Times when photos shouldn't be taken

[nc5p]

I really don't know why the guy wanted the photo, I believe he was probably wanting to show relatives and friends vacation sights. He had a little p&s digital. I usually say nothing of this sort, it just kind of blurted out of me. Many of you know I get pretty mad about authorities harassing photographers. I'm almost beligerant about it in normal situations. Still, in this situation it all seemed so different. Yesterday was kind of weird, the whole day didn't seem normal at all after 10:30 AM.

In retrospect I should have kept my mouth shut. I had no authority over this man, nor was it really any of my business. Maybe it was the look on the faces of the tribal officials directly outside our train car. Maybe I was just trying to avoid them coming inside and making an issue about this guy.

 

[Jim Chinn]

This thread and Bill Schwab's comments made me think of not only the ethics of taking a photo, but consideration of what the image might lead to if published.

Recently on the NPR radio program Fresh Aire, host Terri Gross interviewed the photojournalist who took the famous photo of corpse of a US Marine being dragged and beaten in the streets of Somalia in 1993. He said he was haunted by the photo, for many reasons, but one of the main reasons was the firestorm it created, leading to the withdrawl of American troops in that country. The reaction to that photo he had been told was one of the contributing factors in the decision of the Clinton administration to not send troops to Rawanda to help end the genocide that eventually killed over 700,000 people. So in part he felt he played a role in that decision.

I also found it interesting that he felt that any one who continually goes to war zones (including himself) to photograph is mentally defective in someway.

 

[copake_ham]

I fail to understand why anyone would care if another chose to take photos when they chose not to do so.

Some of the most telling photos of the attack on the WTC were taken by folks who were "bystanders". In fact, the pictorial record of that atrocity would be much sparser and less poignant if it were bereft of the shots taken by folks who were simply amateurs who happened to be nearby.

No one warned/advised the media to have there cameras "at the ready" that day. In fact, it was only a couple of years after 9/11/01 that someone "discovered' that there was one picture available of the first plane hitting 1 WTC.

Besides, I don't think it is the perogative of anyone (like n5cp) to "tell" anyone what they should or should not shoot. If official law enforcement were involved in constraining the taking of the photos; that MIGHT be a different situation - but why would the "sensibilities" of YOU determine what I might do?

[Note: I guess, once again here, I find myself in the near lone minority of defending individual rights against the "consensus of the majority" - but so be it - it goes with the territory.]

 

[firecracker]

nc5p:

if you had been in england, or france, or india, or brazil, or the central african republic
and someone was struck by a train, hit by a bus rolled in their car, or a large animal was
struck would you have thought the same things ?

is it because you were on tribal land you didn't want this person to take a
photograph, are there laws there that forbid photography?
was it because you thought it was distasteful to photograph things "like that" ?

what does being from tennessee have to do with the way he acted?
i am sure there are plenty of car and train accidents there,
and people rubber-neck and photograph accident scenes as they do everywhere else.

sorry, i don't mean to sound insensitive, or contentious, i am trying to figure out
where you are coming from.

Speaking of different cutltures, I might have to add this:

In the case of Japan, for the last 5, 6 years, we have about 30,000 suicide deaths as the average each year, and some of them are always train-hit incidents. People jump on the train tracks and/or directly to the running trains when they choose to die in despair.

So, when you are on a train (subway train, local train, bullet train, etc) somewhere the train stops suddenly, you hear the announcement that it has stopped because "someone got in the traintrack" or whatever, the chances are, that it is likely the scene of attempted suicide.

To take photos of this, you really have to have a reason to because the suicide is a daily (or weekly or monthly, depending on the news report) occurence and not a surprising event, and if you still have a bit of sanity left, you probably want to pray or something instead.

 

[dmr]

Different set of circumstances, but ...

Today a certain hate group staged a demonstration in front of a local foreign consulate office. Yes, it crossed my mind that it might be a street photo op, but I figured it's best to give the creeps as little attention as can be possible.

I think such things are a great opportunity to not attend and to not take pictures.

 

[Toffle]

I am reminded of a story I read many years ago, called "The Picture I Didn't Take". (probably in a Readers' Digest while visiting my grandparents) A well known photojournalist told of how he had once attended the scene of a tragic accident, in which an elderly man had backed his truck over his grandchild. The photographer walked into the man's home and saw him silhouetted in the late afternoon sun, his head bowed in grief. The scene was compelling; the old man was surrounded in a halo of dust in his tiny kitchen. The photographer automatically did all the calculations for what he knew was a winning shot... Composition, exposure, timing. The moment was perfect; the shot was perfect. But he turned and left the man to grieve in private. The picture was never taken.

I read this story many years before I picked up a camera, but nonetheless, its message has had a profound effect on the way I approach many photo opportunities. I ask myself, "Is this picture mine to take?" Yes or no, for me, at least, the answer is usually very clear.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. I find this topic hits very close to home for me. Sorry for rambling.

 

[bjorke]

http://www.unphotographable.com/

 

[Pim Warnars]

I thonk you did the right thing. As photographers we all know we take photogs with an objective, not like:" Oh, that's a nice shot, let's take it!" Worse even in a situation like this, it doesn't serve any goal taking that picture besides a sick way of entertaing oneself. I think you did right by following your gu feeling.

 

[copake_ham]

Different set of circumstances, but ...

Today a certain hate group staged a demonstration in front of a local foreign consulate office. Yes, it crossed my mind that it might be a street photo op, but I figured it's best to give the creeps as little attention as can be possible.

I think such things are a great opportunity to not attend and to not take pictures.

But what if you had taken photos and later on that hate group engaged in violence? Your pictures could have served as evidence.

Look here's my simple take on the situation.

The OP posed what we lawyer types call a "fact pattern".

One of the key facts he noted was that a number of law enforcement and other emergency responders from various agencies were on the scene. As a result, those who would argue that one should put down the camera and render help offer an immaterial suggestion.

The emergency is already well-attended by the proper authorities - to offer "help" in such a situation is probably unwelcome at best - and more likely, considered by the responders to be unnecessary interference in the performance of their duties.

As to whether the photos one would take might be gruesome or macabre, that is really something left to the eye of the beholder.

My simple take on such a situation is this. If the photographer did not cause the event; and if qualified persons are already on-site to deal with it, then I see nothing wrong with taking (or not taking) pictures. So long as the shooter is not "in the way", how does taking the photos change the situation or outcome of the event?

 

[Photo Engineer]

George;

I really have a hard time imagining anyone wanting or having a reason to take pictures of this nature unless they are a photojournalist or involved in some sort of documentation.

They are so off-putting to the average person, it takes an exceptional person to view these let alone take them.

Accident, murder or war damage or just plain autopsy pictures are very very unpleasant. I have seen my share and reject the idea of spuriously taking them when not assigned to it and when there is ongoing official documentation. Respect for the individual and family would add to my inhbitions.

PE

 

[dslater]

Besides, I don't think it is the perogative of anyone (like n5cp) to "tell" anyone what they should or should not shoot. If official law enforcement were involved in constraining the taking of the photos; that MIGHT be a different situation - but why would the "sensibilities" of YOU determine what I might do?

Hi George,
If I think you're doing something wrong, then I have every right to say so and tell you to stop - free speech and all. Of course, since I have no authority over you, you have every right to ignore me.

 

[winger]

For 14 years, I responded to crime scenes as a forensic chemist (as well as working in the lab). There were many times I wished I had a camera with me to get shots that I saw along the way (I collected evidence, troopers did the photography). But NONE of those would have had the body in them. What were always the interesting scenes were the onlookers or (usually) the attitudes of the media.
As far as this situation from the OP, the only shot that would have been useful to anyone, IMO, would have been the shot of the guy pushing the other or what led to that. Shots of the body would just be macabre - even to those used to looking at such things.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[copake_ham]

FWIW - we now live in a society where a major news service (CNN) actively solicits photos and videos from viewers and website visitors DURING emergency situations. Billions of folks are walking around everyday with cameras in their pockets (a.k.a. cell phones). The authorities in London have created a "ring of steel" (i.e. constant surveillance) of "The City" and New York will soon create the same in the Wall Street area.

And, consider this, would the atrocious beating of Rodney King have been known if the person with the camera felt that videotaping the event was too disturbing?

It's not a professional PJ's world anymore. We are all potential PJ's.

BTW, anyone been to You Tube lately?

 

[jstraw]

If I saw cops and emergency workers milling about the remains of a corpse by some train tracks, I would photograph this as long as I thought I could do so without calling a great deal of attention to myself...or offending any of the victims loved ones if they happened to be present.

I'm certain I would work to include only enough of the remains to indicate what the source of their interest was but come on, front or back end of a train, receeding tracks...bored looking cop sipping a cup of joe...leg sticking out of a boot...nah, that's not a compelling image... whatever.

Whether or not I wound up with an image I felt was appropriate to display is something I'd concern myself with later. I'd want to capture the image if it was interesting and not merely gratuitous.

 

[laverdure]

tourists

A few years ago I met another American tourist on the island of Naxos in Greece. It was the off season, and the locals clearly resented our presence. We got many cold stares, and once were even danced around by a group of children who took great glee in swearing at us (a week dodging cabs in Athens had taught me enough foul language to get a sense of what they were saying.) I'm from a heavily touristed region myself, so I have some sense of how awful it can be to be gawked at as "quaint," to have your way of life co-opted for the selling of trinkets, and to have your cost of living driven up all out of proportion to local incomes. I understood where they were coming from, and so tried to show some respect, insofar as I was able.

I remember one morning walking in a village we saw a man hauling trash with a donkey. The (other) young American tourist, whom I'd met on the ferry, became visibly excited and tried to get me to take his picture with the man, who'd by now stopped to try to figure out why we were making such a fuss in his direction. I refused. It just seemed rude. This scene went on for probably a full minute- the other tourist gesticulating and asking incredulously why I wouldn't take the picture, me trying to quietly explain (unsuccessfully) and move us along, and the man staring at us, standing quietly thirty feet away.

Not so tasteless as collecting keepsakes from a murder scene perhaps, but in the end I think the motivation comes from the same place.

 

[catem]

One of the key facts he noted was that a number of law enforcement and other emergency responders from various agencies were on the scene. As a result, those who would argue that one should put down the camera and render help offer an immaterial suggestion.

The emergency is already well-attended by the proper authorities - to offer "help" in such a situation is probably unwelcome at best - and more likely, considered by the responders to be unnecessary interference in the performance of their duties.

If you read more carefully you will find that we were referring to the situation as outlined by Stephen Frizza, not by the OP.

As for the situation on the train - I may or may not have actually said anything at the time - sometimes I am very open about my feelings and sometimes I am not - but I would have made my own judgments about that person based on the evidence before me. Taking the situation as described, I see very little reason indeed to take pictures and many reasons not to.

 

[bdial]

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should, and to me, it doesn't matter much how often someone else has, or how much the paid media has.
There are plenty of images to be obtained, passing up one or two, won't matter in the long run. YMMV.

 

[jstraw]

Would Gary Winogrand pass it up? Should he? Diane Arbus?

 

[Gay Larson]

I fail to understand why anyone would care if another chose to take photos when they chose not to do so.

Besides, I don't think it is the perogative of anyone (like n5cp) to "tell" anyone what they should or should not shoot. If official law enforcement were involved in constraining the taking of the photos; that MIGHT be a different situation - but why would the "sensibilities" of YOU determine what I might do?

[Note: I guess, once again here, I find myself in the near lone minority of defending individual rights against the "consensus of the majority" - but so be it - it goes with the territory.]

I am wondering how this affects the rights of the person who thinks to voice his opinion that a photograph should not be taken. Does he not have a right to say his opinion? The man did not have to take his advice and yet he did, reluctantly and with some grumbling but it was after all the man's decision not to take a photograph. We can say what we think but it is up to others what they do with it.

 

[jstraw]

One can legitimately excersize one's freedom of expression and still be guilty of not minding one's own business, oui'?

It's ok to be an interventionist but be prepared to be told to pound sand.

 

[Papa Tango]

Would Gary Winogrand pass it up? Should he? Diane Arbus?

A salient point in this discussion that has not been mentioned deals with who we are and why we are debating the merits of the issue. From the perspective of the "photographer's mind", we seek to place an order and purpose in the making of an image--however mundane. Yet we are now engaged in a society in which literally billions of mundane images are captured and added to the electronic static of contemporary culture--private and public. This is the domain of the ordinary and the undirected. Yet on a similar level to the work which we aspire to produce, images such as the man sought to capture of the carnage serve the same purpose--to classify and categorize the event if for no other reason than to stamp ones personal passage through the process as tangible and real.

Often times I find myself in venues that a decision must be made whether to capture an image, or risk offending someones sense of custom or privacy. This often includes situations of great tribulation or involving a ceremony or ritual of religious import. Ultimately, unless the situation would have resulted in disruption or possible harm, I have taken the shot. Because of this, I am regularly asked if there is an image in my files of something no one else has--two dimensional slices of reality that no one else captured or did not take notice of the most striking singular dynamic of--people, places, and things. From an ethical standpoint in resolving the taking of an image in a difficult situation, I perceive my role as a documentarian--one who helps others to situate and resolve their personal narrative in a graphic context.

A lot of snapshot photography is nothing more than this--and unless there were some overarching reason (national security, legalities, violation of cultural norms), the taking of such a photo is not inappropriate. After all, no image has real "meaning" until we give it one. In this case, we are arguing quite different intents--the interested photographer engaging a process as a social actor, and the bystander reacting to a situation.

 

[Ed Sukach]

A Photograph I Did NOT Take ...

I was on the scene of a fatal automobile accident. The teen-aged driver of a red Camaro had lost control of the vehicle, and it eventually came to rest, wheels up, half way through the glass windows in front of a roadside restaurant.

For some reason, the Camaro had "opened up", littering the highway with beer cans, dozens of them.
The driver was not there - he had been transported to a local Hospital in critical condition. His seventeen year old girl friend - what there was left of her - was, covered by a blanket.

Nearby, a EMT Firefighter sat at the curb, crying uncontrollably; he had tried, with every iota of his being, to save her. One can only imagine what he was feeling - to be confronted with the final truth - that with all of his training, all of his efforts - he was not God.
He had "lost it". Firefighters/ EMTs, tough, emotionally controlled, are not supposed to - are trained NOT to "lose it".

No one on the face of this earth, IMHO, could have blamed him.

This would have made a GREAT photograph - a wonderful, emotionally provoking image for the "Campaign Against Drunk Driving." I did not take it. That Firefighter had suffered enough - far more than enough - and anything that would have reactivated that memory - "reliving" of that incident - was to me completely obscene - and far beyond the limits of my morality.

I was confronted with a choice: comparing the worth of an earth-shaking photograph and its "status" benefits to me, as the photographer - to the prevention of an undetermined amount of future pain - to not only the Firefighter, but the parents/ friends of the dead girl - and so many others.

No photograph. Not a difficult choice, really.

 

[Papa Tango]

Ed, a quick question. What would have you done if your role on the scene was as a photojournalist, charged with capturing and reporting the accident for the media? Would you have then elected to make this image, or instead defaulted to the generic "crumpled car" photo?

 

[bjorke]

The linch-pin issue, for me, is this evaluation: "This would have made a GREAT photograph"

"Great" in what manner? For the prestige of the photographer, who has gained access (via chance or not) to a difficult moment? Or because the photograph serves some other, greater purpose?

It is not hard to see this horrible tragedy as a direct result of teen drinking and driving AND -- in the interests of politeness -- you chose not to make a photograph. That is certainly your prerogative but at the same time, please remember that such a photograph DID have the potential to have done a lot of good in the world. That EMT was there to save her life. His effort -- and her entire life -- was erased and wasted. She probably had friends, acquaintances, classmates, parents. Such a photo could have served to save their lives. She died anonymously, silently, because the reality of this tragedy was considered "obscene."

It was obscene. That is exactly the point. It is an obscenity not created by the photograph. Obscenity is here at hand, in life, thrust upon us.

One of my favorite characteristics of photography is its ability to confound our intents for it.

Let me ask you, and in fact ask everyone: are there any pictures -- ANY pictures -- that you are sorry you made?

Not "I wish I had made that better" which is just an issue of craft -- I'm asking about a photo you wish you had never made.

For myself, I can't think of even one.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed, a quick question. What would have you done if your role on the scene was as a photojournalist, charged with capturing and reporting the accident for the media? Would you have then elected to make this image, or instead defaulted to the generic "crumpled car" photo?

It would NOT have contained the image of the Firefighter, nor the covered body.

The usual "crumpled car" - damaged automobile, the beer cans on the street ... OK. At the time, in reflection, I don't think I could have found a vantage point where I could have excluded them.

There would be - and there will be - better opportunities.