social morés of a photographer

[removed account4]

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

 

[cliveh]

“A photographer must always work with the greatest respect for his subject and in terms of his own point of view.” – Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

[Theo Sulphate]

With people, a good case can be made for respecting their wish not to be photographed.

With sites, it's a bit more difficult. If there is a cultural or religious reason a society doesn't want a site photographed, I'd respect that. A prohibition coming from other sources - then I'm not sure.

 

[juan]

Depends on how big the guy is, or whether the woman is armed.

 

[Maris]

“A photographer must always work with the greatest respect for his subject and in terms of his own point of view.” – Henri Cartier-Bresson

The famous photographer Cartier-Bresson insisted on working alone so no one could see what he did but there was a famous exception. In 1947 the poet John Brinnin accompanied Henri Cartier-Bresson on a trans-America trip and kept a diary. The diary notes Cartier-Bresson talking to an interviewer:

"It requires close attention and studying to make pictures. When I see a thing that is ugly or pitiful sometimes I can photograph and other times I am not able to hold my camera. I will not take this picture of a person in distress. It would be like interfering at a sickbed. You must honor all persons. You must be compassionate and forget you have in your hand this instrument that records such misery."

Immediately adjacent to the above is the following entry by a disturbed John Brinnin:

"28 April 1947. Memphis. At a dime-store lunch counter a young man in overalls falls to the floor. Arms and legs flailing, his eyeballs white, he drools puffy matter from the corners of his mouth, subsides into a catatonic clench.
Cartier grabs his camera, dances about to catch him from all angles, and is interrupted only when a doctor and a nurse come hurrying in. As he returns to the counter to finish his breakfast of ham, eggs, grits, and honey, cinnamon rolls, and coffee, I wait outside."

I, like John Brinnin, recoil from the self-centred, exploitative, cynical activities of some camera-cowboys. If H.C-B came at me with an attitude like that I would gladly deck him and sent him to hospital with a note pinned to his jacket telling them where they could find a Leica.

 

[Two23]

I rarely photo someone who asks to not be photo'd. It's just common courtesy. This did remind me of a time I was in Chicago, photo'ing the buskers on the subway platforms. I always drop a couple of dollars into their hat before I take any photos and never had any complaints. Until one day a few years ago, anyway. A woman was playing a guitar, and I put $2 into her pot and took a couple of photos. She stopped playing and started yelling at me, demanding I erase the photos. I told her I'd be happy to after she gave me back my money. She went bonkers and refused to give me back the money! LOL! She said something about "respecting privacy" and I reminded her if she wanted privacy, why did she come to a very public and crowded subway platform during rush hour instead of staying home? She wouldn't give me back the money, so I just laughed and walked away. I assumed she was mentally unbalanced. Never had a problem since.


Kent in SD

 

[Bill Burk]

I think a photographer should get to know their subject and photograph them to reveal their culture

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Where are facts in taken photography. You can't fake it. It is only in lousy old movies where they show some edited photos and how people are taking it for real.

Religion and other beliefs are not fact based research for truth as photography is, but venue to serve mostly those who benefits from running it as form of organization which is requiring money from members . Well members getting help as well. In some religions. Or became slaves as under some other beliefs. And usually privately run business has rights to prohibit photography.

But normal people do exist at both sides. Few weeks ago I watched BH webinar with Israeli photographer working in NY. One of the story he told is how back in Israel people at mosk allowed him to take prayers pictures.

So, if it is in public it was their choice and public places is where photography is allowed without asking. At least in some countries. If it is private place, then business as usual.

 

[removed account4]

thanks for your posts !
also thanks for the HCB quote and subsequent actions ...
it is like "eddie haskel"
"gee wiz, wally, if that pip squee of a brother of yours joins us ...
oh golly mrs cleaver, i was just telling wallace how wonderful it would be
if theodore would join us at the malt shop" ...
with regards to mosks or churches or ceremonies ...
if a group invited you to witness a sacred ceremony and said " no photography" explicitly
would you break their trust ?
how far would you go to make a photograph?

 

[Jim Jones]

“A photographer must always work with the greatest respect for his subject and in terms of his own point of view.” – Henri Cartier-Bresson

Many subjects, like flowers, trees, clouds, etc., have no feelings, and can freely be photographed. If we want them to appear as something else in a photo, who cares? People are humans, just like photographers. Their feelings should be respected.

 

[Eric Rose]

When I was a PJ everything was "in season". It was the job, you either brought it home or you went home. Now I am very sensitive to how people feel about getting their photo taken. In some countries I visit taking photos of people is a big deal and they love it. In others it can get you lynched. Having a camera in your hand gives no one special rights unless you're a working journalist. And even then you better mind your P's and Q's depending on locations and circumstances. One thing many Americans I run into while in foreign countries is they don't understand their US constitutional rights only apply in the US, not in the country they are currently in. A little sensitivity goes a long way.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Immediately adjacent to the above is the following entry by a disturbed John Brinnin:
...

Either HCB is lying or Brinnin is. Is there a record of such an incident or proof of the photo? I suspect there is more behind this story.

...
if a ground invited you to witness a sacred ceremony and said " no photography" explicitly
would you break their trust ?
...

No, I would not break their trust.. I would make this obvious either by not having a camera with me or by having it covered.

 

[jim10219]

I think you have to take each situation on a case by case basis. Use your best judgement and weigh their rights with your own.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not take portraits so this is rarely a problem. If someone does want their photograph taken, then I do not take the photograph. I just use my good taste and behavior when choosing subjects.

 

[Maris]

Either HCB is lying or Brinnin is. Is there a record of such an incident or proof of the photo? I suspect there is more behind this story.

The material is from a chapter "Just Like Java" from John Malcolm Brinnin's Sextet: T.S.Eliot & Truman Capote & Others. John Malcolm Brinnin and Henri Cartier-Bresson were commissioned by Harper's Bazaar magazine in 1947 to do a road trip from New York to California to repeat a similar trip by Walker Evans and James Agee ten years earlier. The book of the trip never eventuated and the photographs of the epileptic man were never published. Even the dummy of the book by the famous Alex Brodovitch was lost. John Malcolm Brinnin's papers are at the University of Delaware for further research.

 

[Eric Rose]

The NPPA just set some behaviour guidelines:

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/27/nppa-adds-anti-harassment-standard-code-ethics/

 

[Vaughn]

I would not, for example, photograph on trible land if it was not permitted by the tribe. And generally I would not photograph people against their wishes.

 

[Bill Burk]

Maria Muldaur was pretty upset with me one day when I took her picture with a Leica

 

[Saganich]

I find my enthusiasm for making a photograph generally overrides my subjects concern in the moment. In large crows for events or tourist areas I'm not too worried although one can judge by peoples behavior around you when wielding a camera if photography is frowned upon. In those cases iPhone comes in handy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would not, for example, photograph on trible land if it was not permitted by the tribe. And generally I would not photograph people against their wishes.

I do not photograph dwellings on tribal lands where they request that dwelling not be photographed.

 

[Vaughn]

Sirius -- I do not even feel right about photographing petro/pictographs (I have a few times, but not in 30 yrs). But I do not blame or look down on those that do.

 

[markbarendt]

I see two limitations to be considered, maybe 3.

My own, which has little in the way of any shot as long as I have an interest.

My audience, one should not chase the audience away. They don't always realize where their boundaries are so that's not a hard line.

The third is the subject, if the subject is in public view anything is fair.

 

[removed account4]

I see two limitations to be considered, maybe 3.

My own, which has little in the way of any shot as long as I have an interest.

My audience, one should not chase the audience away. They don't always realize where their boundaries are so that's not a hard line.

The third is the subject, if the subject is in public view anything is fair.

mark
i totally see the 3 ,,
but sometimes the :subject:
is completely different than the "society"

sometimes people take a narrow perspective sometime a broad ....

 

[Bill Burk]

I enjoyed the story about HCB in one breath saying he respects the dignity of the suffering individual, and then mercilessly devouring a scene of the same almost immediately thereafter. I can't say whether the story is true or not. But it made me think about my own tendency.

In situations of urgency and life-threatening circumstances, I have in the past, always focused on getting out of the mess.

I have pretty pictures of the day the fog rolls in over the ridge... but none of the whiteout and plastic baggies wrapped around socks that last day my wife backpacked with me and my friends. (She's here by my side now, nothing bad happened)...

But if I had to do it all over again, I can't say I wouldn't pull out a camera and shoot as we went along the adventure.

 

[markbarendt]

mark
i totally see the 3 ,,
but sometimes the :subject:
is completely different than the "society"

sometimes people take a narrow perspective sometime a broad ....

Hence my thought about the audience.

if I'm shooting personal work for myself, then the audience's taste is broad; if shooting a wedding for a client, the audience's taste is narrow.