foolproof
Established
ywenz said:
when people make strong comments on other peoples photos the first thing i do is look at theres. ive spent the past 5 minutes looking through yours (flickr link) and i find it all a bit 'trite' to be honest.
Photographic Ethics: The "Weegee dilemma"
- Thread starter Rafael
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 93
- Views 6K
when people make strong comments on other peoples photos the first thing i do is look at theres. ive spent the past 5 minutes looking through yours (flickr link) and i find it all a bit 'trite' to be honest.
ghost
Well-known
i'm sure car accidents are "routine", "petty", and "trite" on some level...and don't deserve your precious empathy. what photos qualify to "re-tune" your sense of empathy"?
Last edited:
BrianShaw
Well-known
I must have missed the memo. According to my calendar there is nothing special happening today except for a new moon at 0910UTC. Isn't "Pick on ywenz" day scheduled for 31 September?
ywenz
Veteran
ghost said:
A rebel shooting a bullet thru a starving refugee would do, as much as I hate to see it...
foolproof said:
You can be a bad photographer and still recognize bad photographs. I've clearly displayed that. I so wish I can throw out some diss for your work but I'm a sucker for all manaquin reflections shots.. (flickr link)
Last edited:
foolproof
Established
ywenz said:
🙄 arent we all. didnt mean to be so harsh on reflection, but the photograph wasnt that bad in fairness and certainly doesnt deserve the treatment it recieved. strong debate indeed this has turned out to be 😱
steve garza
Well-known
This image has great value......
This image has great value......
in both the artistic and social documentary sense. Pictures of auto accidents can have that value. But, typically, they do not.
This image has great value......
jvx said: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.
in both the artistic and social documentary sense. Pictures of auto accidents can have that value. But, typically, they do not.
MelanieC
Well-known
ghost said:
Empathy is the reason I wouldn't want to take photos of someone else's tragedy.
Not everyone reacts to things the way I would and I'm not saying everyone should -- just what works for me. The possibility that someone would react the way I might if someone pulled out a camera to capture a moment that was tragic for me is enough to stop me.
This means there are many photos I wouldn't take that perhaps should be taken and might even achieve a greater good if taken and disseminated. Luckily I'm not in the position to have to make such choices for a living.
This has been an interesting discussion.
oftheherd
Veteran
BrianShaw said:
On one level perhaps. On another, staying within the law is ethical and moral.
But most of what I am seeing in this thread is emotion.
I can remain detached and photograph the most gory scenes or the most mundane. Even so, at any time I may feel it inappropriate to snap photos of a particular subject. That is for me to decide at the time. Whether any one else agrees is not big in the decision process.
I have lots of photos that are just plain not good, along with many I think are good but nobody else seems to agree. If I am satisfied, that is all I need. Sorry for those that have to suffer through looking at any of my photos that you find boring, trite, gory, mundane, or otherwise. But not real sorry I guess. I usually have some reason for snapping them that works for me.
We all first have to live with ourselves. Good luck to the rest of you in your photographic endeavors.
raid
Dad Photographer
Peter Klein said:
Peter: There is a main difference between my case and Tina Manley taking photos. I am from "there". This is the crucial factor to me.
Also note from her Statement: "The people are willing to put up with me and my cameras because they know I am there to help."
In general, female photographers will have more access to family life in the Middle East than a male photographer would. Tina was on a mission to help. This is different.
Regards,
Raid
Last edited:
ghost
Well-known
Look at the other side. Empathy for someone's tragedy is also the reason people take photos of it. Not all victims have the same perspective on their tragedy being photographed as well. My beef is with the dogmatism. It doesn't hold water. A photographer's work has different effects from day to day.
mc_vancouver
Established
how did they do it, I wonder
how did they do it, I wonder
Not just accidents, but war: how the heck do those photographers get those shots of people being shot, shooting people, holding their dead child, their injured, their homes bombed...I couldn't. You remove a part of yourself to do the job, I guess. You don't turn off the compassion, but channel it through the camera. How harsh is that? How many photographers and ENG video crews have woken in a cold sweat, realizing that they are vultures, preying upon another's misery? And yet, without their powerful photographs, not only would have not have some horrible truths revealed, we would be, perhaps, in even worse shape than we are now. If I had a camera with me, and came upon something as you did, and ascertained there was nothing I could do to ease the suffering, if, in other words, it was "under control", then yes, I expect I would grab a shot or two. But you never really know what you are going to do in such a situation until you're there.
As an aside: how in heck did the photographers load their thread-mount, bottom-feed Leicas while under fire? It takes me several tries to get it right in my living room when the cats are SLEEPING.
how did they do it, I wonder
Not just accidents, but war: how the heck do those photographers get those shots of people being shot, shooting people, holding their dead child, their injured, their homes bombed...I couldn't. You remove a part of yourself to do the job, I guess. You don't turn off the compassion, but channel it through the camera. How harsh is that? How many photographers and ENG video crews have woken in a cold sweat, realizing that they are vultures, preying upon another's misery? And yet, without their powerful photographs, not only would have not have some horrible truths revealed, we would be, perhaps, in even worse shape than we are now. If I had a camera with me, and came upon something as you did, and ascertained there was nothing I could do to ease the suffering, if, in other words, it was "under control", then yes, I expect I would grab a shot or two. But you never really know what you are going to do in such a situation until you're there.
As an aside: how in heck did the photographers load their thread-mount, bottom-feed Leicas while under fire? It takes me several tries to get it right in my living room when the cats are SLEEPING.
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
I have been in the situation where I was expected to take photos of someone that had been murdered. When I arrived at the scene I found out it was someone that I knew. I declined to take those pictures and someone else was called in. My boss understood why and that it was a pretty emotional thing. Sad when someone meets an untimely end. When there is suffering or anguish. Just because we do not photograph such things does not mean that we are denying their existence. I think that I choose not to photograph those instances to pay those times a certain reverence. Besides, I carry enough reminders of war/tragedy/destruction/loss within my own heart. I just choose not to photograph it.
That's my view. You may think something else and that is fine for you.
Peace, out.
That's my view. You may think something else and that is fine for you.
Peace, out.
rvaubel
Well-known
mc_vancouver said:
It's called autopilot. I was a PJ in my youth and I can tell you that you have to have two well developed instincts: jump & run
This thread has been very interesting but the truth is all good journelist have a bit of the ambulance chaser in them. For good or bad, you would never get those special shots if you didn't instinctavely move towards the sound of gunfire or the sight of smoke. The ethically questions never come up until after the event has been recorded. If your a professional journalist, it has to be this way or you'd never get any pictures. Spending all your time emoting isn't going to get the shot.
I still react this way to natural disasters the same way I did 40 years ago. I think of myself as a pretty sensitive guy but its hard to take the Weegee out of me. Still I do understand how taking disaster pictures may seem cold to the people that can't do it.
What I don't understand is how taking the "Family of Man" type photographs requires some sort of license from the Dept of Political Correctness. Shessh, you mean I have to be of the same race or economic status to photograph the impoverished? I need permission to take pictures of people in public places? Where do we draw the line, and more importantly who draws the line. And what are the penalties, getting punched out, or worse?
In my own work, I try to be friendly and get the cooperation of everyone I photograph where it makes sense. But that doesn't mean I don't take my share of candid street photos.
If you look at our members site I'll bet about half of the pictures would have someone, somewhere complaining about privacy violations or insensitivety.
Oh well
Rex
rvaubel
Well-known
With all the Chris Weeks and Deviantart stuff percolating, I thought I'd bump this up.
Rex
Rex
Similar threads
