The morals of photography

skyblueads

skyblueads

Suspended / Banned
Messages
213
Name
Ads
Edit My Images
Yes
Yesterday evening a guy threatened to commit suicide and was stood on the edge of a mult-storey car park next to our flat, I had the chance to take some very dramatic shots and could have easily sold them to the local paper, as I saw the whole drama unfold from our front room. I didn't as I felt this was wrong, and didn't want to exploit the chap. My question is when does it become morally wrong to take pictures? :thinking:
 
/\ Agreed. Some people would have expoited that situation to the full. Well done for not doing so.
 
As above really; everyone has their own limits. I think it would have been a little morally dubious to take the photos with the sole aim of flogging them to the local rag. But I think this is almost a unique case. The guy was about to kill himself and the photos could not have changed anything for the better and neither would they have provided anyone with information about something people need to be informed about. Suicide is intrinsically personal.

But then you see photojournalists who often seem to have to decide between taking a photo and saving a life in a war zone. Of course individuals still have their own decisions to make, but a photo of terrible suffering in a place struck by war, famine, natural disaster CAN change the situation. It can alter public opinion again, it can be a catalyst for aid, etc. And that can change hundreds of thousands of lives for the better.

I think photojournalists have a primary obligation to report in an honest way. Beyond that, it's down to the individual 'tog and the individual situation.
 
I think its right that you didnt, but as above everybody had different morals. But i heard a story of a uni assignment were a english student and a photography had been paired up to get a full article together, they went around carlisle city center with the aim of getting a story, whilst in a baker together a man came in angrily and killed either his ex wife or his son i'm not sure which, but the photographer had got shots of it but because of the experience being so traumatic nobody knew about it until a year later.

If the man had commited suicide maybe you wouldn't have even thought about even showing them to a local paper, I think it all boils down the sitiuation...
 
As above really, everyone has a different set of morals, of what is right or wrong. We just have to choose how to act in those situations.....personally I think you did the right thing.
 
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that you should have taken photographs. The reason being that it is documentary and you are documenting an event regardless of how difficult it may be. If you taking pictures would have hindered the chances of him stepping back then don't take photographs, but other wise I would have taken pictures. Had he jumped then I probably wouldn't have taken pictures of them on the way down, that would be beyond me. I remember seeing pictures of a failed suicide bomber in Israel being shot at by Israeli soldiers in order to make the bomb safe. I guess you could argue that this is a completely different situation but still, you'd be telling a story.

What would have made is morally dubious is if you then went on to sell the photography to a newspaper.

At the end of the day you should probably stick to what you are comfortable with, so in this case for you, you probably did the right thing.
 
I would have took the pictures... But my first thought would NOT have been to do it for selling..Not every pic has to be for a newspaper.. I just seem to have it built in nowerdays to photograph anyhting and everyhting that happens....to capture the moment as it where, because when the momen is gone its gone.

But Mattyh has it spot on for my money..


Posted BEFORE seeing your answer KayJay so oops :)
 
Interesting thread, and lots of interesting replies - not too sure where to pitch my reply..
I would have said that it was right not to take pictures, but am now not so sure.

I gave up using a camera many years ago as I once found myself in a cathedral in Spain (me being a pale faced tourist, in shorts, with camera round my neck) and as a funeral was taking place, I was not using my camera. However, a coach-load of tourists came piling in, point and shoots at-the-ready, and they snapped and flashed at all and sundry 'till the whistle went, then they piled back into the coach and sped off to the next city.
I felt so ashamed of being a camera-wearer that I gave up taking pictures for many years.
So, how do I feel..?
I don't know.
KayJay makes some interesting points, but as you would not have been able to do much to change the situation, I think I feel that it is something to have seen, rather than something to have exploited. I know that i would not have been able to take pictures, as my emotions would have taken over, but as so many have said, it is up to the individual to make the decision, and others cannot really judge.
As Fred Dawson says, it is the morals of the photographer.
Good thread Skyblueads
 
If a person wants to commit suicide, they will not 'threaten'. They would just do it without a fuss.
Personally i would have taken the shots and sold them, but its really down to the individual what they would do in that situation.
 
I think the OP has raised 2 points here
If you should take the shot
What you then do with it

For me I would say take the shot - you can always delete it afterwards, but the shot should be taken with respect - recording not changing the event

what you do with the shot depends on the outcome - you could give it to the "jumper" to remind him of his lowest point in his life as he rebuilds his life after being talked down from jumping.

If a person wants to commit suicide, they will not 'threaten'. They would just do it without a fuss.
Click to expand...
It may have been a cry for help - the photo may have helped

I would have taken the pictures... But my first thought would NOT have been to do it for selling. Not every pic has to be for a newspaper.. I just seem to have it built in nowadays to photograph anything and everything that happens....to capture the moment as it where, because when the moment is gone it’s gone.
Click to expand...
I agree take the shot


I had the same problem a few years ago at a running race a friend collapsed at the finish line when I was working on the race - do I take the shot?

I did take the shot - with all the medical people around her - it's a powerful shot full of drama and emotion - did I sell it to the papers or put it on the web - NO - she was fine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top