Things you cannot photograph

I spent three years at university, then another two postgraduate years wrestling with it - the reply was intended to be facetious (you know the sort of thing - maybe appeal to those who have a sense of humour - I will leave you to look that one up).
 
This is a difficult question and whilst it is possible to derive deontological ethics that would govern actions of a photographer, they would surely differ based upon the personal and cultural values of that individual.

Personally I thought that I would suggest that a duty of beneficence would prohibit me taking a photo of someone or some event where it would be more important to intervene to prevent harm to another - (e.g. if you are standing outside a burning house, with a ladder in the garden, do you you take a picture of the soon to be victims, or do you scurry up the ladder a help them to safety? I think most people would eschew the photograph.) This premise and example appear to be sound and maybe even could be universally accepted until, with slight lateral adjustment in scenario you consider the pictures of the protester standing in front of a tank in Tienanmen Square, the Vietcong prisoner about to be shot... does the impact of the publication of these pictures have more benefit than would have been gained by intervening to save that individual (or at least remove them from hams way) One of course has to consider the practicality and feasibility of intervention. If we accept the notion that in some cases taking the picture can be 'for the greater good' we come to the paradox of deontological ethics, in acting in the interests of the majority we comprise or deny the rights of the individual, which, by definition comprises the rights of the majority as a collection of individuals.......

Personally I would say that I would not photograph a situation here it was clear that my actions or inaction would lead to harm to the person or persons I was to photograph...

phew...:)
 
Silva Lining said:
Personally I would say that I would not photograph a situation here it was clear that my actions or inaction would lead to harm to the person or persons I was to photograph...

phew...:)
Click to expand...

Isn't that the First Law of Robotics?

Just kidding - great examples.

I was thinking in terms of war correspondents. Some have walked among friend and foe alike - taking photos. To take up arms, even to save a life, would at the very least, end one's ability to ever report both sides of a story again. To drag an injured soldier to safety - a difficult decision (well, I would do it, but then I'm not a war correspondent), perhaps less so if there were no other person present who could do it.

Think of contrast/comparison to Red Cross personnel and clergy in a war zone. They likewise are prevented from taking up arms, even to defend a life or lives. Some have crossed that line - and been celebrated for it. But they put at risk the 'neutrality' presumed among other members of their own coterie, possibly putting many more in danger in the long run.

Hmmm...
 
Being a Neitzschean at heart I photograph what will make a good photograph. :)

"Whats good for me is good in itself."
 
I have on occasion chosen not to photograph some people. The one time that I remember best was this past summer. Each Friday, I would take my mother to the downtown location of Starbucks to celebrate a week of treatments. We were sitting outside enjoying our coffees, and there was a fellow sitting inside the store. He was a ragged looking fellow and seemed a bit touched. The cops came into the store and took him outside, in front of our the table. My bag was sitting on the table, and I thought this might make an interesting shot -- cops hassle homeless fellow. Then I thought a little more and felt it just wouldn't be right.
I wouldn't want someone to photograph me in the same sort of situation.
 
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...

Well it's a good thing you're not Eisenstadt(kissing), Sally Mann or Diane Arbus(children), Don McCullin or Weegee(suffering, kissing, or children).

Empty doorways are a safe bet. You'll be sure to get into heaven;).
 
I had a long discussion with a non-photographer last weekend about this very topic.

I was talking about how often I was harassed or kicked out for taking photos in public, or semi-public places.

She was of the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to take pictures of strangers because it's weird, creepy, and very unethical.

My argument was that If it's fine to look, it's fine to photograph. As long as it's lawful, I will maintain my right to do so.

That said, there are plenty of times that I do not photograph people (or sometimes property) for fear of ticking someone off, making them feel uneasy, or if my intentions may be construed as evil.

I photographed a surprise wedding recently, and before the surprise was sprung, I had to pretend to be an out-of-town relative. It was creepy for me and everyone else as I was going around photographing people I didn't know. I received plenty of "looks".

As soon as the ceremony started though.. Bang! I'm a professional photographer. Everything changed and I could shoot anything at all and nobody thought it was strange.

So, I suppose that if it were understood by my subjects that I have some reason for photographing them, I have no problem. If they think I'm taking pictures of them for no reason, they are uncomfortable, and then so am I.
 
In my opinion taking a picture and publishing/using a picture are two seperate things. Can taking a photograph or reclinig to do so, be an ethical duty? Publishing the picture is something else. We also need to take care not to mix the act of taking a picture and the (immoral) act that is being pictured.
Is pressing the shutter something that can be called ethical? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
Isn't that the First Law of Robotics?
Click to expand...

Heh, Yes, yes it is...I seem to recall Asimov considered much of his science fiction from a socio-philosophical point of view, espeicllay the foundation series (Although it's 20 years since I read them...)


bmattock said:
Just kidding - great examples.

I was thinking in terms of war correspondents. Some have walked among friend and foe alike - taking photos. To take up arms, even to save a life, would at the very least, end one's ability to ever report both sides of a story again. To drag an injured soldier to safety - a difficult decision (well, I would do it, but then I'm not a war correspondent), perhaps less so if there were no other person present who could do it.

Think of contrast/comparison to Red Cross personnel and clergy in a war zone. They likewise are prevented from taking up arms, even to defend a life or lives. Some have crossed that line - and been celebrated for it. But they put at risk the 'neutrality' presumed among other members of their own coterie, possibly putting many more in danger in the long run.

Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Great examples - In the medical or religious case one could argue that those that medicate or minster in such testing conditions are doing so through a calling which, to them, is the prime determinant of their ethics and morals. For them perhaps such ethics are codified in a holy book or medical oath and these form the basis of the deontological framework.

I wonder if the same could be applied to a war correspondent/photographer, in as much as the strength of character and resolve to do that job is no less, but without the religious or medical philosophy what drives it?
 
Very Interesting. While traveling the MidWest

Very Interesting. While traveling the MidWest

swoop said:
Cemetaries. I won't photograph them, I refuse.
Click to expand...

While traveling the midwest, I seriously considered the possibility of a "coffee table" book of cemetary's. It's probably been done, but some of the cemetary's and their locations are fascinating, and not in a macabre sort of way.
 
Silva Lining said:
I wonder if the same could be applied to a war correspondent/photographer, in as much as the strength of character and resolve to do that job is no less, but without the religious or medical philosophy what drives it?
Click to expand...

Some might argue that the function of a free press in a civil society is one of the highest priorities of liberty, guarantor that information is available to the citizenry, and proof that a given government does not fear sunshine.

Given that the courts have often recognized the power of, and need for, this unelected 'Fourth Estate', I believe this is a strong argument for a 'duty' as described in the traditional deontological debate - perhaps even higher than a medical or clerical duty. After all, it affects not a person, but all persons in a given country.

In other words, it might well mean that one's duty as a press photographer or war correspondent might supersede all other moral obligations, including the common desire to come to the aid of injured fellow human beings.

This does not mean that a press photographer who took photographs of a military attack on our troops while failing to render aid to those nearest by who might be injured would not be subject to criticism - but that he might have a 'higher calling' in the sense of duty to a necessary function of free societies.

Interesting to ponder, isn't it?
 
kuzano said:
While traveling the midwest, I seriously considered the possibility of a "coffee table" book of cemetary's. It's probably been done, but some of the cemetary's and their locations are fascinating, and not in a macabre sort of way.
Click to expand...

I was photographing in one, halfway up Slieve Guillion in Ireland, only last week - Its right and proper to show respect, but old cemetries are indeed facinating....
 
kuzano said:
While traveling the midwest, I seriously considered the possibility of a "coffee table" book of cemetary's. It's probably been done, but some of the cemetary's and their locations are fascinating, and not in a macabre sort of way.
Click to expand...

I understand entirely. Although I have seen far too many infrared 'goth' photos of cemeteries, I have also lived in the American Southeast, where cemeteries are frequently found on family-owned property in rural areas, and in some cases, in cities.

The town I live in has one such that always struck me - a small chain-link fence next to an auto-glass store, which contains four headstones. The store and fence are modern, the stones appear quite old. I can only presume that the land was formerly rural before the town expanded, and a codicil on the property deed required that the graves be respected and maintained in perpetuity.
 
Interesting thread.

I did a project a few years ago on memorials of the roadside variety. It started because there was a spate of RTAs close to where I lived. I recorded about six or seven; some of them were quite poignant. I stopped not because I found it unethical, but because a) I couldn't see what I would do with the body of work and b) it was depressing to me.

In a way, I was making a record of ephemera. None of those memoria are still there.

Regards,

Bill
 
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...

Sure. I can think of several. The one that first comes to mind is that, although I do a lot of nude photography, I will not shoot porn. I feel that it does not just degrade the model, but everyone else involved as well.
 
Having read everthing up to this point...I would have to say that I have shot many things people here have said they would never shoot...I cannot think of anything right now that I would consider forbidden photography (other than any type of porn)...
Now, having said that, I have walked away from many scenes because at that moment photographing it just wasn't the right thing to do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom