Any personal restrictions on public photography?

[Ian David]

But I thought you said you didn't kill those two guys who tried to touch your Nikon?!

 

[MattKing]

My wife says that "should" is a cognitive distortion.

For the life of me I haven't been able to figure out what that means, but I do know that "should" is just about as slippery a concept as you can find.

I voted yes.

Matt

 

[Tony Egan]

I voted yes because I censor myself even though I really don't like such black and white questions. I didn't attempt to address the "should I", "would I" question. I have certain standards which I apply to myself which I would not insist everyone else follows and it's sometimes difficult to separate personal from universal "beliefs".

Would I wear capri pants? - no
Should others wear capri pants? - no
May others wear capri pants? - yes
Has Nadal played better tennis since he stopped wearing capri pants? - no

 

[jd callow]

Has Nadal played better tennis since he stopped wearing capri pants? - no

Do I hope Nadal's kness are OK -- YES!
Do I wish he'd buy any kind of pant that fits his backside -- yes I've seen enough of the seat yanking.

 

[2F/2F]

For me, whether or not to shoot is an in-the-moment judgment call affected and tempered by all the things that normally affect and temper all things in matters of human judgment. Who wants to know?

My point is that I don't think there are any distinct lines for me, such as "I don't take pix of kids".

If there is any such line, it is something along that lines that I will not take pix in a situation in which the taking of the pix will prevent me of being of aid to another human in peril. For instance, if I am the only person at the site of an accident, I am not going to waste my time shooting when I could be rendering whatever little aid I can. However, once better-trained and equipped persons are on site, I would feel OK about shooting, especially for purposes of news journalism.

This still boils down to in-the-moment judgment, however.

Whether or not I will shoot or not is a separate issue from whether or not I believe shooting should be restricted, either de jure (by the law) or de facto (by outside-of-the-law pressure not to shoot). Just because I expect/demand knowledge and respect of the Constitution and the basic ideals of this country does not mean that I take my liberties without respect for anybody else.

In other words, if my shooting seriously presents a threat to your person, I will not even think to shoot. If, even after a conversation/explanation you are just going to get irrationally pissed off at me for doing what you should know everyone on the street has the liberty to do, I could not care less about how you feel about it. You need to go back to pre school and learn the first couple of things about this country. It is a question of doing actual harm versus simply stimulating someone to have an irrational emotion due to their ignorance and lack of reason.

FWIW, most who notice me will smile or politely attempt to get out of "my shot". Most confrontations are with property owners or lessees, rather than pedestrians.

 

[wayne naughton]

Take the bloody photograph and worry about what to with it at a later date. That's the true test AFAIAC. That you've got the guts to get the image in the first place and THEN the moral backbone to make the correct decision as to its usage.

 

[Ian David]

This is great! Nobody has thrown their toys out of the pram. Such a calm thread so far...

One clarification. I hope it was obvious in the question posed in my original post, but the situations mentioned in (a) and (b) in that post were not meant to be exhaustive. They are just two examples of situations which are meant to be included in the question. So if I was able to clarify (too late now), the question would be:

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 could include (but is not necessarily limited to):
(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.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. Lucky that this poll isn't a matter of life or death eh?

Ian

 

[wayne naughton]

Oh and I voted no.....absolutely and categorically NO!

 

[firecracker]

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.

I vote for "yes" for what you're saying.

 

[removed account4]

im having trouble with the gum

 

[AutumnJazz]

I try to avoid confrontation unless I think the chance of a good picture outweighs the risk.

 

[Roger Krueger]

I vote "no".

To me the shot that clarifies the situation is Winogrand's legless Legioniaire. He's being shot because he's a freak. He's staring at the camera knowing damn well he's being shot because he's a freak. It was a heartless thing to do. Certainly something I'm blessed/cursed with too much empathy to manage. But it's a monumental shot, it has a punch-to-the-gut power that's unequalled. I'm glad Garry was a jerk.

For my own work it's more a matter of what I "can" take than what I "should". There are some places my mind might lead that my gut just won't follow.

There are plenty of actions that might reveal a photographer as a jerk, but I'm not going to say you "shouldn't" be a jerk. I've seen it turn out well too often. I envy people like Bruce Gilden their ability to be a jerk when necessary to their goals.

 

[jd callow]

If the question is: Are there times you self edit than the answer will, at some point, be yes. If the question is: should society expect you to live within some arbitrary boundary that is still within the law (don't photograph children or unwilling strangers), as has been stated by some in the prior two threads, the answer, for me, is no.

I have issues with gum.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

My gums are troubled

 

[Domenico Foschi]

I vote "no".

To me the shot that clarifies the situation is Winogrand's legless Legioniaire. He's being shot because he's a freak. He's staring at the camera knowing damn well he's being shot because he's a freak. It was a heartless thing to do. Certainly something I'm blessed/cursed with too much empathy to manage. But it's a monumental shot, it has a punch-to-the-gut power that's unequalled. I'm glad Garry was a jerk.

For my own work it's more a matter of what I "can" take than what I "should". There are some places my mind might lead that my gut just won't follow.

There are plenty of actions that might reveal a photographer as a jerk, but I'm not going to say you "shouldn't" be a jerk. I've seen it turn out well too often. I envy people like Bruce Gilden their ability to be a jerk when necessary to their goals.

I doubt that was WInogrand's goal.
I don't think Winogrand took that picture because the invalid person was a freak, as you call him.
If you look at the image more closely what is striking is the utter indifference of the people who surround him.
That is the power of Winogrand's work. He managed to find 2 opposites in one scene and the dissonance was the resulting unforgettable note that keeps echoing in our senses.
So, seen under this perspective you can well say that Winogrand wasn't a jerk for having taken that picture, but he merely pointed out the event. So to our eyes the roles are inverted. The "freak" is an helpless veteran, and the crowd is composed by a group of freaks in the sense that they have forgotten some of Man's most noble traits which are charity and empathy.

 

[JBrunner]

Personal, sure, everything is personal. There are pictures I would choose not to take. What those are, within the limit of the law, are up to me to decide, and none other. Quite a different question than the issues in the other thread justifying raping women who dress provocatively, or murdering a photographer for taking a picture, which were the positions I objected to, and in doing so, got painted with a rather broad brush.

 

[Terence]

Where would we be photographically without people willing to "shoot first and ask questions later"?

Let's look at the iconographic images of the Vietnam War (the U.S. one). We see a monk immolating, a Kent State student laying dead in the street, a man being executed by a police officer ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv11KilBpHQ ), and a naked girl burned by napalm ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc ).

From the first Gulf War, we see a soldier on a helicopter crying over his dead buddy ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4290906.stm ).

From 9/11/01 in NYC, we see a business man who chose to jump out of a building presumably to die on his own terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man).

The Hindenburg explosion.

From the Great Depression, destitute men in a bread line, and a stoic woman hoping to feed her family and escape the dust bowl (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/02/dustbowl.photo/index.html).

From the Civil War, the dead on the battlefield.

From Africa's wars and famines, a photo of a vulture stocking a dying child ( http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm ).

It could easily be argued that none of these photos should have been taken. But is the world better or worse for having seen them? I'd prefer to think they make us think about otherwise unthinkable, unbelievable things, and confront them.

"Afghan Girl" has always haunted me. I like to think that I try to be a more compassionate person just for having seen it.

 

[keithwms]

I answered "yes" because the question was whether I have any personal restrictions. Of course I do. I have seen vulgar displays of disrespect from tourists in some places and yes, there definitely are times when I would put the camera down. I have never understood the idea that everything needs to be recorded on film; we do have eyes and memories, and sometimes those are the most appropriate tools to use.

Among the photographic offenses I have personally witnessed, some silly, some just insensitive, and others downright unethical:

-close-range video of a woman changing a baby's diaper

-around some very sensitive displays in a concentration camp (N.b. I would not have objected if the subject matter were treated professionally during off hours but to me, at Auschwitz, this was akin to walking up to a casket during a funeral)

-really loud and obnoxious snapping, with a flash, during a service in a cathedral (I have seen this many times)

-bath house photography (some day, I just know that the shots taken of me at the onsen in Japan are going to show up!)

-photography in a changing room or clothing-optional beach; yes, I've seen it many times and there are people get their jollies doing it

-photography of unclad, deceased persons in a morgue, which I find incredibly disrespectful

Again... the question was about any personal restrictions, and these are a few examples of things I wouldn't do.

Terence, I wouldn't personally object to any of the things you just mentioned, they all strike me as journalistically important moments. There is a big difference between something that is newsworthy or eye-opening, versus some of the exploitive things I and others have mentioned.

 

[Terence]

Journalism is just exploitation on a professional level.

What constitutes "professional" or "journalistic"? Do paparazzi count?

What is the difference between a journalist and a "man on the scene"? Zapruder was not a professional.

I've dealt with many journalists over the years from places like the NY Times and National Geographic, etc. I would hardly call any of them "professional".

 

[keithwms]

So... maybe it's just that some journalist are opportunistic a-holes? Just like some presidents and some priests and some ....

As is ultimately concluded in each and every one of these discussions, there are grey regions. Film photography is continuous tone, and so are the ethical issues that surround it. People spend an awful lot of time around here, lately, pushing each other's buttons in discussions about extreme situations.

 

[Terence]

We all have our hobbies . . .

It's the darn Jesuit training that makes me argue even points I don't believe, for the sake of a good argument.

 

[keithwms]

Jesuit photography, now there is a genre of which I wasn't aware

P.S. As for Zapruder, he simply recorded what unfolded in front of him. With regard to the JFK assassination, if any unethical act was committed with film, it was by Oliver Stone. But maybe we shouldn't get started on that!

 

[Flea77]

Quite a different question than the issues in the other thread justifying raping women who dress provocatively, or murdering a photographer for taking a picture, which were the positions I objected to, and in doing so, got painted with a rather broad brush.

Actually you were the only one saying "Right, and that girl in the mini skirt who was raped, well, she was just begging for it.", I disagreed with you saying "Does that mean it is her 'fault', no.". Also, from the get go, I clearly stated the criminal should be brought to justice, and reiterated that sentiment several times. Jumping over to this thread and twisting things does not make you any more 'correct'.

Allan

 

[JBrunner]

Actually you were the only one saying "Right, and that girl in the mini skirt who was raped, well, she was just begging for it.", I disagreed with you saying "Does that mean it is her 'fault', no.". Also, from the get go, I clearly stated the criminal should be brought to justice, and reiterated that sentiment several times. Jumping over to this thread and twisting things does not make you any more 'correct'.

Allan

The thread is over there for anyone to peruse. You are incorrect in your summary, and have parsed carefully, however you will no doubt disagree, as the straw chaff dances in the pretty light, so lets just agree to drop it. There is obviously nothing to gain in discussion. I regret bringing it up.

You are right.

 

[Q.G.]

Personal, sure, everything is personal.

Not quite.
Whether you should fart in church, for instance, is not.