looked at or appreciated because there is no lingering "news value?" Afterall many are the illustrations of someone's misfortune and suffering that is no longer relevant.

 

[BrianShaw]

From reading this thread a couple of things come to mind. first, in other threads the right to photograph anything and everything in public is vigorously defended, But now that defense seems to stop when it is "my family" being photographed in public.

Don't make the mistake of confusing "legal right" with ethics or morality. They are two totally separate issues.

 

[ghost]

varjag's picture is actually quite strong. the figures are arranged in a single, messy shape that ties together fore and midground, consisting of the rapt onlookers, policeman, and victims, your gaze moving on to the one independant figure on the left edge, whose head is turned away (notice who is looking where), which brings to your attention a line of pedestrians in the background who are just passing by. in the backgroud is an almost blinding fascade with darker vertical stripes that exert a downward pressure (remind anyone of a certain hcb picture?). the composition is excellent. it really shows you what's going on in the picture, which you might think is boring, but i think is filled with anxiety. if you can't see that, maybe you need to have your sense of empathy checked.

 

[Silva Lining]

From reading this thread a couple of things come to mind. first, in other threads the right to photograph anything and everything in public is vigorously defended, But now that defense seems to stop when it is "my family" being photographed in public.

An interesting point - i guess how someone might feel about this depends upon their relation to the subject of the photograph, the level of empathy that they feel.

Consider a photo of a person who has been shot, our feelings for the subject in what is a picture of a cadaver, would vary depending upon whether the person was :

A Freedom Fighter
A Terrorist
A Father of Two Family Man
A Murderer
An Brave Soldier
A Relative

Of course a person be one, a number or ALL of these things, its the realtionship that drives the response.

When I have been in the situations I described in my earlier post, I felt empathy with the people that made me not want to photograph them. This same empathy in another person, might make them WANT to photograph them. I respect that this is the behaviour that their empathy leads them to.

 

[ywenz]

varjag's picture is actually quite strong. it really shows you what's going on in the picture, which you might think is boring, but i think is filled with anxiety. if you can't see that, maybe you need to have your sense of empathy checked.

Why would I want to waste my empathy on picture of a trite vehicle accident? There are plenty of powerful images out there that I can re-tune my empathy with.