social morés of a photographer

[Harry Stevens]

If you don't want your photograph taken then don't go out........

 

[mgb74]

If you don't want your photograph taken then don't go out........

Perhaps. But some groups, like the Amish here in the US, have varying religious beliefs about having their photo taken. And it's not as if they're accidentally in a photo, they're often sought out by photographers. So, absent truly extenuating circumstances, I think some sensitivity for the subject is in order.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

If you do not want to be photographed, don't make a scene, just turn your back to the camera. My sister who is older than I am has never liked to be photographed and she always turns her back to the lens. Works every time. However if someone politely asks if they can take her picture, she usually cooperates. Maybe politeness is the answer. Without it, whether you or I get a picture is of absolutely no importance to the person being photographed..............Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Perhaps. But some groups, like the Amish here in the US, have varying religious beliefs about having their photo taken. And it's not as if they're accidentally in a photo, they're often sought out by photographers. So, absent truly extenuating circumstances, I think some sensitivity for the subject is in order.

+1

 

[removed account4]

If you don't want your photograph taken then don't go out........

a friend of mine witnessed a ceremony a few months ago.
his hosts knew he had a camera and he had been documenting a variety of things
while he was with them. he was friends of friends &c.
the ceremony was sacred and they asked for no cameras or filming &c and he put his time recording machine away
and just witnessed something that had never happened before ...

sorry if you joking and i don't get it but ...

are you suggesting that it would have been ok for him to break their trust, and photograph the ceremony?
or are you making a general comment about the 24/7/365 surveillance that most people in many cities experience on a daily basis ...
or that it is the right of someone with a camera to do whatever they want if they are on a public street &c even if someone &c explicitly asks not to be photographed.. ?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

I would go pretty far to make a good photograph but not against a person's dignity.If they are featured and want the image deleted,I'll comply

 

[GRHazelton]

Back in the day I was shooting in the Boston Public Library. A young woman in the middle distance in a large room, her back to me, (perhaps 60 feet away) apparently heard the shutter on my Praktica LTL (I shot available light) and came dashing over to me and demanded my film. I refused and she ran of to summon, she said, a guard. We left. She wouldn't have been recognizable in the picture, and it was a public space. There are some wackos out there....

 

[faberryman]

There are some wackos out there....

Are you referring to the photographers or the persons being photographed?

 

[DDTJRAC]

OP, I have little or no ethics other than: is it legal or will it get me or them possibly killed from a resulting conflict.

If you want to limit the conflicts, learn high level candid work or shoot with permission or flowers and sunsets.

 

[removed account4]

OP, I have little or no ethics other than: is it legal or will it get me or them possibly killed from a resulting conflict.

If you want to limit the conflicts, learn high level candid work or shoot with permission or flowers and sunsets.

so if you were invited to a ceremony at a native american sacred site and they said NO CAMERAS / NO FILMING / NO DIG VIDEO (PHONE)
you would have told them to go to hell and photographed it anyways, or done it without them knowing about it ??
it has nothng to do with sunsets and flowers or puppies and kittens ...
but being respectful of other people.

 

[benjiboy]

Perhaps. But some groups, like the Amish here in the US, have varying religious beliefs about having their photo taken. And it's not as if they're accidentally in a photo, they're often sought out by photographers. So, absent truly extenuating circumstances, I think some sensitivity for the subject is in order.

One of my friends is married to a Dutch lady who was originally from Amsterdam, who has lived in England for more than thirty years, told me that in Holland in some country districts where they all wear traditional costume, that they don't want to be photographed because they consider camera lenses " the eye of the devil".

 

[blockend]

Time is the balm of people's fear. Over the years I've moved from that pest with a camera to the guy who might have a shot of everyone's memories. A few year's gap, better yet a few decades between exposure and image, takes the sting out of a subject's concern. That flies in the face of modern photography where a few seconds separates a smart phone shot from its appearance on Instagram. The public are amazed when I explain it isn't for social media and most people will likely be dead when it emerges from my dusty folders.

Like the country house gardens planted for the benefit of the owner's great grandchildren, photography can be a long term pursuit.

 

[jtk]

so if you were invited to a ceremony at a native american sacred site and they said NO CAMERAS / NO FILMING / NO DIG VIDEO (PHONE)
you would have told them to go to hell and photographed it anyways, or done it without them knowing about it ??
it has nothng to do with sunsets and flowers or puppies and kittens ...
but being respectful of other people.

Yes, absolutely. Not only Native Americans...many priests and preachers restrict photography to the hired photographer...and only by advance agreement.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Many photographers who think nothing of of shooting people in private moments using the excuse it's in public are the first to complain of Facebook or Google using their information that's also in public. That's an excuse I've used. I suppose it's whose ox is being gored. The truth is it's all private. Being respectful of others personal and private lives extends to all people and circumstances.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I do believe in being respectful to your subjects, but I think it terms of pushing the envelope of photography, photographers can't always take a "nice" photo to please the masses. I believe photographers should't be affraid to offend or challenge their audience. This brings to mind photographers like Robert Maplethorpe, Diane Arbus and Nan Goldin.

 

[jtk]

I do believe in being respectful to your subjects, but I think it terms of pushing the envelope of photography, photographers can't always take a "nice" photo to please the masses. I believe photographers should't be affraid to offend or challenge their audience. This brings to mind photographers like Robert Maplethorpe, Diane Arbus and Nan Goldin.

Photographers might also remember that it's reasonable, and even legal, for some subjects to take physical actions against them. What goes around, comes around.

 

[Wallendo]

Legality, morality, and ethics are three different things. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is appropriate. In the US, for example, it is perfectly legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to loudly protest at funerals shouting "God hates gays". I suspect most of us find their behavior unethical and/or immoral.

If the hosts of an event request "no photography", then the request should be honored. Likewise if guests are asked to turn off cellphones, and to refrain from eating or drinking.
The definition of "public place" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but often includes places which many of us would personally consider private.

I allow a lot of leeway to photojournalists whose job is to document grief, destruction, despair, and death. For all other photographers, I believe that respect for all subjects is appropriate.

 

[cliveh]

In this day and age of Google earth and drones, how can anyone complain?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In this day and age of Google earth and drones, how can anyone complain?

Google earth and drones are a little different than some live person standing 6 feet from you photographing you hugging your sweetie.

 

[jtk]

In this day and age of Google earth and drones, how can anyone complain?

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

 

[alanrockwood]

Are there legal issues involved with the photographing of people against their will? I don't think it is merely a matter of ethics or personal opinion. I could be wrong however.

 

[removed account4]

Are there legal issues involved with the photographing of people against their will? I don't think it is merely a matter of ethics or personal opinion. I could be wrong however.

alanrockwood
when i started this thread i was a bit broad
but later on i narrowed my thoughts down a bit more
i wasn't talking about what some people often do when they do street photography
or newspaper work but as i specifically stated, when someone is permitted into a sacred cultural cerimony and permitted to
witness something that usually not allowed. when asked not to photograph or record the event, just watch and be present.
it has nothing to do with street or newspaper work or photographing people "like that" against their will.
its a matter of being honorable, and has nothing to do with ethics or personal opinion ...
but that is my opinion .. cause i have been asked to witeness things and have
been asked not to photograph &c. seems these days people are less
honorable than they were in days gone by .. ( again my opinion )

 

[alanrockwood]

alanrockwood
when i started this thread i was a bit broad
but later on i narrowed my thoughts down a bit more
i wasn't talking about what some people often do when they do street photography
or newspaper work but as i specifically stated, when someone is permitted into a sacred cultural cerimony and permitted to
wittness something that usually not allowed. when asked not to photograph or record the event, just watch and be present.
it has nothing to do with street or newspaper work or photographing people "like that" against their will.
its a matter of being honorable, and has nothing to do with ethics or personal opinion ...
but that is my opinion .. cause i have been asked to witteness things and have
been asked not to photograph &c. seems these days people are less
honorable than they were in days gone by .. ( again my opinion )

Thanks for the clarification. In my opinion in the context of sacred cultural ceremonies and similar situations one should respect their wishes and not photograph.

 

[guangong]

Photographers, like the rest of the population, ranges from the sleaziest of the sleezy to the most sublime and all that’s in between. Probably the most unethical photographers are some photojournalists, a characteristic they share with many journalists, but on the other hand, I have met a few who are among the most ethical people I have ever met. Some of this depends upon the outlook of the editor. A complementary picture of Donald Trump would not pass muster at the New York Times or Washington Post. Furthermore, to say that pictures don’t lie is very naive. Picture angle, what is included and excluded from the frame, even the exact moment of exposure can distort realty. A negative does not need to be manipulated as in the old USSR. One advantage amateurs have is the privilege of following our conscience free from such restraints.

And who is prohibiting a subject being photographed is relevant. Some years ago my daughter entered Tibet and had a village hairdresser do her hair up in Tibetan style so that she could pass.
She was able to photograph Chinese troops exiting a military vehicle with sledgehammers and then pulverize a typically Tibetan building facade with her little Yashika T3.
Luckily she was not detected. Taking these prohibited pictures was, in my opinion, an ethical act although against the law.
The best ethical guide for photographers is to treat others as you would like to be treated.