Things you cannot photograph

R

rolleistef

Well-known
Local time
10:02 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
945
Hi, is there any things you cannot make a picture from? Out of personal deontology etc.
For me : people kissing, people suffering, children (for safety reasons mostly, but that has been discussed before).
 
People who do not look good in that particular moment, like people eating, crying or in distresss... unless I were a photojournalist and wanted to make a point. But as an amateur, I prefer to shy away from photographing people if the prints would bring back sad memories or would make them look unattractive or simply bad.

Otherwise... what else? :confused:
 
rolleistef said:
Hi, is there any things you cannot make a picture from? Out of personal deontology etc.
For me : people kissing, people suffering, children (for safety reasons mostly, but that has been discussed before).
Click to expand...

I think that is the first time I've ever seen the word 'deontology' used in a sentence with regard to photography!

If what you are asking is if there are scenes I will choose not to photograph out of a sense of ethics, the answer is probably none. I would photograph anything that can be photographed if my job required it or if the situation called for it, and assuming it was legal.

However, there are scenes I choose not to photograph, because I do not choose to photograph them. Scenes such as the ones you describe come to mind, as well as accident and crime scenes, results of war, and so on. But this is not because I feel it would be 'wrong' to photograph them. I just don't want to. If it were my job, I'd do it.
 
Hello Stéphane,

Here I was, thinking we were going on a philosophical escapade.

1st photographer: You cannot photograph the smell of spring flowers.

2nd photographer: Oh, but you can. When you capture a brilliant photograph your audience will associate it with the smell... etc.

But no. We weren't going to discuss logic and the essence of photography. We were going to discuss ethics. Personally I am not a fan of deontology or the ethics of duty, and in this case it gets really obscure. If you have a duty not to photograph people kissing or children can you then photograph a wedding? Not to mention suffering, where would photojournalism go and what about documentary photography?

The teleological discussion brings us further. You may photograph your brother kissing his wife at their wedding. You may also photograph the flower girls, because it is what they want and everyone will be happy with you having taken the pictures. Maybe you should not take pictures of unknown children bathing with a telephoto lens because their parents may take offence. It may very well be alright to photograph children playing at the local playground where your children also play, or that kid yelling "Take my picture! Take my picture!" at the top of his lungs, because it will be appreciated.

For me there is no model, object or scene that you have a duty not to photograph, but there are situations where the effects of taking a photograph may make you abstain.

Yours,

Michael
 
"Deontology" always sounds to me like it should mean something to do with teeth.

From a purely personal and amateur position, I think I would have ethical difficulties photographing people in distressed conditions (as has been suggested). Fortunately this has never been tested, because on the very rare occasions I've encountered such a situation when I've had a camera with me, I simply didn't think of taking photographs.
 
ibcrewin said:
Apparently "the president" of the current U.S. Government is one of them...

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=70207
Click to expand...
I don't think it was President Bush that the Secret Service didn't want pictures of, but rather the security checkpoints.
After all, if the terrorists can see what the checkpoints look like, it's an obvious natural progression that they can use their terroristic intellect to be able to get through the checkpoints with ease! :bang::bang:
 
I think that you should be able to photograph everything that you allow yourself to look at. It is how and if you chose to show the photos afterwards that really matters.

For example, a man is vomiting in a street corner. If I can stand to watch him, and not feel "embarresed" by doing so and other people seeing that I am watching, I should also be able to photograph him.
In my opinion it isnt more perverse or voyeuristic to photograph as opposed to just watching.

Now I might not take that photo if I think that the man vomiting might see me doing so and take offence. Also I would think twice about who and how and IF I ever show the photo to someone / have it published.

Always take the photo If you can manage yourself, after all thats what we do as photographers. Other people watch, we watch and make pictures.
 
I don't photograph the homeless. Nor do I photograph persons who are eating or asleep (especially with their mouth open.) Persons in wheelchairs I would likely not photograph.
 
No, there is nothing in this world that a good photogrpah cannot be made from, because photos are an abstraction of the thing(s) being photographed - not the thing itself. In the end all you have are silver halides fixed on paper in patterns, lines, textures and shades of grey that together, approximate things we recognize from real life. It's not the thing - it's a photograph of the thing.
 
The Federal building in downtown Seattle.... Learned that one personally, trying to photograph a Noguchi sculpture. Likely you can't photograph federal buildings at all. I've also found that shooting pictures in a public bathroom is frowned upon :) JK JK
 
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I do not wish to speak for Stéphane, but before posting your response, may I suggest that if you do not know what the word 'deontology' means, you might look it up before commenting.

The O/P is not asking what one CANNOT photograph because it is impossible, or what one is FORBIDDEN to photograph because it is illegal, but rather what one SHOULD NOT photograph due to it being a violation of their ethical duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

This is an extremely interesting philosophical question, but it has nothing to do with taking photographs of federal security fixtures or your naughty bits or what you do with them.
 
I don't photograph anything that feels wrong at the time. What that is will change randomly depending upon how I feel at the time. In Cuba I found I couldn't shoot certain scenes because the people in questions looked so damned fed up with sitting on a crappy chair with nothing to do all day. I missed the shot of the year because the lady in question, along with her two kids, looked so sad.

But, I don't have anything specific I wont shoot for ethical reasons.
 
Since the majority of UK police forces seem to think that all amateur photographers are potential terrorists there is much I would like to photograph but cannot. There are some things that I would not photograph simply because they are either not worthy of a frame of film or because it would feel uncomfortable or obtrusive so to do. I would stress that I don't think the same rules could ever apply to professionals - they have to remain objective and dispassionate in order to survive.
 
robridge said:
Since the majority of UK police forces seem to think that all amateur photographers are potential terrorists there is much I would like to photograph but cannot. There are some things that I would not photograph simply because they are either not worthy of a frame of film or because it would feel uncomfortable or obtrusive so to do. I would stress that I don't think the same rules could ever apply to professionals - they have to remain objective and dispassionate in order to survive.
Click to expand...

'deontology'. PLEASE look it up.
 
i don't think there is something u cannot photograph!
it would be like saying there is something u cannot look at!
when we are taking a picture we capture the moment,something interesting or even shocking!that is what our brain does!our brain is the "film" and our eyes the "lens".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom