Where do you draw the line?

Badger UK

Badger UK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,590
Name
Brian Ardrey
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a tread on here with some pics of a burning motorhome. Great shots, but one memeber has expressed soem concern about the ethics of taking a photograph of something that is obviously a very traumatice event for them.

Where would you draw the line. For example, would you take photographs of a nasty car accident? Of a person who has been run-over? A house fire? A homeless person in some sort of distress? A street fight? An arrest being made?

What subjects would you be uncomfortable taking photos of?

In my own case, I can't think of anything I wouldn't take photographs of. Everything is fair game to me.

PS. The first person to mention the worn out subject of bloody children gets a bunch of fives!
 
9/11 would be not so comfortable to take photographs as the people needed everyone's help to rescue. :(
 
d_pipa said:
9/11 would be not so comfortable to take photographs as the people needed everyone's help to rescue. :(
Click to expand...

But if people didn't take photos we would all be less informed. Some of the most dramatic photographs ever taken were during the 9/11 event.
 
I draw the line at taking photographs of worn out bloody children! :D

Seriously, in a situation such as the motorhome, as long as the people involved are ok/being cared for and the emergency services are there I see no problem concentrating on the photography.
 
Steep said:
Seriously, in a situation such as the motorhome, as long as the people involved are ok/being cared for and the emergency services are there I see no problem concentrating on the photography.
Click to expand...

So if people were in trouble you wouldn't take the pictures? If someone was trapped inside you wouldn't take a photograph?
 
Badger UK said:
But if people didn't take photos we would all be less informed. Some of the most dramatic photographs ever taken were during the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

And we would get a tons and tons of money!

However, I couldn't take shoots, thinking about all those people who were dying. :nono:
 
d_pipa said:
However, I couldn't take shoots, thinking about all those people who were dying. :nono:
Click to expand...

But just think of the effect some of the photography of the Vietnam war did in alerting the world to the hoorors of what was going on. The photographs of the poor little girl with the terrible burns running away from the burning village. Or the one of the police chief shooting the man in the head or the one of.....

You get the idea. There are situations that really need to be captured.
 
It is really a moral issue and that is down to the individual.
 
Some of the most famous photographs were taken of 'victims' of various traumatic events. I'm thinking war and the Kim Phuc photo (Hiroshima)
If it wasn't for people taking these types of photographs, we'd be pretty ingorant as to the goings on in the world. I think they do have a place, although I'm not sure I could do it myself.
 
I think there isn't a subject i wouldnt shoot, but i would have to asses the situation that i'm in first.
For example: If a car crash had just happends on a road where there was just me and them - i would stand there with my camera talking pictures of them getting there own crashed selfs from the wrackage.
But in the case of 9/11 (or 11/9 as we should call it) - i have no skills in Building wrackage and to be honest, would problly make things worse, so would leave the professinals to the rescue and help if required/asked, but would try my best to document the surrounds in case for future - they were required as reference.

I think this is a floor we have with "history" as no a lot of events where documented and one passed down through word of mouth. Hence the uncertainty of some storys.
 
gazedd said:
...I think this is a floor we have with "history" as no a lot of events where documented and one passed down through word of mouth. Hence the uncertainty of some storys.
Click to expand...

The uncertainty in many cases though, is due in no small part to misrepresented documentation. ie propaganda. That's not to say that as a photographer you shouldn't document what you can. Unfortunately, as discussed briefly in another recent thread, you don't always have control over what happens with your shots after they're out there.

That's wandering off topic a bit though..
 
My first reaction is to help if I can. If there was nothing I could do I don't think I'd have any issues taking photos whatever the situation.
 
I think in extreme situations, it's about documenting an event - an awful lot like nature.

If an animal in the wild was dying or had been attacked and was being eaten - it is often seen as unethical if you perverse the course of nature. Similarly, war situations are there to be documented - otherwise you become part of it and the events become a course of your actions rather than what you are capturing as an observer.

All said though - if it were a human situation I would find it very difficult to stop myself from intervening. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it - and well done them. Not only is most of the stuff some of the most emotive but it is also informative and leads others to react on behalf of it. Better one journalist taking pictures to raise a thousand objectors than one dead observer who tried to help.
 
Press photography / photojournalism is a very important role in today's media.

I'm about to go into this industry and don't have a problem taking photos of major events, disasters or wars. Infact I would like to eventually become a war photographer.

If I saw a badly injured child on the floor in a warzone, I would take a photo, but that does not necessarily mean that I would leave said child without aid.

As a photojournalist I would feel it my responsibility to take a photo and show the world what is taking place in that part of the world. At least you can do your bit to change it instead of sitting on the sidelines while it takes place.
 
I reckon wildlife photographers probably have a constant moral battle with themselves not to interfere but understand why they shouldn't.

In the case of the Vietnam war or other wars the horror is so widespread that a photographer helping probably wouldn't make much of a difference but taking the photo could.

Isolated incidients such as a car crash I think human instinct would probably take over as photographing a car crash on the M25 is hardly going to make a huge change in the world.

Large disasters would probably be down to personal morals but then in a large disaster there are probably enough people around to help and therefore documenting it would probably be more likely.
 
gman said:
In the case of the Vietnam war or other wars the horror is so widespread that a photographer helping probably wouldn't make much of a difference but taking the photo could.

Isolated incidients such as a car crash I think human instinct would probably take over as photographing a car crash on the M25 is hardly going to make a huge change in the world.
Click to expand...

This is very similar to the answer I was going to give. There is a lot of truth in the statement that there is a responsibility to document events - but for me it completely depends on the event itself whether it needs to be documented as such.

For example - is there anything to be gained by taking a picture of a car on fire with some poor soul stuck inside? Maybe if the car has been bombed as an act of war/terrorism. Probably not if it is the result of an accidental car crash.
 
I would probably take the images, not sure what I'd do with them though, although if I was going to publish tham (on this forum for example) I'd anonymise them as it would be unlikely you would get consent to publish?
 
Badger UK said:
There is a tread on here with some pics of a burning motorhome. Great shots, but one memeber has expressed soem concern about the ethics of taking a photograph of something that is obviously a very traumatice event for them.
Click to expand...


That was me - it wasn't so much the ethics that I was questioning - as I made clear, I wasn't criticising WeddingHack for taking the photos. It was more a personal observation, really - namely that I would have found it difficult to take those photos. And I was interested that WeddingHack replied to my comments by saying (in effect) that he had to pause and think about his position before he got the camera out.

As to where the line is drawn, well that depends on the circumstances. If someone were to give me a job as a war photographer, then I would document the war and everything that goes with it.

I went on holiday to India recently. Coming out of one of the Buddhist stupas we saw a hearse - the back door was open and the body wrapped in a yellow/orange shroud was clearly visible. The driver was holding a large bundle of smoking incense sticks out of the window. It was an impressive sight - the colour and the plume of smoke would have made for some superb photos. I felt uneasy taking pics of the scene and didn't. A friend who was with us had no such unease and she snapped away until the hearse had gone. Good for her - she's got some great pics. Incidentally, no-one seemed remotely bothered about her.

Maybe I'm just too sensitive.
 
I think it's a difficult question and the decision whether or not to take the photograph depends on how you feel at the time.
I suppose instinct takes over.

A while back, I came across a car ablaze on a Tesco petrol station forecourt.
I watched as flames bellowed from the vehicle, thinking "should I get the camera out?"
I decided to wait until I was sure nobody was endangered before taking some photographs.
Amongst these pictures were some of the lady owner of the car in some distress and a member of Tesco staff trying in vain to tackle the fire.

I sent some shots to the local paper but decided to draw the line at sending the more dramatic images of the lady because I didn't want to put the poor woman through any further embarrasment.

Another day my actions might of been totally different though.
 
If it's newsworthy it's photo worthy and a story like the fire would in all probability make the local news.

The emergency teams were on hand so the tog would only have been in the way and hampering their work had he tried to "help out"
 
It's a personal decision at the end of the day and several people have already made comments that I agree with regarding war photography. As for myself I think the phrase "Do no harm" is about the best way to sum up my own feelings. If I can do good then that's better but the bottom line is to do no harm.

I've had to photograph some very traumatic subjects when I was younger and worked in a pathology department. I never had a problem in doing it because there was always a reasoned and logical decision behind it. It was never for sensationalist reasons and I always thought that if the work I was doing led to less disease, death and suffering, even if it was a long way off, then that was my contribution to the common good.

So I'll stick with "Do no Harm" as my motto.
 
I think there is a major difference between taking the pictures and exploiting the situation. I wouldn't have a problem with taking pictures of any incident regardless of how harrowing this might be (my work involves this type of scenario). It may well be traumatic for those concerned at the time but they may thank you for it if those images can be used for insurance or investigative reasons. I do however draw the line at publishing those images or trying to make money from them.
 
Hi

I "drew" the line for myself 20 years ago. I was an up and coming press photographer freelancing for the nationals. The Sun wanted the reporter to knock on the mother's door and ask if her daughter had been a prostitite. I was to photograph her reaction.

The question was "had been" because her daughter had been murdered the day before. I chose not to do the job and did not work in press photography again

stew
 
OneTen said:
My first reaction is to help if I can. If there was nothing I could do I don't think I'd have any issues taking photos whatever the situation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If my medical training can help the person then I'd do that before I would photograph. If there are medical professionals there and they seem as though they would benefit from my aid, I'd help as well. But if I can't do anything, then I might as well snap away.


artona said:
Hi

I "drew" the line for myself 20 years ago. I was an up and coming press photographer freelancing for the nationals. The Sun wanted the reporter to knock on the mother's door and ask if her daughter had been a prostitite. I was to photograph her reaction.

The question was "had been" because her daughter had been murdered the day before. I chose not to do the job and did not work in press photography again

stew
Click to expand...

Definately. I wouldn't want to do low down and sleezy shots like that either and I can't imagine how anybody could (unless you're starving for food or have been threatened or something).
 
artona said:
Hi

I "drew" the line for myself 20 years ago. I was an up and coming press photographer freelancing for the nationals. The Sun wanted the reporter to knock on the mother's door and ask if her daughter had been a prostitite. I was to photograph her reaction.

The question was "had been" because her daughter had been murdered the day before. I chose not to do the job and did not work in press photography again

stew
Click to expand...

Out of interest, did you jump or were you pushed?
 
Badger UK said:
So if people were in trouble you wouldn't take the pictures? If someone was trapped inside you wouldn't take a photograph?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't even think of looking for the camera, I hope I'd be 'brave' enough to try and get them out.
 
If I could not help,I also would document the event, one picture is better ect.
And as said above,that picture informs and sometimes shocks people to do things differently.

Still shiver at the images of that poor bloke knelt down whilst a pillock put a gun to His head and blew His brains out.
Think it was Vietnam
 
Reading through this thread I think there's some confusion as to the situation and the togs' reason for being there.

If I'm a war correspondent on assignment then the photograph is all important, if I'm on my way home passing an incident by chance, professional tog or not then I think it's more important to help first.
 
Every thing is fair Game to me. Like d_pipa said I would be taking photos if someone needed my help. I might take them afterwards.

It would not bother me to take photos of homeless people,burning houses,wrecks, arrest, hurt people, ect.

The way I see it If people where uncomfortable. taking photos of stuff like that we would not have allot of the dramatic photos we have to day. We would not have allot of the Iconic photos either.
 
if you have a camera in your hand but can save a life then you should do so (then take the photo) - if you cant then you should take the photo
 
As I mainly tog motorsport when there is a crash I just fire away. The decison for me would be to draw the line at what to do with them. Post them on tinternet or just keep them ot myself :shrug:
 
By all means go and shoot the suffering in the world, but don't for a minute think it won't affect you. Kevin Carter is an obvious one. Richard Mills killed himself very recently, arguably due to what he's seen in Zimbabwe.

James Nachtwey has spoken eloquently about what he's shot (and reading his extraordinary 'Inferno' will tell you why) and the impact it has on his life.

It's not easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top