social morés of a photographer

[slackercrurster]

Yes, in a perfect world, I'd agree. But if your job is to get the shot, you do whatever it takes. Sometimes this involves skirting around what is legal. If your only job is to bring home a sunset, then you can relax a little.

Tom Howard shot Ruth Snyder with a secret camera strapped to his ankle. Not legal, but he brought home the bacon.

 

[Saganich]

i have been here for years and i always see this
issue wandered about. obviously every society has its customs
its faux-pas &c. we all have our own limitations regarding how far
we are willing to push social customs - maybe we weren't brought up where we are
making photographs,maybe we just don't care what others might think is right or wrong.
to make short of it, without pussy footing around
what are the social morés a photographer should follow?
should s/he just do what s/he wants or if someone refuses for personal, religious or other
socialogical believes doesn't want to be photographed, or a site not be photographed, should that
belief stand or should the breaking-the-back of that belief stand?
AND
if it is the latter should the fact that the photographer trampled on
the social customs of the peoples, society, religion &c of the subject photographed
BE THE SUBJECT of the photograph ...

thanks

Pushing social limits isn't a bad thing in the culture you belong to, but not so much so in some other you may not fully comprehend, aka, any other then yours. Rather than culture it may be easier to think of this issue in terms of worlds that exist within a culture. Culture may be too broad for the question. The world of firefighters or physicians or opioid addicts, etc. within the culture you occupy. One has to first not assume they know anything about these worlds. Otherwise your just taking tourist snapshots...which can be fine but never meaningful. However, bringing tourist shots to those who know nothing of those worlds (like the electric chair photo) can be profound and is the backbone of photojournalism. When Smith mercilessly follows subjects around to immerse himself into their worlds the images are meaningful but if everyone is already familiar with the world the images are not sensational. For example that's the difference I see between the Country Doctor and Minamata when looking at those essays.

 

[jtk]

Had long conversation with an elderly Navajo vet of WW2/Pacific...I happened to know his younger brother...at different times I'd talked with each about how their family came to New Mexico ( ancestor kidnapped in Mexico by Apache, traded for a black horse with Navajo)...minutes later I was asked (firmly) not to photograph at the ceremony..I complied. It happens that a ceremony was done for me later that year (I'm a friend of Navajo people) , and I photographed it. And I've shown prints of the vet. I avoid photographing people with whom I've not established relationship.

 

[removed account4]

hi saganich
totally agree with what you said. but there are other instances
that aren't as "deep" as not-understanding or misundersanding a culture.
some folks just like to keep private ceremonies private and honored and sacred.
i am guessingrobert gardener had constraints when he filmed Dances of the Kwakiutl and Blunden Harbour
in the pacific northwest, and tony saulnier-ciolkkowski when he filmed Sky Above Mud Below (Le Ciel et la boue )
about the peoples on papua new guinea .

 

[slackercrurster]

Here is an interesting discussion of the ethics of shooting the execution that I previously sent in.

https://newseumed.org/idea/the-execution-of-ruth-snyder-a-case-study-in-media-ethics/

Lots of questions to ask. Honestly, I'd never think of most of the questions. I'd be too concentrated on getting the shot. And even if I did think of them, unless I'd be going to jail for a long time or get executed, it just does not matter to me.

I've written on this subject extensively. Basically, if you are a street / doc photog you put the photo first if you are serious. If you don't want to do that, then ask for permission and posed / staged photos and put your ethics first.

If I followed societal conventions and rules...I wouldn't have a fraction of what I've shot. Weegee summed it up best..."you can't be a nice Nellie and do (street) photography."

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Photographer Tami Silicio was fired for taking these photographs.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1848793

 

[removed account4]

Here is an interesting discussion of the ethics of shooting the execution that I previously sent in.

https://newseumed.org/idea/the-execution-of-ruth-snyder-a-case-study-in-media-ethics/

Lots of questions to ask. Honestly, I'd never think of most of the questions. I'd be too concentrated on getting the shot. And even if I did think of them, unless I'd be going to jail for a long time or get executed, it just does not matter to me.

I've written on this subject extensively. Basically, if you are a street / doc photog you put the photo first if you are serious. If you don't want to do that, then ask for permission and posed / staged photos and put your ethics first.

If I followed societal conventions and rules...I wouldn't have a fraction of what I've shot. Weegee summed it up best..."you can't be a nice Nellie and do (street) photography."

slackcruiser
i am not talking about street photography or photojournalism. im talking about
being a guest at a sacred event, not executions or being garry winograd.

 

[faberryman]

Unfortunately, even a few photographers being total jerks makes it harder on the rest of us.

 

[Wallendo]

Since we are refining the thread to being guests at a religious ceremony, I don't think the the sanctity of the event is the issue. The real issue is that you are a guest, and as a guest, have an obligation to play by your hosts rules. This applies even if the activity is not "sacred". If you don't like the rules, then don't go.

If a sacred event plays out in a public square then a "no photography" request is somewhat moot. Most sacred events, however, occur inside buildings or on private (or at least non-public) land. In these cases, no photographs should be taken. There are exceptions, such as situations where harmful illegal activity is part of the ceremony such as human sacrifice, child abuse, ceremonial rape, or animal cruelty.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just yesterday our neighborhood newspaper reminded us that addressing drones with 12ga shotguns was technically illegal. However....

... it can be quite satisfying.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, in a perfect world, I'd agree. But if your job is to get the shot, you do whatever it takes. Sometimes this involves skirting around what is legal. If your only job is to bring home a sunset, then you can relax a little.

Tom Howard shot Ruth Snyder with a secret camera strapped to his ankle. Not legal, but he brought home the bacon.

How did he get his ankle up to a position to focus, compose and take the photograph?