Things you cannot photograph

Well if you want to get technical, there is nothing that I could not photograph. Ethics are used to control behavior and are based on some concept of right vs. wrong. Both of these concepts are abstract and not based on anything real (as in a natural law, such as electromagnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces), there is no right force or wrong force. So ethics would play no part in my decision to take a photograph or not, what would affect me is whether or not I was interested in taking a picture at that moment. In the case of things people commonly refer to as "bad," like the burning house example, I would be more interested in saving the people than taking the picture, not because it was right but because I enjoy (the operative word) helping people, and it could benefit me in the future. A less honest person, or a true believer, would claim that they were motivated by what was right, not believing in right/wrong I have to explain my motivations in different (non ethical) terms. My status in society is also important so in other instances I would chose to, say, swim rather than take pictures of semi-clothed teens, etc... So my decision to photograph is based primarily on interest, risk/benefit analysis, legal/illegal, individual rights. Likely my actions conform 100% to the American ethical code, however I can admit it’s not because it’s what I believe is true, but what is needed to participate in society, work/family/fun etc…
 
Last edited:
It's often a struggle with myself to see whether I will allow myself to take certain photos or not. A question to ask would be :"where would I display such an image?" and "would I really want to take another look at such image?" It is always a struggle.
 
Pitxu said:
It's interesting how things change with time. In the past it was common (round here) for portraits to be taken of corpses on their deathbeds.
I have a small collection of these, bought in junk shops and flea markets.
Click to expand...

Good point! When child mortality was (unfortunately) a fact of life, photographs were often taken of deceased children dressed and posed as if they were merely asleep. Seems creepy now - at the time, a treasured keepsake for a family.
 
Choose. Maybe save a life... or maybe take an iconic photograph?

Some Kantian choices are easier than others.

Arthur
 
bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the "...etc..." right after deontology in the O.P.. That leaves room for other reasons such as mentioned above.
I personally do not subscribe to deontologic principles and agree with the poster who said it depends on situation and mood.
In a wedding I will take pics of people crying, in a funeral I will not. As a genersal rule, I do not take photos of children, because I have my own and would not like others doing the same without asking.
 
georgef said:
I think you missed the "...etc..." right after deontology in the O.P.. That leaves room for other reasons such as mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is so much more interesting to discuss whether one can or cannot photograph "a fart" or "the sun."

Perhaps I was just hoping for a conversation a tad bit more engaging than that.

But perhaps it is best if we stick to endless debates about camera bags.
 
Pitxu,
I guess, he implies that tears at a wedding are tears of joy whereas tears at a funeral are tears of pain and sorrow.
 
I carry a camera to take photos, if I thought there were things I shouldn't photograph, I wouldn't carry a camera. Do we have a moral obligation to make people look their best? Or to avoid things that are not "beautiful"? Personally, I don't think so.
That said, at my grandmother's funeral I couldn't bring myself to photograph her in her casket or indeed the casket itself, though I took many photos that day.

That has been the only occasion that I "couldn't" take a photograph.
 
My ethics must be flexible, because I can't come up with something I wouldn't photograph on grounds of morality. I often skip over a photo opportunity, but such decisions are not based on values of any sort.

I don't say of course that I'd photograph a kid sinking in a river instead of jumping to help, but it wasn't the original question in my understanding.
 
Arthur said:
Choose. Maybe save a life... or maybe take an iconic photograph?

Some Kantian choices are easier than others.

Arthur
Click to expand...

Hypothetical:

Suppose you are a 'crummy' photographer.

Or.

Suppose you are a 'crummy' swimmer.

How do those 'circumstances' affect your decision to 'jump' or 'photograph?'

***

I wonder. Does humankind 'improve' because of such conundrums?

Arthur
 
I have taken photos at a funeral...not going about snapping and flashing in everyone's face but quietly in the background not drawing attention to what I'm doing...
I have also sent photos taken during the "Service" to family members of the deceased and was "Thanked" for doing so...
 
Pitxu said:
To further my research, did you photograph anyone crying?
Click to expand...

I did. Most of the people there did at one point or another, myself included. One of those photos I consider to be the best portrait I've ever taken, yet I haven't printed it. I haven't printed any of the photos from that day.
 
swoop said:
The sun. Go ahead, try it. I dare you.
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem, with any of several types of camera. If you're going to be shooting photos of the sun, the things you have to watch out for are:

1. Fresnel lenses, in combination with TTL viewfinders (you want a ground glass focusing screen, ESPECIALLY if you are going to be using an SLR). With a fresnel lens, the image is magnified and the light passes through the lens to your eye. With a ground glass focusing screen, the image is projected onto the focusing screen. Fresnel lenses are brighter and easier to focus in dim light, but ground glass is more precise -- and it won't focus sunlight sharply enough to melt brass; your retinas are considerabley easier to burn than a sheet of brass.

2. Telephoto lenses in combination with TTL viewfinders. Looking through ANY kind of telescopic device at the sun is just wrong. You are pretty much just asking for seared retinas.

3. Electronic shutters on digital cameras (there is no real shutter, the camera just turns the sensor on and off). Since the shutter is always open, the sensor literally gets burned like an ant under a magnifying glass. This type of "shutter" is common with digital P&S cameras. I don't have every kind of digital camera here in front of me to test, so I don't know if any other types than P&S cameras use this type of shutter. I do know that no film camera does.

4. Focal plane shutters (to shoot the sun, you want a leaf shutter). The reason is that the lens can and will concentrate sunlight. It can and will burn holes in your shutter curtains. Well, leaf shutters are made of metal. It can't burn holes in them.

#1 and #2 can sear your retinas.
#3 and #4 can damage your camera.
 
Last edited:
Kant! Here's the answer. He says very interesting things about the concept of morality. Nowadays it seems a bit old fashioned a word, and, for some people, rude and offensive. But moral is a very basic and (to my eyes) important concept.
It is only the capability of putting yourself at the place of somebody else, as if you came into his body but without any particularity. You need to impersonate an abstract individual , a Man with a big M (a M5 or M8 for instance ;)), a man as concept and no as person. That's pretty difficult because that means you need to imagine yourself a completely objective individual and ask yourself, in this : "Can I take that photo or not? If I were that person, would I like to be taken kissing my b/f or g/f, would I agree to have my children taken?" etc. Just examples of course.
Somebody once told me "The most important isn't to have rules, but to know not to follow them." I found it the most hypocritical thing ever. It's both offending for you and the others. But most plagues on earth come from the mis-following of the Golden Rule : You shall not do to your neighbour what you wouldn't like him to do to you. It's pretty common to every civilisation and religions but so hard to follow sometimes!
 
1 I wanted to photograph inside public bathrooms for a project. Stephen Gandy told me it was 'sicko'. Later my mother loved the photos, and they have been well-received generally.

2 Somebody got badly run over by a truck outside my place. I was there, and had a camera, and wanted to photograph the brave fire and rescue workers wriggling into the mess. But I didn't.

We must make our own decisions at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom