CLICK THE SHUTTER OR WALK AWAY?

if I was not there working I would not take the picture as it would serve no purpose to me - why do I need to have pictures of dead people in my catalogue. However, for people recording the news and documenting history then it is very important to take these photographs. The can help with idenditfication and provide graphic visual information to make people part with their cash for releaf efforts.

These pictures are no more or less graphic than seeing people starving in africa etc.
 
I think its a case of raising awareness of things that are usually outside of everyones comfort zone, and at the end of the day although it is slightly disturbing it does just that. Kindof puts a human cost on disasters in a way, the same as the psychological impact of seeing the effects of the first atomic bombs played a part in the Japanese surrender.

Sometimes for impact things need to be that cold and graphic. I saw a LVPD training video once about ensuring that every prisoner gets patted down and the ramifications if its missed - in this case a mexican illegal immigrant blowing his brains out with a concealed handgun in high def.
 
swanseamale47 said:
If we bury our heads in tha sand and pretend it never happened change will never come.
Click to expand...

Nobody has suggested we do that, thats not even the point of the thread. We can all agree that we need to be aware of world issues, but the question was whether we need to see dead babies in order for us to do it.

For me, i find it hard to see disturbing things like that, thats just my personal, natural, in-voluntary reaction - not a judgement on whether i think its right or not. TBO im not sure if that kind of thing is needed, or whether its just to serve peoples morbid curiosity. I hate seeing things like that, but at the same time i find it hard to resist looking.

All i know is, if someone was in danger and needed help, i'd be at their side before my camera even hits the ground. And anyone else standing there taking photos will find their camera on the floor too.

Adey
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I must be really cold hearted, but I see things like this every day whilst I'm at work and not in picture format. I can understand that people may be saddened to see some of those pictures, especially the one with three children, but compare that to Baby P or Jamie Bulger and to the extent of their injuries.

It's unfortunate that nature has a wicked side and can claim so many lives in one swoop, but man can do so much worse on a much smaller scale.......so the question I ask is:
"is it the size of the disaster that shocks people, or is it the act?"

My opinion is, it would shock people more to see an act performed by a person to another (ie. see above examples) than a natural disaster.
 
Don't see the fuss - some aid workers doling out supplies, a bloke returning home, three shrouded (infant) bodies... it's all there to tell a story. Personally, it doesn't tell me much other than what's described in the captions.

Where do we draw the line? I think that the line can never be drawn.... once we start censoring then we've lost it... it's up to the individual viewer to decide what impact the shot has and how it will affect them.

Doog said:
Surely you've got that the wrong way round!!! It may be too late after you've clicked the shutter.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

You're saying help first, shoot later? Then you don't have a shot, although I'd probably help... but that's why I'm not a photojournalist in 'the danger zone'....
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the op's opinion is based on our western moral set. Death in other countries and cultures is viewed completely differently.

With regards the situation and considering my training I would help before taking photos. However, if I was there and I had a camera, I would take the photographs. It's a record of history and the events.
 
it's not that disturbing tbf :shrug:

as for the photojournalist side, i watched a film the other day by j.j abrams called 'monsters' i think and it followed a photojournalist and there was a memorable scene where he said something like "do you know how much they pay to see a picture of a dead child...thousands!" "do you know how much they pay to see a picture of a happy child...zilch"

that was the sorta thing he said anyway i cant remember the actualy statement but it was soo true what he said :)
 
In the Victorian age it was called penny dreadfuls, somethings never change, neither do some people.

Steve
 
Doog said:
Surely you've got that the wrong way round!!! It may be too late after you've clicked the shutter.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

If a person's life is decided in the time it takes to press the shutter button then they would also most likely be dead by the time you figure out how to help them.

I say do the photo, then help if you can unless you're primary focus during that time is on helping. Then help first(ie medical personnel)
 
Click the shutter.

The beauty of photography is that it documents a space in time... usually just the fraction of a second which is the thing I love the most about it... a split second recorded forever.

I remember the moment I saw the atrocities of 9/11 and how they impacted on me... mainly with disbelief it was happening... the planes striking, the people jumping out of the windows, the towers falling and every time I look at an image of 9/11 it takes me back to how I felt first finding out about it and seeing it on the news nearly 3000 people died in one morning... words cannot describe that.

I'd heard about the genocide in rwanda that 800,000 people were killed over 100 days but this didn't really sink in until recently seeing an image in a museum of all the skulls of the victims stacked up on shelves, an image so dramatic, driving home what had actually happened and the horrific things that the human race can do to each other brought home the trauma and brutality that innocent people had to go through.

Images like these educate people who aren't there on the realities of a situation...

A picture paints a thousand words

I'm glad every photographer clicked their shutter.
 
I was in the Army in a certain part of the Middle East in the late 60's. There were some terrible atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion/nationalism.

There were two official army photographers with us, snapping all the way. All we squaddies wanted was that these photographs to be released to the public to see what was being done and what we were fighting against.

Nothing was shown because of the "sensitive nature" of our unit and it's operations in that area. I can't begin to tell you what the effect that this censorship had on our troop.

There are some men who have still not recovered, even to this day.

Photographers out "there" have a tremendous presence to those in the middle of the action, the images have to be shown, we make our world as it is and also have to deal with the immutable force of nature.
 
One train of thinking is, that by taking the photo you take another element away from those mourning their loss. To clarify, how would you feel if it where you dead relatives being published to the world?
 
Hadley said:
One train of thinking is, that by taking the photo you take another element away from those mourning their loss. To clarify, how would you feel if it where you dead relatives being published to the world?
Click to expand...

Ask the survivors of the holocaust!
 
Hadley said:
One train of thinking is, that by taking the photo you take another element away from those mourning their loss. To clarify, how would you feel if it where you dead relatives being published to the world?
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I think if I had just survived a natural disaster I would have more important things to worry about than a picture of a dead relative being published.
 
Adey said:
Nobody has suggested we do that, thats not even the point of the thread. We can all agree that we need to be aware of world issues, but the question was whether we need to see dead babies in order for us to do it.

For me, i find it hard to see disturbing things like that, thats just my personal, natural, in-voluntary reaction - not a judgement on whether i think its right or not. TBO im not sure if that kind of thing is needed, or whether its just to serve peoples morbid curiosity. I hate seeing things like that, but at the same time i find it hard to resist looking.

All i know is, if someone was in danger and needed help, i'd be at their side before my camera even hits the ground. And anyone else standing there taking photos will find their camera on the floor too.

Adey
Click to expand...

Yet you looked at the picuures having a pretty good idea of what they contained, and how is smashing other peoples cameras going to help? you wouldn't helping the injured while doing it and the other togs certainly wouldn't help you or them after.
 
Adey said:
Nobody has suggested we do that, thats not even the point of the thread. We can all agree that we need to be aware of world issues, but the question was whether we need to see dead babies in order for us to do it.

For me, i find it hard to see disturbing things like that, thats just my personal, natural, in-voluntary reaction - not a judgement on whether i think its right or not. TBO im not sure if that kind of thing is needed, or whether its just to serve peoples morbid curiosity. I hate seeing things like that, but at the same time i find it hard to resist looking.

All i know is, if someone was in danger and needed help, i'd be at their side before my camera even hits the ground. And anyone else standing there taking photos will find their camera on the floor too.

Adey
Click to expand...
Everyone has their own set of morals to live by. don't judge others just because they don't fit your image of what should be.
 
Vantage said:
I came across a disturbing picture on the BBC website.

(The gallery I’m talking about is through the BBC website under ‘Day in pictures.’ And the photo in question is under the Indonesian tsunami.
Click to expand...

Meh. Dead bodies. :|
I'd be upset if it was dead bodies caused by trigger-happy Yank pilots, but they're ten-a-penny.
Can't stop the sea!
 
You are only taking a photo at the end of the day and weren't the cause of the disaster.

If you had done something horrible to someone and then took a photo, then that's different.

If you watched something horrible happening to someone and were in a position to stop it but chose to photograph instead, then that's wrong.

If you aren't in a position to help but could still photography then yes, photograph it so that it can raise awareness to prevent it happening in the future.

I think the pilot pressing the bomb release button has a little more to think about, or the politician deciding to start a war. Hmmmm......war......started by old men, fought by young men.
 
You find more disturbing images on the front cover of a Mexican Newspaper on a daily basis. Although they tend to remove the blankets and get close up to the faces.
 
neil_1980 said:
I saw a H&S video at work with that clip in a few months back... was the fact he was just motionless with smoke coming off him that made it so horrific I think
Click to expand...

That is the one... reading your message brought flash backs :(... certainly made me think twice about working on live circuits..
 
six6six said:
That is the one... reading your message brought flash backs :(... certainly made me think twice about working on live circuits..
Click to expand...

seen that too, I didn't find it particularly shocking (no pun intended) though. Which says a lot about what we are exposed to these days I suppose
 
In answer to "Why take the picture at all? Just to show what Tsunamis can do?"
The same could be asked of any news article...

"Why write the words. Just to tell people what Tsunamis can do?"

The answer really is that photography is a way of explaining something...albeit in a visual way.
 
Marcel said:
In answer to "Why take the picture at all? Just to show what Tsunamis can do?"
The same could be asked of any news article...

"Why write the words. Just to tell people what Tsunamis can do?"

The answer really is that photography is a way of explaining something...albeit in a visual way.
Click to expand...

But wouldnt a picture of a row of small caskets tell us the same thing?

I just think alot of people either have an over active sense of morbid curiosity or are just so cold hearted that photos like that have little or no impact. Like people are so desensitized to death and mutilation these days, deep down i worry because it make me feel like humanity and respect for life (and death) is being lost.

A mean look how popular the Saw films are with young people, its just a film all about torturing people in the most nasty, horrific way possible. We miss the blood and guts from the old Roman days maybe.

Didnt someone mention earlier about the value of dead babies or something?

When i lost my mum to cancer 6 years ago, one of the hardest things to take was the lack of dignity. Being rushed through a corridor and having lots of doctors and nurses poking at her and other patients seeing her, it felt like the most intimate part of my life was opened up for the world to see. I think death should be a private thing, not something to be photographed and printed in thousands of papers and magazines, so all us privileged f***ers can sit here feeling like we are informed members of society.

Im sure there are good intentions in alot of these photographers, its just our society as a whole that bothers me.
 
For me, take the photograph, always.

Everything should be recorded - it is world history and events we record, talk about, remember - they need images as much as they need a narrative.

I saw nothing disturbing in those photographs, just dead people. But then again my personal outlook doesn't see a dead baby as anything different to a dead person - but I can understand others might be uncomfortable with that.

Now, the debate has cropped up again about take the photo or help - well do both! A competent photographer can get the shot in a very short amount of time - couple of seconds - then help. Negligible delay but the moment is recorded forever. Depending on circumstance that shot could be evidence, or just something for one of the people in it to show their mates - of course should there be ample help already on hand take a few more - document the incident properly. Better to be getting the shot than standing round gawping like most people do.
 
Adey said:
But wouldnt a picture of a row of small caskets tell us the same thing?

I just think alot of people either have an over active sense of morbid curiosity or are just so cold hearted that photos like that have little or no impact. Like people are so desensitized to death and mutilation these days, deep down i worry because it make me feel like humanity and respect for life (and death) is being lost.
Click to expand...

you asked if a row of caskets would say the same thing. thats like asking in education if a diagram of a heart is as effective as disecting the real thing. they both have the same end but one is more effective than the other so no i don't think it tells the story as emotively.

considering most of the people in this thread are of the mind that there is nothing wrong with the photos i would argue that you are just over sensitive to it more than we're the opposite. group intelligence is the most powerful thing and usually the consensus is a good measure of the general feeling across a community so i think it's less morbid curiosity from us and more over sensitiveness from you.
 
Last edited:
Where is the picture? Looked for it, but couldn't see anything..
 
These types of photo have been taken for a very long time. Some equally, if not more, horrific stuff was taken in WWII (not even counting the holocaust), just that we have the internet now and more people have the opportunity to see them. There were warnings so no-one had to view them if they didn't want to.

These images must be recorded, history must be recorded, visually and in the printed word.

As for the photographer helping? In these situations, the disaster has happened, aid workers are already there. The photographer is there to take photos, that's what he/she must do.
 
joescrivens said:
you asked if a row of caskets would say the same thing. thats like asking in education if a diagram of a heart is as effective as disecting the real thing. they both have the same end but one is more effective than the other so no i don't think it tells the story as emotively.

considering most of the people in this thread are of the mind that there is nothing wrong with the photos i would argue that you are just over sensitive to it more than we're the opposite. group intelligence is the most powerful thing and usually the consensus is a good measure of the general feeling across a community so i think it's less morbid curiosity from us and over sensitiveness from you.
Click to expand...

I agree with your logic in general but im not sure it applies here. This isnt a general cross section of society, it is a photography forum. A subject that is directly connected to the argument in question.

In all honesty, i probably am a bit over sensitive. But that doent mean that other people arent under sensitive. Eliminating one answer doesnt render all other answers correct. I dont know the right answers really, its all just emotions and opinions at the end of the day.

And the bit about the heart was a bit weak for you though Joe, i've read a number of your posts and your are a smart guy, but that comparison missed a beat with me im afraid;)
 
Adey said:
But wouldnt a picture of a row of small caskets tell us the same thing?

I just think alot of people either have an over active sense of morbid curiosity or are just so cold hearted that photos like that have little or no impact. Like people are so desensitized to death and mutilation these days, deep down i worry because it make me feel like humanity and respect for life (and death) is being lost.
Click to expand...

I think the thing with this is surely the thread shows that what you say is actually not the case. I am not sure anyone is looking with a sense of morbid curiosity at the image?

They were dead when the pic was taken, so nothing could be done, so there isn't a question of help first here.

How is this imaging desensitising people? Surely this is a shocking image, which reminds people of the fragility of human life. You obviously see it very differently, but it is not morbid curiosity.
 
Adey said:
And the bit about the heart was a bit weak for you though Joe, i've read a number of your posts and your are a smart guy, but that comparison missed a beat with me im afraid;)
Click to expand...

Bed with no porridge for me tonight then I guess :shake:
 
ding76uk said:
I think the thing with this is surely the thread shows that what you say is actually not the case. I am not sure anyone is looking with a sense of morbid curiosity at the image?
Click to expand...

Theres no way we could really know.

ding76uk said:
They were dead when the pic was taken, so nothing could be done, so there isn't a question of help first here.
Click to expand...

Cant argue with that.

ding76uk said:
How is this imaging desensitising people? Surely this is a shocking image, which reminds people of the fragility of human life. You obviously see it very differently, but it is not morbid curiosity.
Click to expand...

Well when you see shocking pictures enough, after a while they become less shocking and ultimately lose their impact.

Personally i dont need to look at pictures of dead people to arouse sympathy and grief, we all despise child abuse but we dont need to see pictures of it to know how bad it is. Probably a bad comparison...

I'd like to say though, im still on the fence about whether its right or wrong. I just personally dont think its healthy for me to see pictures like this, doesnt do anything for me that i would consider positive.
 
Last edited:
Adey said:
Genuine question, do governments form action plans based on the shockingness of an image. Or does the shock felt by the public seeing the image somehow filter 'up' to the powers that be?
Click to expand...

There's an easy answer to that: Yes.

Try finding an available picture of Tiananmen Square to look at inside China.

Governments censor images because they know the impact that they can have, internally and externally.
 
Yes but thats photos in general, its got nothing to do with how graphic they are. I probably shouldnt of said "shockingness" its not really accurate. The chinese may censor photos that would shock people and governments into action, but that doesnt necessarily mean they have to be that graphic.
 
if you want to see something really shocking, watch liverpool playing at the moment, that should definitely be censored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top