Any personal restrictions on public photography?

[Ian David]

There have been some pretty heated threads recently on the question whether a photographer should ever consider exercising any personal restraint when taking photographs in public. There have been some extreme views at either end of the spectrum. I have been fascinated by the polarized response to the issue, and so I thought I would start a poll to see how people feel about this.

The basic question that seems to be causing so much heat is the following:


Can you imagine any single possible situation or incident where, due to considerations of courtesy, humanity, compassion or respect, you should not take photographs or particular types of photographs of a person in public without their permission? (Imagine that the person is not a public figure.)
This would include:
(a) situations where you have been expressly asked by the person not to take the photos;
(b) taking intrusive photographs by putting a wide-angle lens very close to the person's face to get the shots.


If you can imagine any such situation or incident, please answer 'yes' above. If you cannot imagine such a situation or incident, please answer 'no'. If you are not sure, and think it would depend on all the circumstances, that suggests you should answer 'yes' because you clearly recognise that sometimes you should not shoot.

One possible example scene might be where you are a witness to someone's personal tragedy or embarrassment, and you have a camera with you.

In answering this, imagine that you are an American citizen with various fundamental freedoms including a Constitutional right to free speech. Imagine, however, that the person you are thinking of photographing is not armed and there is no apparent physical danger to you if you take the shots. Also, it would not be against the law to take the photographs that you are considering taking.

Also imagine that you are not employed as a photojournalist. Instead, imagine that you are an artist or hobbyist with an interest in humanity.

If you want to add comments, I suggest that you add to one of the other existing threads, as this will otherwise become a bit heated here...

Thanks for participating. Ian

 

[Domenico Foschi]

I voted "yes".

 

[GJA]

the personal part makes a huge difference.

I can think of numerous situations in which I would not take a photo that I would love to capture.

For instance if his man was my friend, and knew that he had a wife (and it was not the girl in the photo) i would not take this excellent shot:

 

[Ian David]

Hi Domenico. What a relief! I had thought we weren't friends any more.

I voted "yes".

Does this mean that you have changed your mind, or that you finally understand the question?

 

[Ian David]

the personal part makes a huge difference.

I can think of numerous situations in which I would not take a photo that I would love to capture.

Well in that case it seems that you and me approach the world differently from Domenico, JD Callow, et al

 

[arigram]

I really can't think of a valid, generalised set of rules to abstain from photography. I can accept that there were and will be situations that I decided not to press the shutter, but have always been a very personal and deeply psychological decision of the moment than being referenced to a rulebook on morality.
I have seen way too many classical masterpieces that have been passed in time to us when the controversy regarding the decision to take or not the photography has passed or even was just at that precise moment and truthfully insignificant.
Photojournalism comes to mind, from Cartier-Bresson's sneaky photography to Salgado's in your face drama. Or all those street photographers that gave us masterpieces of people that we will never learn their names or lives but gave so much by appearing in the photographs.
The scenario that GJA makes above is a very personal decision by the photographer but putting aside any other reasons to take the photograph even if you are risking potential damage to the subjects, society and the government have other laws that can be applied.
No, I think its a very personal decision that is done on the moment and I can't justify a moral code.

 

[Ian David]

Hi Ari
Your view then is very similar to mine. There is no universal code or rulebook. It is a question of personal discretion in all the circumstances of the moment.
The thing I do not understand is people who claim that they never need to exercise any discretion because there is never any doubt about whether the shot should be taken.
Ian

 

[arigram]

Hi Ari
Your view then is very similar to mine. There is no universal code or rulebook. It is a question of personal discretion in all the circumstances of the moment.
The thing I do not understand is people who claim that they never need to exercise any discretion because there is never any doubt about whether the shot should be taken.
Ian

Honestly, I am fine with that.
I usually call these people "bold" not "immoral". Just because I don't have the balls to take a photograph on every situation, it doesn't mean that I don't accept people who do.
My weight is on "personal decision" not on "every time".
Maybe there were times those photojournalists abstained from taking a photograph due to moral or practical reasons, but considering I have deeply admired photographs that would have costed the photographer's health, freedom or even life, I can't brush aside people that are don't hesitate to press the shutter.
There are a vast number of people with their fingers on the trigger of a weapon waiting for the opportunity to really hurt someone and even take their lives so somehow the morality of a photograph seems very insignificant.
I can present at least a dozen of scenarios and at least that many well known photographs where the photographer took the risk even after being asked not to and be threaten with violence.
Violent protests come to mind, executions and war crimes, severe poverty and hunger, prostitutes, unfortunately disabled people or even celebrations, normal street life, children at play, etc, etc.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I vote yes. To me depends on the situation. Sometimes it happens so fast it makes it diffcult.

Jeff

 

[Ian David]

Honestly, I am fine with that.
I usually call these people "bold" not "immoral". Just because I don't have the balls to take a photograph on every situation, it doesn't mean that I don't accept people who do.
My weight is on "personal decision" not on "every time".
Maybe there were times those photojournalists abstained from taking a photograph due to moral or practical reasons, but considering I have deeply admired photographs that would have costed the photographer's health, freedom or even life, I can't brush aside people that are don't hesitate to press the shutter.
There are a vast number of people with their fingers on the trigger of a weapon waiting for the opportunity to really hurt someone and even take their lives so somehow the morality of a photograph seems very insignificant.
I can present at least a dozen of scenarios and at least that many well known photographs where the photographer took the risk even after being asked not to and be threaten with violence.
Violent protests come to mind, executions and war crimes, severe poverty and hunger, prostitutes, unfortunately disabled people or even celebrations, normal street life, children at play, etc, etc.

I too agree that there have been some wonderful and important photographs taken in very intrusive or personal situations where I would probably not have taken the photo. But that is a judgment that a photographer has to make. If he decides to shoot and ends up with a truly wonderful photograph, then it may be that his conduct was worth the imposition on someone's privacy. If it doesn't work out, then he may have to accept that he was a jerk for trying on that occasion. If he never appreciates that sometimes there is a judgment to be made, then maybe he is a full-time jerk who occasionally gets a really worthwhile photo (but still a jerk).

Truly wonderful photos don't really appear all that often. Some people unfortunately want to be HCB or some other hero of theirs, but are not really up to the job, and end up spending their lives pissing off a lot of people and taking a whole lot of very ordinary photographs.

 

[arigram]

Some people unfortunately want to be HCB or some other hero of theirs, but are not really up to the job, and end up spending their lives pissing off a lot of people and taking a whole lot of very ordinary photographs.

Yes, but then we come to the problem of judging that decision based on the quality of the photograph not the actual action taken. It is not rare for an artist to be accused of suspect or outright break of morality based solely on the fact (s)he pissed off a few/some/many people who judged his work as mediocre, bad art or even not art at all. There is one truth to the whole matter is that usually subjects of photographers are not fellow artists or even lovers of art and those people tend to be a lot less understanding of any actions taken for the "sake of art". Plus, there is so much politics, social diplomacy, or even racism involved in the decision to "burn the witch".
As such, is hard to really balance out such a question on morality and philosophy in a split second required to take a "sneaky" photograph. I have personally regretted every photograph that I chose not to take, even some that I knew that if the situation presented itself to me again I would have made the same decision or at the very least hesitated.
I personally think that the damage that is done by those "jerks" and their number of them is deeply insignificant when put in contrast to a generalised rulebook that would restrict the freedom of artmaking.
Because I see it as making art (good or bad, that's irrelevant) and not as capturing the image or the soul of someone or willingly pissing them off.
On a scale then, "photograph" in one hand, "jerk" in another, I see the first outweighing the latter for a huge measure.
So in that sense, I oppose to any restrictions, especially self-imposed.
Because its one thing for the government or the society to restrict and control your freedoms and another for the artists, or people in general, to willingly leash themselves.

 

[jd callow]

I can't imagine anyone voting no. Would a more contemporaneous question be something like:

Would you photograph someone without their knowledge and or permission?

Do you trust other photographers to do the right thing or does there need to be more restrictions on photgraphing in public?

or

What do you find more bothersome when in public:
Eye contact from strangers
stepping in recently discarded gum
People talking loudly on their cell phones
people who do not know how to queue
People who may surreptitiously photograph you
men who wear capri pants

 

[Ian David]

What discussions have you been reading, JD? Clearly not the same ones as me. My question reflects what I have been saying and what you and Domenico have apparently been getting so upset about. Don't tell me all the strong words came about because you were not reading carefully!

 

[Ian David]

Ari
I am interested in your thoughts in your last post. (I am however slightly shocked that we seem to be on the verge of having something like a thoughtful discussion rather than a slanging match )
I have to go somewhere else now for a bit, but will come back to this.
ian

 

[removed account4]

i find the situations you describe in this poll to be kind of silly.
i can not imagine anyone shoving a camera in someone's face as you describe.
you go to extremes to prove a what point ...
that there are some moments that it might not be "right" to make a photograph??

 

[cknapp1961]

I am in the U.S. Army, 47 years old, not a Military Public Affairs Photographer, and Yes, I vote that there are time I wolud not take a photo, especially if I do not know the person. I feel there are times that a person's right to privacy over rides my right to take a photo....I know there are moments in my life that I would not want to be photographed and recognizable. And there I times I take certain photos knowing that I am conflicted, still searching for an angle to get the subject in silhouette or from behind the subject, more to capture the event itself and not the people at the event, knowing I can edit (censor) what images are seen by others.

I am one of those "zealots" who believe in the rights of the individual, as long as your rights do not infringe on my rights, nor my rights infringe upon you we are "good to go". That is why I reason that a person's right to privacy can over ride my right to take a photo.

There have been occasions where I have taken photos at a memorial service with grieving parents easily recognizable, but I only publish images (usually as slide shows for Military Functions) where people are not recognizable. I do however, send a few copies of the ceremony to the Soldier's family, some where the family is recognizable, and some where they are not. I enclose a letter explaining that I appreciate their family's sacrifice and that only photos that show the event, without identifying people at the event will be used for formal functions, and that I hope that as the years pass, these photos will mean more to them and their family than they do at this time. Most of the time I receive nice letters back expressing their gratitude for capturing the event tastefully, other times I hear nothing from the family which is understandable.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

This poll is flawed since the start since in order to give an objective opinion the voter should know what it REALLY means to do street photography.

To vote without that experience the vote is pointless and unrealistic.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I say yes, only because every time you lift the viewfinder to your eye requires circumstantial decision-making. You have to decide if it is possible, permissible, and/or ethical to take the photo. The ethics of taking any picture can be argued either way- in the example of the kiss photo posted above, if it was a friend kissing a girlfriend not his wife, your intent would be the determining factor- are you taking the picture to prove to the wife the friend is having an affair? if so, then you have an obligation to take it. If you don't want to do that, then you should not take the photo. But, on the flip side, what if they are two total strangers on the street? You have no idea what their relationship is. As a general rule, personally, I don't take portraits, especially candids, of strangers on the street, even for strictly personal consumption, unless they are doing some activity in the public space that is calling attention to themselves (street performers, people in outrageous costumes at a public event, etc). I think once you put on a costume and begin to perform, you give up the right to privacy. The one place I made an exception for that was at the Folsom Street Fair, where pretty much everyone is in some kind of costume (or lack thereof). I wanted to photograph a gentleman and his lady companion who were in these really cool neo-victorian outfits, but when I raised the camera, he waved 'no', so I lowered the camera and didn't take the shot.

 

[Ian David]

i find the situations you describe in this poll to be kind of silly.
i can not imagine anyone shoving a camera in someone's face as you describe.
you go to extremes to prove a what point ...
that there are some moments that it might not be "right" to make a photograph??

Honestly John, I am not trying to prove anything. I am just interested in people's attitudes. In fact, I find the poll results already pretty interesting. I am not hoping for or relying upon any particular outcome - I am just curious.
Sometimes you need to consider extreme situations to find out how far people are prepared to follow their views.
Ian

 

[Ian David]

This poll is flawed since the start since in order to give an objective opinion the voter should know what it REALLY means to do street photography.

To vote without that experience the vote is pointless and unrealistic.

Thanks Domenico. Your comment allows me to give a good example of the benefit of thinking of more extreme situations when deciding whether someone is speaking nonsense. Thus your logic would suggest that:

- I cannot comment on what I think is right or wrong in wartime because I have never been a soldier on active service and don't understand what it REALLY means to sack an enemy town.

- I cannot comment on whether I think sexual contact with small children is wrong because I don't understand what it REALLY means to love an infant that way.

You are speaking nonsense again.

 

[jd callow]

I have issues with men in capri pants.

 

[Ian David]

I have issues with men in capri pants.

That's fair enough. Don't mind them on women though...

 

[Domenico Foschi]

I have men capri pants with issues

 

[jon]

I found the dead body of a murder victim in a "public place" when I was in the Philippines in '98. I had a camera with me at the time. Despite the perfect lighting, for some reason I went and got the police instead of setting up my tripod. So yeah, I've got limits.

Anyone who can claim to have absolutely no limits, whatsoever with regards to what or who they will photograph simply lacks imagination.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

I found the dead body of a murder victim in a "public place" when I was in the Philippines in '98. I had a camera with me at the time. Despite the perfect lighting, for some reason I went and got the police instead of setting up my tripod. So yeah, I've got limits.

Anyone who can claim to have absolutely no limits, whatsoever with regards to what or who they will photograph simply lacks imagination.