Photographing the down and out

[Rolleiflexible]

In related issues, if you happened upon an accident, would you shoot pictures or help the victims, both, neither? What about some guy getting beat up? A robbery? A cop beating a civilian?

I'd like to know what people here think about the issues I raised?

Alan, FWIW, I think this conversation has hopelessly jumbled together a number of unrelated questions. The OP was expressing qualms about making a photograph -- presumably, for his art -- of a homeless person in Paris without permission. (A qualm I share.)

Somehow, this question has turned variously into commercial questions, copyright issues, privacy issues, expropriation of likenesses (a US trademark issue), the need for releases, documentary photography, photojournalism, crime scene reporting, the legality of street photography, and the viability of the constitutional monarchy in England.

To answer your question: I think it is fitting to take photographs of crimes or accidents as evidence to help the victim gain redress. But I fail to see how that addresses the moral concern raised by the OP, which seems often to have been forgotten after 150 posts.

 

[BrianShaw]

Excellent perspective and extremely valid reminder/commentary!

 

[MattKing]

To my mind, the moral and ethical question is only of relevance when one decides what one does with the photograph - the actual "capture" is not likely to have any impact on the person being photographed.
So if you, like me, try to be purposive in your photography - try to have an end result in mind - it is important to make one's decision based on what is to be done with the result.
And to take into account what, if any, effect that might have on the interests of the individual(s) being photographed.

 

[takilmaboxer]

It's important to keep in mind the OP's statement that "From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition". Thus the OP's moral questioning was entirely appropriate. There's more to humanity that simply being a composition for an abstract artist. In Matt's words the OP was making a decision based on what is to be done with the photograph.
If I witnessed an accident my first reaction would be to render aid or call for help. A robbery - I'd get the heck out of there. In my youth I'd have taken a shot, prepared to run away if necessary, but running isn't an option any more. A cop beating a citizen - I'd pull out my phone and make a video. It would better serve the victim than a still photo made with film; it would better serve the cop if he was beating the citizen because the citizen had just tried to kill him.
How would you respond, Alan?

 

[GregY]

To my mind, the moral and ethical question is only of relevance when one decides what one does with the photograph - the actual "capture" is not likely to have any impact on the person being photographed.
So if you, like me, try to be purposive in your photography - try to have an end result in mind - it is important to make one's decision based on what is to be done with the result.
And to take into account what, if any, effect that might have on the interests of the individual(s) being photographed.

Matt,I accept that is your interpretation. When I'm photographing landscapes it doesn't enter my mind at all but when i'm photographing in an urban environment, I'm more selective about what I choose to point my camera at. I understand the OP's moral dilemma. Thinking of the 'end product' is more or less (IMO) self-centred..... I'm squarely in the "not every great photo needs to be taken" camp.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

To my mind, the moral and ethical question is only of relevance when one decides what one does with the photograph - the actual "capture" is not likely to have any impact on the person being photographed.
So if you, like me, try to be purposive in your photography - try to have an end result in mind - it is important to make one's decision based on what is to be done with the result.
And to take into account what, if any, effect that might have on the interests of the individual(s) being photographed.

But what about the taking of a photograph of a person who hasn’t consented to it? Some don’t care. Some may be offended. Some might even consider it a mortal sin against the injunction not to make graven images.

It is no answer to say that people who walk in public spaces have no reasonable expectation of privacy. We all live in the world. We all are compelled to venture into public places.

This is the reason I could never be a street photographer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I was a young child it was common to see World War II veterans missing limbs. We were taught not to stare. Taking a photograph of someone in distress is staring. Get over yourself!

 

[laser]

See my Photrio classified ad for the book: Eugene Richards, Below The Line, Living Poor in America ©1987. Photographs and interviews

 

[Alex Benjamin]

To my mind, the moral and ethical question is only of relevance when one decides what one does with the photograph - the actual "capture" is not likely to have any impact on the person being photographed.

Philosophy would disagree with you, Matt. It's the action that must be questioned by, tested by and subjected to the individual's moral imperative, not its consequences. One reason—albeit not the only—being that one cannot know the consequences of one's actions. In our case, they can go from none (you post it on Instagram but since you only have three followers, nobody cares), to bad (beggar is directly or indirectly humiliated) to good (you photo is shared, someone in his family happens to see it, they were looking for him, they go and rescue him), to everything in between.

This is exactly what happened to the OP: it's at the moment of action that he felt something was morally wrong. Not when trying to figure out what he would do with the photo.

It's because, amongst other things, consequences are irrelevant, that figuring out one's moral imperative is so difficult, especially if you don't have a religious foundation on which to have it stand, and in a time, our own, in which there is no consensus about what should constitute our moral imperatives.

 

[koraks]

the actual "capture" is not likely to have any impact on the person being photographed.

I don't quite agree. People have a response to being photographed, in general, provided they are aware of it happening.

And even if the subject is unaware of it, I agree with the philosophical angle @Alex Benjamin takes on this.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, I am speaking of a very narrow objectively when I talk about the effect of the "capture".
And by objectively, in this case, I am referring to a very narrow form of objectivity - limited to nothing more than the physical action of recording photons on a sensor or a piece of film, and then at some later time either developing the film or viewing the result on a screen.
If the taking of the photograph is with the knowledge of the subject, than the subject's thoughts and wishes are something that I would certainly factor in to any consideration of values, ethics and morality. And my personal values dictate that I would need persuasive reasons before I would go against those thoughts and wishes, assuming I was able to be aware of them.
Making photographs is not a single action - it is a collection of actions. My point is that the values and morality attached to the decisions are complex and cumulative - releasing the shutter involves one set, but taking many further steps and creating and sharing a result involve many and varied values and morality.

 

[bjorke]

I never did get an answer about what "wonderful" meant in "From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition" because seriously what is that.

Sounds like the cynical old PJ saw: Q: "what do you give a drowning child?" A: "ƒ/8 @125th"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, FWIW, I think this conversation has hopelessly jumbled together a number of unrelated questions. The OP was expressing qualms about making a photograph -- presumably, for his art -- of a homeless person in Paris without permission. (A qualm I share.)

Somehow, this question has turned variously into commercial questions, copyright issues, privacy issues, expropriation of likenesses (a US trademark issue), the need for releases, documentary photography, photojournalism, crime scene reporting, the legality of street photography, and the viability of the constitutional monarchy in England.

To answer your question: I think it is fitting to take photographs of crimes or accidents as evidence to help the victim gain redress. But I fail to see how that addresses the moral concern raised by the OP, which seems often to have been forgotten after 150 posts.

The moral/ethical issue is the same with accidents, crimes as it is with homeless. Why are you taking the picture?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's important to keep in mind the OP's statement that "From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition". Thus the OP's moral questioning was entirely appropriate. There's more to humanity that simply being a composition for an abstract artist. In Matt's words the OP was making a decision based on what is to be done with the photograph.
If I witnessed an accident my first reaction would be to render aid or call for help. A robbery - I'd get the heck out of there. In my youth I'd have taken a shot, prepared to run away if necessary, but running isn't an option any more. A cop beating a citizen - I'd pull out my phone and make a video. It would better serve the victim than a still photo made with film; it would better serve the cop if he was beating the citizen because the citizen had just tried to kill him.
How would you respond, Alan?

Recently the car in front of me lost control. spun out hitting a power pole, knocking down the power lines nearly falling on my car and actually on his. My wife was in it with me. I made a quick right getting out of danger away from the lines and then ran over to help the guy get out of his demolished rolled-over car, fortunately with only a minor cut to his shoulder. I never took pictures at all and was chased away by the cop who just arrived after all the action was over. Frankly, I risked downed power lines that were laying on top of his car to get him out of the car. But I never thought of my camera. In any case, I had left my cell phone in my car the whole time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Philosophy would disagree with you, Matt. It's the action that must be questioned by, tested by and subjected to the individual's moral imperative, not its consequences. One reason—albeit not the only—being that one cannot know the consequences of one's actions. In our case, they can go from none (you post it on Instagram but since you only have three followers, nobody cares), to bad (beggar is directly or indirectly humiliated) to good (you photo is shared, someone in his family happens to see it, they were looking for him, they go and rescue him), to everything in between.

This is exactly what happened to the OP: it's at the moment of action that he felt something was morally wrong. Not when trying to figure out what he would do with the photo.

It's because, amongst other things, consequences are irrelevant, that figuring out one's moral imperative is so difficult, especially if you don't have a religious foundation on which to have it stand, and in a time, our own, in which there is no consensus about what should constitute our moral imperatives.

If you feel queasy in your stomach, don't take the shot. Apply that principal in other things in your life as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For clarity, I am speaking of a very narrow objectively when I talk about the effect of the "capture".
And by objectively, in this case, I am referring to a very narrow form of objectivity - limited to nothing more than the physical action of recording photons on a sensor or a piece of film, and then at some later time either developing the film or viewing the result on a screen.
If the taking of the photograph is with the knowledge of the subject, than the subject's thoughts and wishes are something that I would certainly factor in to any consideration of values, ethics and morality. And my personal values dictate that I would need persuasive reasons before I would go against those thoughts and wishes, assuming I was able to be aware of them.
Making photographs is not a single action - it is a collection of actions. My point is that the values and morality attached to the decisions are complex and cumulative - releasing the shutter involves one set, but taking many further steps and creating and sharing a result involve many and varied values and morality.

Capture has been used as the verb for digital photography. You need to use your fingers more and provide more key strokes with a conjunction and a verb at the minimum if you want to post around here.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never did get an answer about what "wonderful" meant in "From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition" because seriously what is that.

Sounds like the cynical old PJ saw: Q: "what do you give a drowning child?" A: "ƒ/8 @125th"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For clarity, I am speaking of a very narrow objectively when I talk about the effect of the "capture".
And by objectively, in this case, I am referring to a very narrow form of objectivity - limited to nothing more than the physical action of recording photons on a sensor or a piece of film, and then at some later time either developing the film or viewing the result on a screen.
If the taking of the photograph is with the knowledge of the subject, than the subject's thoughts and wishes are something that I would certainly factor in to any consideration of values, ethics and morality. And my personal values dictate that I would need persuasive reasons before I would go against those thoughts and wishes, assuming I was able to be aware of them.
Making photographs is not a single action - it is a collection of actions. My point is that the values and morality attached to the decisions are complex and cumulative - releasing the shutter involves one set, but taking many further steps and creating and sharing a result involve many and varied values and morality.

Since the photographer can't know what's in the mind of the subject. the moral judgement must remain with the photographer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The moral/ethical issue is the same with accidents, crimes as it is with homeless. Why are you taking the picture?

Someone who gets it!

 

[MattKing]

Capture has been used as the verb for digital photography. You need to use your fingers more and provide more key strokes with a conjunction and a verb at the minimum if you want to post around here.

In modern times, "Capture" is frequently and regularly used as a verb intended to encompass all forms of still and moving photography - digital, film, wet plate, lumen prints, instant photos, still videotape, and anything else.
It permits and enables more general (medium and workflow independent) discussions about many things like composition, copyright and, indeed, the moralities associated with photographing the "down and out".
If you are ignoring any reference that includes the word "capture", you are ignoring a lot of photography, including a lot of non-digital photography.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

For clarity, I am speaking of a very narrow objectively when I talk about the effect of the "capture".
And by objectively, in this case, I am referring to a very narrow form of objectivity - limited to nothing more than the physical action of recording photons on a sensor or a piece of film, and then at some later time either developing the film or viewing the result on a screen.
If the taking of the photograph is with the knowledge of the subject, than the subject's thoughts and wishes are something that I would certainly factor in to any consideration of values, ethics and morality. And my personal values dictate that I would need persuasive reasons before I would go against those thoughts and wishes, assuming I was able to be aware of them.
Making photographs is not a single action - it is a collection of actions. My point is that the values and morality attached to the decisions are complex and cumulative - releasing the shutter involves one set, but taking many further steps and creating and sharing a result involve many and varied values and morality.

If you're talking about ethics and morals, you cannot take the beggar out of the equation. That's why I brought up philosophy. From a philosophical perspective, at least since Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the foundation of ethical and moral principles—universal for Kant, personal for modern philosophers such as Agnes Heller—are always set in relation with the Other. In other words, the "values and morality attached to the decisions" are not "complex and cumulative" since, to oversimplify, ethics and morals only have to do with how you treat others—how good you are to others being an even better way of putting it.

I'm not saying wondering whether the beggar would mind isn't commendable; I'm saying it's already a step too far (especially if not followed through by immediately asking him): the decision not to take the picture, from an ethical point of view, should have already been taken, since the ethical question is not "do I think it's morally wrong to photograph this beggar?" but "do I think it's morally wrong to photograph beggars, homeless people, etc.?"—these, obviously, in a street photography context, not if you actually are documenting poverty, or the life of this person in particular.

BTW, I'm not saying there's an easy answer. One's personal ethics take a lifetime to figure out for oneself, and must be continuously challenged.

Funny thing: I'm in the middle of Agnes Heller's An Ethics of Personality, so this thread's subject is kind of serendipitous.

 

[BrianShaw]

I sure wish Sal would chime in and clarify if “capture” is a verb or is also a noun, photographically speaking.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Capture is used for trapping wildlife.

 

[snusmumriken]

Capture is used for trapping wildlife.

But it’s also used for photographing wildlife by means of ‘camera traps’ (aka ‘trail cameras’).

And before anyone else says it, those are digital devices these days, but up to about the mid-1990s they were film cameras.

 

[MattKing]

Capture is used for trapping wildlife.

As well as slavish devotion to one particular camera