Is there anything you wouldn't photograph?

Thomassauerwein said:

.... Recently my neices husband came home from Iraq part a marine contingent who had lost 17 of its group. I was there with camera in on my shoulder, saw shots everywhere I turned yet did not have the guts to invade their space......

Click to expand...

Thomas in this situation I would have taken the shots and had them over to the newsroom at the earliest I could. Here for me I see moral value in reporting the returning troops and the consequences of our boys and girls doing their bit. So for me I wouldn't have thought twice about getting the pictures, in fact my thoughts would be the best lens to use.

Are there images I would not photograph? Certainly!!

That decision would be based on the photograph's effect ... I have *no* desire to destroy someone's effort to cope with the death of a loved one by showing a photograph of the blood and gore at an automobile wreck, as an example.
Being involved with nude photography,there are inevitably the images that are inappropriate - I think that is the best way to describe them ... those that would lead to a degradation of the subject. My contact sheets have a few "Ks" across some of the images.
There are many others ... the idea that Paparazzi are insensitive, unfeeling vicious mercenaries is a typical incorrect stereotype ... I know of many images that have not been taken, because of their potential harm.

Anther "class" I would not do would be Pornography linking sex to violence... Or glamorizing violence - or having anything to do with something on the order of the anti-semitic Nazi propaganda.

Briefly, my photography is an extension of my own "being" and my morals apply to my work as well as every other part of what I do.

while i have felt "uncomfortable" photographing lots of things, but, i have somehow made it through, and gotten the image in the camera, and if asked to told to shoot the same or a similar situation, i would do it again, no questions asked. i dunno, maybe you take all that nervous energy & adrenaline and use it as fuel to get outside of yourself and get the picture.

for example ...
almost 2 years ago i was sent to photograph the remains of nightclub fire where 100 people perished and hundreds were hospitalized. maybe you have heard of the station nightclub where great white played, and their pyro-show torched the whole building. that is a few miles away from where i live ... rhode island is a pretty small place, where everyone pretty much knows everyone. lots of people were there, or knew of people who were there at the show or were supposed to be at the show, so it was kind of scary to say the least. when i got there was kind of surreal (i was sent to the scene the next day), it was filled with fbi, state police, tv news & lots of people who were somehow involved or had friends/ family in the fire. i really didn't want to take photographs of any of it - the "officials" the heap of smoldering building, but if i could photograph that smell, i would have. it kind of made me want to puke --- i can still smell it and probably will for the rest of my life. after being there for maybe 1/2 hour i can't really explain what happened, but somehow i began to photograph what i could and submitted the work a few hours later.

i still drive by the site once in a while. it is filled with memorials ( 100 + of them) and it doesn't really smell anymore.

sorry, kind of got away from the question ...
there are things i *won't* photograph - smut or snuff.

I agree with rusty tripod.
I would NEVER photograph anything I consider immoral-or know to be illegal!-but my personal definition of "immoral" sometimes depends on the circumstances.
However,I would never photograph:
1.any accident with visible human or animal remains.
2.anything pornographic.
3.anybody grieving.
4.any grave.

blansky said:

Tony's original question is
So my question is what pictures would you turn your back on and walk way?

I would wonder further the WHY? As I touched on earlier, is the WHY because you think it's wrong or intrusive or is the WHY, fear on your part.

It has been mentioned often on a lot of post that many people fear taking portaits, or are uncomfortable taking pictures of people and it may sort of boil down to fear. Fear of being the center of attention, or fear of having eveybody looking at you.

Granted lots of people on this site are perfectly happy taking weekend pictures of scenics and that's great. But there are also lots of people on this site who would love to be award winning highly paid photographers.

Much like lawyers, many go into wills, and corporate law because they are essentially afraid to become the Johnny Cochranes and Gerry Spences of the world tearing up the criminal court rooms. But I bet many fantacize about being the top guys.

So my point is, is fear of stepping up and showing yourself taking these controversial photographs, what is really stopping you from doing it?

It is fear that makes you walk by instead of stopping and pulling out your camera and recording these gut wrenching events.

Believe me, I'm not saying that this fear is bad, good or indifferent, but could it be the motivation.

Just wondering.
Michael

Click to expand...

I think you've really got to the crux of the matter, here, Michael.

When I took those pictures at the firehouse, I felt uneasy... I felt out of my element... I almost could not do it. Fear?? Yep... fear of intruding, fear of taking lousy pictures that did not do the moment justice, fear of offending the very people I wanted to honor.

I think there are many kinds of fear... I do not think I could photograph carnage...human or animal...fear is at the heart of it...it's a fear that my mental state would not survive it...it may be unfounded since I am a very strong individual, but the fear is there. The people here who say they could not photograph sex... I think the fear is there, too.

So I think that is what holds us to our 'comfort zone'...which is not always a bad thing!

What is right and what' is wrong? What feels right and what feels wrong? This could be discussed forever as every human being has their own opinion.

If a situation produces a historical image for others to ponder or remember, families to reflect on or rejoice, then that to me is a good photo opportunity.

I work mainly in portraits and fine art and feel it's so important to create today for generations to come who will cherish the bygone's more - especially in such our rapidly changing climate.

Kind regards from West Australia
Nicole

I refuse to photograph either the making of laws or the making of sausage.

TPPhotog said:

So my question is what pictures would you turn your back on and walk way?

Click to expand...

I have no problem shooting anything, as long as there's some reason to do so. Pictures should have some intended purpose, no?

Animals copulating. Won't go there.

I was in a graveyard in Mexico once and there was a dis-interred coffin sitting on some saw horses next to the open grave. I had a girl lift the lid for me and I photographed the remains.

So, that tells you a little about me, I guess.

-Mike

The late Henri Cartier-Bresson had a very well-known image of dogs copulating.

Kevin Caulfield said:

The late Henri Cartier-Bresson had a very well-known image of dogs copulating.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that. In retalitation, I may scan and post pictures of what someone looks like after they've been burried for over 50 years......<g>.

Must admit the thought of pictures of a body burried for over 50 years and dogs copulating hadn't even occurred to me at the time I originally had the thought. Not sure what's wrong with pictures of making susages, sounds like a documentary shoot to me and it's amazing what throwing an idea into the arena can come up with

Bjorke I think you are correct and many seem to base what they shoot on that concept.

Many thanks once again everyone this has been most educational

I haven't met anything I wouldn't photograph. But in respect of others I do not photograph everything. I don't use pictures of people in emotional situation without being sure it is ok (I may not always ask in advance, but I have often taken a picture and asked for their approval afterwards. No bad reactions, only kind rejections to use the picture). If they reject I scratch the neg with a needle, so it becomes unprintable (I use 35 mm, so I cannot just get rid of the neg as it may be in the middle of a film strip).

Although at my mother's funeral I think photography was way out of line. But these pictures I LOVE now (back then I was very depressed and almost committed to a psychiatric hospital, so I was not thinking straight. Now, no jokes about that it hasn't changed )

Morten

TPPhotog said:

In keeping with my signature I see potential pictures everywhere but also morally there are some things that I refuse to photograph.

Road accidents - If I can help I stop, if I can't then I drive past. I'd never make a staff photographer.

Also over the road from me there is a very useful graveyard that I use often for shoots. However one section is dedicated to childrens graves and like today I look out of the window to see morning relatives attending the grave. The pictures would be moving and tell a story in their own right, but I cannot bring myself to intrude on their grief.

So my question is what pictures would you turn your back on and walk way?

Click to expand...

Strange you have hit on my exact problem photo. In the country, at a rather historic site (grave of one of our Declaration of Independence signers), I came upon a very poignant scene: the grave of a small child surrounded by his toys, some in original boxes, and his fishing gear. There was no stone then (is now) but a wooden marker with his name and the words, “Gone Fishing”. Although I did photograph the site, I have never released a print on the bases of your very premise. Once, I came upon a visitor to whom I gave a card and a request for contact with the parents, but with the condition that, if I heard nothing, I would do nothing. I have done nothing, but it remains one of my favorite images.

Dr. Bob, why do you have moral and/or ethical qualms with the photo of the child by a historic gravesite? Or am I missing an ethics gene?

johnnywalker said:

Dr. Bob, why do you have moral and/or ethical qualms with the photo of the child by a historic gravesite? Or am I missing an ethics gene?

Click to expand...

I have highlighted info 'bout the grave in question.

dr bob said:

Strange you have hit on my exact problem photo. In the country, at a rather historic site (grave of one of our Declaration of Independence signers), I came upon a very poignant scene: the grave of a small child surrounded by his toys, some in original boxes, and his fishing gear.

Click to expand...

modafoto said:

I have highlighted info 'bout the grave in question.

Click to expand...

Oops. I am missing a reading carefully gene.

dr bob said:

Strange you have hit on my exact problem photo. In the country, at a rather historic site (grave of one of our Declaration of Independence signers), I came upon a very poignant scene: the grave of a small child surrounded by his toys, some in original boxes, and his fishing gear. There was no stone then (is now) but a wooden marker with his name and the words, “Gone Fishing”. Although I did photograph the site, I have never released a print on the bases of your very premise. Once, I came upon a visitor to whom I gave a card and a request for contact with the parents, but with the condition that, if I heard nothing, I would do nothing. I have done nothing, but it remains one of my favorite images.

Click to expand...

My understanding of this is that the location was where there is the "... grave of one of our Declaration of Independence signers".

At that location Dr Bob saw "... the grave of a small child surrounded by his toys, some in original boxes, and his fishing gear. There was no stone then (is now) but a wooden marker with his name and the words, “Gone Fishing”."

So it was a childs grave at a historic site. I can appreciate what Dr Bob must have been feeling as he typed the post and the emotions that it will have brought back.

Dr Bob you have painted a vivid image of a very moving scene which I can both see and feel. I can fully understand why you have no intention of releasing such a picture without consent and why it is so important to you.

Is there anything you wouldn't photograph?

Click to expand...

Depends on why the photo is taken I guess. If it's to make a buck somehow, then there are instances that should not be photographed, but, to me personally, if it's to 'capture the moment', there is nothing that should not be photographed. But, that's just me. I find photographing the scenes that make me most uncomfortable, the most challenging and the the most rewarding.

I had a discussion about this topic on another board (blasphemy!). Should we only photograph those things that are beautiful and comfortable to photograph? The overwhelming answer, and I agree, is no. Things that make us squirm should be given equal weight to being photographed. I mean in the end that is why, I at least, got into photography. To capture the moment.

Now there are photographers that abuse this philosophy for their own designs. Paparazzi come to my mind. Thrill seekers. Just nosy, busy bodies, etc... They're not there to capture the moment. They're there to make a buck or get off on the scene. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, like the right to free speech, we have to defend the right to all speech, whether we like it or not. I say it's the same analogy with photographs. Whatever the reason for taking it, in the end, it is a recording of history and I'm all for it.

Answer to the question from me: There is nothing that should not be photographed.

Regards, Art.

I've just stumbled across an interesting article on the British anti-censorship website, 'Index Online' by ex-Times & Sunday Times editor Harold Evans. He discusses what is and isn't published and why.

http://www.indexonline.org/news/19991117_international.shtml

I feel bad about causing innocent people distress, and there are a bunch of situations where I might be a social chicken.

But amongst my favorite bodies of work are a couple--Mel Kilpatrick's accident pictures and Diane Arbus' asylum pictures--that, while I certainly wouldn't them take myself, I'm glad someone did.

I'm not familiar with Mel Kilpatrick's accident pictures but I think in the case of Diane Arbus and the Asylum ones there's still a case to shoot such pictures.

Even today in the UK electro convulsive therapy is still used and psychiatrists still can't give a reason for using it other than it appears to work but they don't know why. These people still suffer and are not given the treatment they deserve. So for me there is still a need for those sort of pictures to be shot and published.

One word --> weddings.

steve said:

One word --> weddings.

Click to expand...

Ok if you put it that way, there is one after all!

Regards, Art.

hmm...well, I worked for a couple of newspapers as a photographer (been in the NPPA for about 18 yrs now). One of the first front page shots I ever had, was from a spot news story. I worked part-time doing basically all the crap the other staffers didn't want to do. But this one Saturday, I was supposed to shoot a bowling tournament and on the way to it, was called on the radio to shoot a "natural gas explosion" at an apt. complex. They would've sent someone else, but they were shorthanded that day so the editor sent me over there....

Long story, but it turned out that this guy who lived in this apt. complex was blown up more or less, by a pipe bomb planted in his newspaper. He came home from his third shift job, picked up his paper & it went off. It wasn't until later on that this story surfaced though. When I was there, i was just trying to get the job done and shot a ton of film. I had shot the body and all that--I didn't realize it at the time though, since I was shooting the rescue workers removing rubble from the front of the building, and there in the sequence of a motor drive burst, is this body...that was the one that ran on the front, but it was another shot with the body covered. Anyways, I didn't fully digest it all until later in the day. I went back to the paper & ran the film and printed the negs when they were still wet to make the deadline. There was a sense of energy in a way shooting these things on a deadline. I would have to drive often two, three counties away--shoot as much film as I could in 15 minutes or so, rush back to the paper, develop, edit it, print a few shots and then write the cutlines on a selectric on the back of the print--stamp it and get it to the editor. It was only afterwards--later that day or the next that I would think back to how screwed up it was that you could see some of this stuff. At the time though, you could be focused (no pun) on what was in front of you.

I shot my share of spot news--fires, bad vehicle accidents (fatalities mainly)--one that I remember was a fuel tanker that rolled over into another lane and crushed a car killing the family inside and causing this major fuel spill. That was a disturbing assignment--but I actually got an interesting feature type shot out of it with a reflection of these firemen in an oil slick.

Another assignment I had was a fire at a housing project the week before Christmas. I went out there and got some overall shots, but I was framing up this one--of an old man dragging a soaked Christmas tree out of his burned out apt. and he started yelling at me. Basically that I was "the Man....taking advantage of the poor" and all this...well. okay, maybe so. That shot--I let pass--didn't take it. It wasn't until years later that I even really thought about that day though. At the time, I was dumbstruck by the whole thing and just froze up.

alright----fast forward to my present job. Staff photographer in a gov't agency. I shot an event once, where a well know retired sporting figure was speaking...I was shooting with a 180 rather full frame. I could see that he didn't look right--while someone else was at the podium, he went off to the rear of this stage and sat down. Since he was my subject--I panned after him. I could see him sweating--then--foam at the mouth and slump forward. I probably saw it before anyone, but a split second later others noticed and he was on the floor having a heart attack...

Did I shoot this? From about ten feet away? No. I felt intrusive--for one thing, his family was there and they were hysterical. The other press immediately moved closer too shoot it--and the family was pretty upset about this, and in fact the highway patrol officers formed this ring around this guy....A guy I was working with, he shot it. I was conflicted--I thought, this isn't my shot. I'm not working for a paper. We're never going to use this image...so I walked away.

I did get a shot though--from the very back of the scene. It was outside to begin with, and they had erected this giant billboard sized cutout of this guy (he was a quarterback) behind the stage--he was in a pose with his arms outstretched. I got this shot of him getting CPR directly under this huge mural of him as a young man. There are officers standing over him, sort of framing him as well. It's a cool shot--it will never be used for anything though.

Another assignment I had a year or so ago was to document an artifact in-situ, it just so happened to be inside the gas chamber of a high-security prison. I came into work this day, and they told me I had to go out there & do this....the guy who was going to do it, called in sick....I wish I had as well. The whole thing was an experience that I won't forget, but don't want to ever repeat.

That night I went home and threw my clothes in the washing machine, and took a shower just to get this disinfected smell out of my brain...the entire time I was shooting, I was being grilled by some other person--I never figured out who really--about my feelings on the death penalty and all that. It was like a psychological interview...."what are you feeling now as you look at this..." stuff like that. I never answered him--it was like what am I feeling? I'm wishing you'd get away from me so I could finish this and get out of here. The guys I went with, were waiting--they wound up getting a tour of death row since we were right there. They wanted all these shots on chrome film and b/w and the lighting was horrible. I'm trying to actually light this thing--and there's no room....it was one of those days when you try to do a professional job, but everything is working against you. Then--later on some moron will criticize your shots by pinting out some glare or some mixed lighting cast or some stupid thing like that.

The story keeps returning though. We got this piece, and made studio shots of it. The documentation shots became restricted from public use. The studio shots so far have been used by the History Channel--in fact they came and did a video of this piece as well. Two prisoners in different prisons, both on death row writing thesis papers have used the shots. How they found out about them, is beyond me. Then, a patron showed up one day and wanted detail shots of the item so they could have a repro made....I got a call from the lobby saying there's a guy here who says he has the original gas chamber in his backyard.....so, well these photos do serve a purpose.

So, is there anything I won't shoot? Sure, lots of things--but for my job, it's not really a choice most of the time. Alot of times I find myself in situations where I have to force myself to do a shot--sometimes you don't have a choice. The worst for me now, is to have to do somethig that I know will look bad, or won;t work for whatever reason. When you try to explain it to whoever is in charge, and they don;t care. They just want it done. So, I don't know if that makes me lazy, or whatever...I usually try to suck it up and do it, and get it over with and move on. Most of the stuff winds up living forever in a filing cabinet and will probably be used decades from now when I'm dead and gone anyways. The people who use it then will either be in a similar spot and frame of mind, or they'll look at those gas chamber images and say--man, these suck. I do the same thing alot of times--pull negs out from the files and think, who shot this crap?

so it goes....alright--sorry for the long post.

KT

some of this is sensitive, therefore these are my opinions only--not my employers.