Thu, December 23rd, 2004 by Jessyel Ty Gonzalez
I'm sure we've all faced some kind of moral dilemma while we're out taking photos, and I'd love to hear some of your stories, thoughts, opinions, etc.
This is something I've been wanting to bring up for quite a while, ever since this happened. The whole idea popped up again from my recent trip to Las Vegas. I constantly found myself in moral situations while shooting. I found a man who had just lost thousandths of dollars and was crying his soul out; many prostitutes getting picked up; a maid who was on her fourth job in the last two weeks... and so forth. I wanted to take photos but the only word that kept coming into my mind was exploitation.
So again... your stories, thoughts, opinions, etc. on photo moral dilemmas.
December 24th, 2004 at 12:37 am
Good topic for discussion Jessyel. I have often found myself in situations rife with incredible photographic opportunities at work. Unfortunately for the people involved they were also charged with a lot of pain and often emotional suffering. Apart from being a breach of patient's confidentiality, and a likely abuse of my position as a carer, I am not sure I could take photos if removed from those responsibilities even if I had permission from the people involved and it didn't conflict with my nursing responsibilities.
Then again, sometimes photographic representations of some situations I see could serve as an education, or a warning. They could also convey strength in adversity, suffering and pain, illustrating sulutory aspects of human nature. As is often the case with moral issues, these questions do not have black and white answers, there are so many shades of grey...
December 24th, 2004 at 3:02 am
If you want to tell the story, you have to shoot first and deal with questions later. I would have photographed the sobbing gambler without hesitation, though I would have taken only one picture and walked off immediately to reduce my intrusion into his tough private moment.
Most people would not take that photograph, but most of my favorite photographers would have. Nan Goldin, for example, has spent an incredible career taking photographs about the people in her life that most people wouldn't dare to. Great photojournalists learn to ignore the little voice inside that cautions against exploitation, and because they do we are confronted with agony and grief of war, the horrors of famine, and the plight of the Third World.
If you take your craft seriously, all that should matter is getting the shot.
December 24th, 2004 at 5:10 am
I only have one question. How would taking pictures of these people be exploiting them? I understand there might be the feeling of how, if one was in their position, they may not like being photographed, but why?
Is it fear that their face, their job, their event, even, be captured and published in some place?
I've toiled with the same moral issues, but I've come to realize something about it, myself, and I hope my ramble doesn't ignite anything.
Joel Peter Witkin, who does what many might call 'grotesque' pictures of actual people, most of the time, with deformities and the like, does not personally feel he's exploiting those people.
Another photographer who's name escapes me at the moment documented a large number of male giggalos. It's all a matter of choice, obviously, and I wouldn't mean to interfere with anyone's morals here, but perhaps the way you photograph someone could make others feel pity, remorse, or even attraction. Larry Sultan's photographs of the porn industry in the valley, in the aptly titled book 'The Valley', never sent shocks down my spine or anything, although at times I personally felt negative about these women being treated as objects, and these people felt 'normal' in a way, except for what they were doing in the location in question.
It was listening to a lecture of his when he noted that he wasn't intending on putting them in a negative light or anything, but merely wanting them to look ordinary - as he likes to portray with a number of his other works.
I think if you go at it in the sense of 'I'm going to be taking a photograph of these [insert opinion of persons] people' you lose sense of 'I'm going to be photographing these [iernsert opinion of psons] people and in a [insert feeling, sensation, or thought wished to be invoked in viewer] way'
More of what the artist wants from the photograph should be focused on, I feel, and can bypass these moral questions, and maybe even the moral questions themselves would be viable enough as muse.
Some personal examples;
I don't photograph homeless people - they have no place to go and no 'private' place to be most of the time, to the best of my knowledge, so their publication to the photographer is nearly impossible to avoid.
I think that your photograph of your little brothers injury glorifies the man above him (your father?) and casts a sort of supernatural, even 'healing', light upon your little brother.
December 24th, 2004 at 7:33 am
Interesting topic! I always have problems when taking photos of people - I see situations where I want to snap someone but just find it so rude to stick my camera in their faces .... bring on the camera in the eye is what I say!!!
On a more personal level, I had real problems with a whole series of photos. I see my blog - dicksdaily.co.uk - as more of a visual diary of my life, I take a picture everyday, usually reflecting what is going on in my life. I recently lost my mum to breast cancer and I found it incredibly hard to take photos over the period of her illness, at consultations, treatments, hospital appointments. Not only because the camera there is so incredibly intrusive, but also because I didn't want my mum and dad seeing my thoughts on dicksdaily - I felt it only drove home what was happening in her, and my families, life, over an incredibly difficult time.
In terms of your photo, Jessyel, I think it makes a world of difference that the photo is of your brother. It's a wonderful photo (if that's the right word?) that captures the true heartfelt emotions in that situation.
This topic reminds me of the late Kevin Carter who's photo in sudan not only won the Pulitzer prize, but the backlash of which caused him (allegedly) to take his own life ....
Who said taking photos was simple ......
December 24th, 2004 at 9:10 am
After reading that last comment I googled around and found this poignant story Kevin Carter's life and last days.
http://www.thisisyesterday.com/ints/KCarter.html
The picture itself is below. Why he didn't simply pickup the child after he was done is simply beyond me.
http://www.huaren.com/UnitedNations/photo-1.htm
If you can make a difference, help, if not, shoot. In this specific case he could have done both and might have saved humself in the process.
December 24th, 2004 at 11:17 am
I recently had a moral dilemma with a photo, as well.
I work in a hospital and have access to touring the surgical centre quite frequently (I'm not a medical professional). The last time I was through there, I took a photo of the screen that monitors all of the O.R. rooms, and thought it would make for a great photo, since not many people have access to that sort of thing. Upon closer inspection of the photo, I realized that on one of the screens there was a covered body. I briefly wrestled with whether or not I should post it, but quickly came to the conclusion that it would be disrespectful, even though you can't identify the person.
I know other people who would've posted it. Personally, it creeped me out and didn't feel right, so as much as it would've been a neat photo, I just couldn't post it. Not only that, there possibly may have been legal issues with the hospital. I may try to get another shot soon, though.
December 24th, 2004 at 11:17 am
Yup, great topic. And it was a similar moral situation for me that iced it for me... I was a freshman in college, working on the school paper. In comes a call that there is a fire in the sorority dorm. Gear in hand I race over. I had a few friends in that particular sorority.
By the time I get there, the fire is pretty much out. It was contained to one dorm room. Everyone was OK, but the room was toast. The fire department let me go into the room to take some pictures. Really nothing notable, until I turn around and I see a girl looking through the window crying. It was her room. Her pet cat (no pets allowed--wonder why?) had knocked over a candle (also not allowed) and the fire started.
I captured a great shot of her looking back into this burned out room.
I rushed back to the lab, developed my film and did a quick contact sheet. I definitely had something, so I did a small print. I really had something.
And it was that moment when I realized all I would be doing is embarrassing someone if it was printed. She'd had a tough enough time that night. Why make it worse. No one on the paper ever knew I had the image.
It was at that point I knew I'd never make a good photo journalist.
December 24th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
jessyel, you were emotionally invested in that event, it was happening to you as much as it was happening to your brother, you have every right to use your camera to help yourself to understand it. you caused no harm, you did not impede aid to the injured person. unless you're a trained physician, there was nothing you could have done to help that wasn't already being done.
typically as a photographer you will not be popular with anyone during the act of photography. if someone gets mad at you for making a photo, it doesn't automatically mean your act was immoral.
i get right up on any situation with prime lens so i'm just a few feet away. i act sensitively, i acknowledge the person on the other side of the lens, smile, say thank you, and if i see i'm making that person very uncomfortable i stop and leave immediately. shoot first, ask yourself questions later.
December 24th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
Some time ago I believed photojournalism was useful to raise awareness of world issues, but not anymore. You just have to look out there to see there are millions of powerful images showing the ugly face of humanity and yet there are still poverty, discrimination and wars all over the world. I think photojournalism is another form of exploitation of the powerless to entertain the masses.
December 24th, 2004 at 11:13 pm
I find it hard to come up with any blanket rules for this kind of thing, you really have to be able to trust your judgment and make individual decisions.
In the case of your brother Jessyl, I think you did the right thing, it doesn't matter what the people around you thought, you couldn't have done anything to help and those photos could certainly be valuable to your brother one day, if not already. That was definitely your call to make.
I don't think I would ever make a good photojournalist, I can't stand by and watch (take photos) of something happening if I could be helping in any way. Even though in many cases images have helped change the world, though the photographer might have anquished about his decision at the time, and beyond. Sometimes, in that position, you have to think of the big picture, but there's no way I could stand and watch that child crawl along the ground for twenty minutes to get the right shot, I would, like most people I'm sure, have had to do something imediately.
I think in a case like Mike's above, where he was worried that the subject of the image might be humiliated by publishing it, I think the photographer should allow the subject to make the final decision, if it's possible to find and ask them, let them tell you if it's ok or not. I used to know someone who took pictures of homeless people in san francisco, he told me that, more often than not, they wanted their pictures taken, wanted people to see and were not ashamed.
As much as possible the photographer should take the shots and then work it out afterwards, when you have time to reflect on the importance of the photograph, or to contact the subject if there is one.
December 24th, 2004 at 11:29 pm
Jessyel:
Follow your heart. Follow your conscience. That's what you have to live with in the end.
December 26th, 2004 at 2:46 am
Here's the thing: Shooting a photo is an act that has no inherent good/bad value. It's just the opening and closing of a shutter. What you DO with the product of that photo is the ethical decision.
When I shot photos of the gay weddings here in San Francisco last February, I realized I was witnessing a historic moment for the gay community. And people wanted those photos. But I didn't want to be a straight guy making money from images of another community's special moment. So I sold posters I made from a photo there and donated all the money to an organization working to keep anti-gay legislation out of the books. That seemed right to me.
http://ephemera.org/justly/
The important point here is that simply clicking a shutter is never ethical or not ethical. It's just a bit of light hitting a negative (or a sensor). It's what you DO with the photos that matters. Do you show your subjects respect or not? That's where the ethical decisions come into play.
December 26th, 2004 at 1:02 pm
i agree with derek's statement, but, it is possible to show your subjects disrespect while shooting the picture, not just afterwards.
December 26th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
I used to drive past a tiny (TINY) delapidated house every day. Someone lived there, and that person fed lots of cats on the front porch. All summer long I wanted to stop and grab some pictures of those well-fed cats on the porch of this awful-looking house. But I couldn't do it. Every time I started to take the picture, I felt like a condescending, patronizing ass.
One morning I passed the house and the city had put out live traps to catch all the cats. The next day the house was gone. Sometimes I really wish I had gotten the shot, other times I'm glad I didn't.
So in that instance I seem all moral and stuff. But then again, I totally posted this shot http://www.electricboogaloo.net/archives_2004_10/23/index.htm
So it's not like I take the perfect moral highground all the time.
Oh and I have been made fun of for photographing my son's first trip to the ER. In my defense I did it to distract him while we waited for the doctor to come in. He wasn't seriously hurt, but when I got home I deleted all of the pictures except for one. Looking at them later and seeing the pain in his eyes was too much for me. The only one I kept was taken *after* they fixed his dislocated elbow.
December 26th, 2004 at 4:53 pm
about taking the photo:
our actions involving others are governed by social contracts, right? choosing to be "the person with the camera taking photos" is a social choice like any other. if it is irresponsible to take the photo because it jeopardizes someone's safety, or it threatens the trust in a personal relationship, or is seen as offensive by the milieu, or any other reason specific to the situation, then i think the obvious choice is: don't take the photo. taking a picture is an ACTION and when our actions involve others we should respect their needs and sensibilities as best we can.
the ideal photojournalist, say nachtwey for instance, is somehow able to be very present and yet not seem invasive to the subjects. this is a cultivated skill, i believe, a presence and attitude that one can develop. it is possible to present yourself in such a way as to have obvious "stature" as the photographer, so that your subjects feel it is only right that you should be taking the picture because it's who you are and what you do and pictures should be taken. this is obvious in the photos themselves as a relationship between the photographer and the subject.
about what to do with the photo:
every photograph of another person is exploitative to some degree. period. we make our own lines. follow your heart. aside from slander and lies, or invasion of privacy, i feel there are no "rules" for how we publicly discuss the events which take place around us in public. a photo is just another way of relating to others something that happened when you were present.
i often take pictures of so called "socially marginal" people i encounter on the street, but i don't feel they are gratuitously exploitative at all. if some jerk wants to laugh at them, that's their problem. i like people, and i think (hope) that my affection and respect for people in general shows through in the photos themselves without need for moral qualification. i take pictures of anyone who interests me, from all walks of life. i am an equal opportunity expoiter
here is a shot that i hesitated to publish, because i felt it could be seen as mocking the subject, but in the end i decided it was ok, in part because he was very eager to have his message passed on and told me so.
http://thenarrative.net/archive/000558.php
(i'll be publishing a shot of just his sign as well, since he was eager to get his point across)
if i am ok with my motives, and if i feel the actual action of taking the photo is not irresponsible in and of itself, then i shoot. then i decide what to do with it later.
the photo of your brother is really good and completely OK in my book, but that was a very personal situation for you, as is any moment so intimate. if you feel that the action of taking it cast a lasting pall over some personal relationships in your life, then perhaps it wasn't worth it. your call completely. i would say, if your brother and dad are ok with it now, then obviously you should be too!
in the situation with the man's gambling tragedy, i personally would be inclined to either talk to him and possibly take his picture in that context - to show him some human kindness, first! - or to take it VERY discretely, perhaps with a long lens or in some way that he was never aware of, and to make sure he was virtually unidentifiable if i were to ever publish it.
December 26th, 2004 at 10:32 pm
wow, that was a really long winded and pretentious sounding post i just made. i probably could have said that in one paragraph. i blame cold medicine.
December 26th, 2004 at 11:59 pm
I think every one has made really good points here. Derek was very insightful when he said that shooting a photo is an act that has no inherent good/bad value... what you DO with the product of that photo is the ethical decision.
Then again if you are standing by snapping when you could be helping someone (provided it was safe and appropriate for you to actively help) then I'd say "put down the camera!"
I forgot to say in my first post that I felt you were on firm ground taking the photograph of your injured brother Jessyel, as has been said before you have a personal relationship with the subjects and admitedly there was nothing you could do to help. As matto said, if your Dad and brother are OK with it, so should you be. I'd be a hypocrite if I said otherwise as I have represented my own family members in painful situations myself:
http://www.notreality.org/notreality.php?image=XRAY-Girl
December 27th, 2004 at 8:51 am
i think everyone should rent and watch the shelby lee adams documentary, 'the true meaning of pictures'. not that it will answer these questions.
December 28th, 2004 at 2:00 am
If you fail to capture any moment, it is lost forever. Especially when photographing something living. The important thing to ask yourself is 'what shutter speed do I use?' I can tackle the moral dilemma after the moment is over. There is less moral connection to an inanimate object that you pass by everyday in a street scene. Landscapes and things don't change much. The moment is not as curtial, unless it's influenced by some animated subject like the weather or a person. A practiced photojournalist is comfortable with breathing subjects. Mix in a little peril or crisis and the photojournalist is active in pursuit of the image. What are you waiting for? Permission? Long lenses and sneakery is not the way to confront all situations. A fly-on-the-wall is one solution. There are many other lenses that can portrait the scene and tell a story. At the same time, you don't want to stop the tragedy to request the subject to tilt their head a little to the right to get light just right on both sides of the face, yada yada. Everyone has limits, but everybody has potential. Everyone kisses differently.
December 28th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
The basic moral issue is also a legal issue... the subject's right to privacy. Taking a picture is not an ethical problem, but making it public can be, regardless of your rights as a photographer. I'm tending to use long exposure times so that people are suggested but not identified.
http://www.portlandground.com/archives/2004/12/two_guys_walk_b.php
Don't want anyone in the witness protection program to be exposed. I happen to like the resulting images, since the purpose of my documentary work is to capture the places, and not necessarily the people in them...
In order to include someone's actual face I feel a need to ask permission.... or else I'm taking a risk that they might not want to appear on the web. For example, I asked and received permission to use this one:
http://www.portlandground.com/archives/2004/12/john_plays_to_t.php
Finally, I would always take down a picture if the subject asks me to do so. Simple respect... these are not paid models.
December 28th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
Derek wrote: --> "The important point here is that simply clicking a shutter is never ethical or not ethical. It's just a bit of light hitting a negative (or a sensor). It's what you DO with the photos that matters. Do you show your subjects respect or not? That's where the ethical decisions come into play."
I'm not so sure about this. If someone doesn't like being photographed, and yet you take their photograph, I think of that as a kind of assault. At the least, it's rudeness, akin to blowing smoke in someone's face, or cutting in line at the box office.
The fact that the subject might have some feelings about being photographed makes it an ethical issue, I think.
December 28th, 2004 at 10:13 pm
pixpop raises good points. releasing a shutter is a mechanical action. ethics may be encountered on the front end at point of capture, then again on the back end when displaying an image.
December 28th, 2004 at 11:45 pm
"At the least, it's rudeness"
exactly.
December 29th, 2004 at 12:10 am
People are fickle.
Take shooting soldiers funerals for instance. If you are there shooting somebody will be upset about your presence.
Then again, if nobody shot it, people would complain that the media doesn't care.
December 29th, 2004 at 1:35 am
those could be different people in each case.
December 29th, 2004 at 2:49 am
A photographer in a public place has every legal, moral, and ethical right to photograph anything. Period.
If someone asks you not to photograph them, it'd be nice of you to respect that. But "niceness" is not required by law, and it's pretty subjective. Frankly, I think it's rude to tell a photographer in a public place not to do what they have every right to do.
If you don't like having your photo taken, stay home. Seriously. We're on camera in every store, every cab, and most street corners. Every day. You have no right to refuse to be photographed in a public place.
Choosing not to take a photo in certain cases is up to you. But remember you always have the right.
December 29th, 2004 at 3:20 am
What is more prestigious than a successful wedding photographer in America? A successful funeral photographer in India. Who's pictures would you rather view?
December 29th, 2004 at 11:14 pm
I wrote about the delema on my blog in July.
"I react, I cock the camera and fire off three frames. It's my photo, the photo of my day. Then the loneliness takes over. I hate myself for taking the photo. I feel as though I'm ripping off a strangers pain. All this in order to make myself feel better. Yet I post the photo anyway. You have to question my self awareness; I know I do. All other photos sucked in it's presence, I had to post the photo."
http://dailyabuse.typepad.com/the_daily_drink/2004/08/shade.html
December 30th, 2004 at 12:26 am
"Choosing not to take a photo in certain cases is up to you. But remember you always have the right."
one also has the right to stare and laugh at a cripple, or to tell people they are ugly, or to pick one's nose in a restaurant.
December 30th, 2004 at 1:42 am
Ain't America great?
December 30th, 2004 at 2:15 am
I don't think it's about America Derek...not everyone lives in the good ol' U.S of A ya know!
:-)>
December 30th, 2004 at 1:43 pm
It is your job as a photographer to share truth. You should never be ashamed of this. Truth is not always easy or comfortable. Real emotions, even negative ones such as pain, humiliation, and sadness, are valid.
January 3rd, 2005 at 11:32 am
Thanks ian, I netflixed it and watched it this weekend....it is a good 'un.
March 3rd, 2005 at 7:03 am
Tangents #1
A few brief things: Perhaps because so many photobloggers were displeased with the slant of the site hosting the general
September 30th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Thanks a bunch for the info!
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am
China Tours, Travel China, Beijing Tours ，China Travel is a China travel agency providing China toursã€Beijing Tours, Tibet Tours, Great Wall Tour and Yangtze river cruises. We specialize in "Tailor-Made" and "Customized" private and group tours to China. We'll try our best to offer you China tours with super value and most considerate service.