Photography in disaster areas/circumstances

[kl122002]

Just curious, when it happens, other than saving lives, would you also do photography to record the event in distressed situation?

If you do, what message you would like to bring out?

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Absolutely. The message would crystalize later, if at all

 

[Milpool]

My guess is your thread will be re-titled by a moderator.

 

[pentaxuser]

My guess is your thread will be re-titled by a moderator.

You mean like the first time anyone mentions a certain month later this year

pentaxuser

 

[Saganich]

If that was my job to record the disaster, otherwise your just in the way and should either help or leave.

 

[Jim Jones]

As humans we should help others in disasters, whether it is our job or not. Beyond that, taking photographs may yield photographs with good news and historical value.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Just curious, when it happens, other than saving lives, would you also do photography to record the event in distressed situation?

If you do, what message you would like to bring out?

Impossible to answer, too many variables, as always when ethical issues and concerns are in play.

Most newspapers and news associations have, and hopefully follow, ethical guidelines that cover written articles as much as photographs. If you google "photojournalism ethics", you'll find a lot of info, most of it very similar (at least in US and Canada) regarding how to treat victims of accidents.

For example, here's an excerpt from the National Press Photographers Association's Code of Ethics:

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.

Personal ethics are another matter. Personally, I don't see why one shouldn't follow the same code of ethics — "Treat all subjects with respect and dignity" should be a universal principle, but some people feel otherwise, or have different views as to what constitutes "respect and dignity" (hello Bruce Gilden...)

There are other considerations, of course. Good photojournalists constantly ask themselves "should I shoot this?" and"why am I shooting this?", and there's no reason any non-photojournalist with a basic ethical conscience shouldn't ask him- or herself the same question.

The answer to your "What message would you like to bring out?" lies in the "Why am I shooting this".

 

[MattKing]

My guess is your thread will be re-titled by a moderator.

Yep

 

[Sirius Glass]

As humans we should help others in disasters, whether it is our job or not. Beyond that, taking photographs may yield photographs with good news and historical value.

I agree. I avoid taking photographs of disasters unless there is an overwhelming need for it, such as for insurance records. I do not need to record someone else's misery.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Why concentrate on immediate/unfolding disaster, when you can shoot post, consequences, cleaning up?

And subjects can be just the environment. There are many variables. Like sometimes incompetent help can yield it's own disasters.

But point taken, and I agree to the principle.

 

[BAC1967]

While I was working on the Lahaina fire cleanup last year we were asked by the locals not to take photos and share them online. They considered it disrespectful due to all the people that lost their lives there, I can understand that.

On the other hand, I have taken photos at other disasters, wildfires, Hurricane Katrina, etc, but I try to do it in a respectable way. It‘s always the aftermath and never pictures of people. I think it’s important to show the devastation and the loss that happens so people have a better understanding of these situations. People need to know that these things should be taken seriously.

 

[Steven Lee]

Just curious, when it happens, other than saving lives, would you also do photography to record the event in distressed situation?

Actually I'll skip on "saving lives" and just focus on photography.

If you do, what message you would like to bring out?

This one. Because it's the truth. Zero hypocrisy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most tragedy scenes are often filmed today by amateurs due to cell phones being around. By the time the pros get there, the actual action is over. Cops wear recording cameras and film bloody and dangerous police actions as they're happening. Bystanders shoot scenes that often are used as evidence in trials. If pros didn't intend to shoot tragic circumstances because of some ethical considerations, why would they travel to the disaster areas in the first place? We all slow down when driving past an accident or police action on the road, curious to what's happening. Then we watch the evening news of death and destruction around the world. We have to be honest that there's a dark side of human interest in these things. We're drawn to it. Maybe they remind us of our vulnerabilities and like mountain climbers or race car drivers, we like to tempt fate by vicariously taking ourselves to the edge even if it's others doing it for us.

 

[guangong]

I would say that one area that photography is superior to all other visual arts is the depiction of disaster, whether natural or human. Only through photography can we realize the destruction of the 1904 San Francisco earthquake. For me, while powerful pictures, Picasso’s Guarnica or Goya‘s Horrors of War pale compared to the death and distruction revealed in photographs of Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.
Tradgedy and disaster are a part of the human experience as are
wedding and baby pictures.

 

[Agulliver]

Should I ever find myself on the site of a genuine disaster, I would ask myself first, "is there anything I can do to help?". I am trained in basic first aid. Perhaps I could be a first responder. Depending on the nature of any injuries. Perhaps that's best left to the professionals if they are on their way and close by. Otherwise really the only thing, as a bystander, that I can do is call the relevant authorities (if they have not already been called) and then do nothing to make things worse. Photography comes next because perhaps photos taken make a more complete record of the event, could be used as evidence or to show people around the world what happened.

Would I photograph a dying person's face or dismembered limbs? Hell, no. Would I photograph scenes which demonstrate what happened? Quite possibly. Photos of past disasters, natural and man-made, have educated us all. But I'd not take photos or video with any intention to entertain people. It would be to document. It would also depend on my own state of mind at the time. If I am on the site of some disaster, I will not have gone there on purpose. I might well not be in the best state of mind to make any of those decisions.