Times when photos shouldn't be taken

Anscojohn · Sep 13, 2007

[how does one explain or understand the Edward Weston image of the dead man in the desert? how does this image fit into Weston's body of work?

That photograph has always had controversy around it.

Under the circumstances described about the death accident, picture taking is utterly and completely tasteless, inappropriate, irreverent, and disrespectful--at least people of my generation would feel that way.

With a popular culture where people vote on which tv bug-eating exhibitionist is to be sent "off the island" questions of taste, etc. may not be well understood.

Picture-taking VS photography? Perhaps. I refused to take a camera with me when I made the pilgramage to Dachau. Given the calling to photograph there, alone, in the search for a photographic memorialization, I might make that even greater pilgramage. But I do not know.

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Ed Sukach · Sep 13, 2007

bjorke said:
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?

Both. Like it or not, I was part of the scene. I realize that there could have been "benefits" derived from the image. It was MY decision to override that possibility. Would it have "helped" anyone? - possibly, and possibly not.
Would a photograph of a crime scene, complete with blood and gore, and mutilated bodies - deter anyone from the crime of murder? Is there any possibility of a photograph of a person in the throes of an emotional breakdown preventing another from having an emotional breakdown? Those against drinking and driving - and I am one of them - have trod this path before - countless times. In my opinion, such images - from the effects of sheer familiarity, have lost their energy. Why do people drive after drinking? It is time to address the cause/s instead of agonizing over the - deadly - results.

... AND -- in the interests of politeness -- you chose not to make a photograph.

I would not characterize that as "politeness" - it was something far more intense and important than that.
Call it an act of mercy.

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.

I think you are asking if I've ever made a photograph that caused grief to another - or would have if published. If so, yes, I have - and I have taken the necessary steps to NOT have them "published" (including gallery exhibition). As far as I know, I have succeeded.

bjorke · Sep 13, 2007

I wasn't asking about publication. Lots of people have snaps of naked girlfriends and other sorts of private, intimate pix that would be inappropriate to show publicly. I have mine, and while they would cause harm to those persons if I were to show those pictures, they are pictures that I, myself, love.

I am asking about pictures that NO ONE, not even for an audience of one (tho photographer), think should have been made. And why.

Ed Sukach · Sep 13, 2007

bjorke said:
I wasn't asking about publication.

Sorry, then. I was interpreting "publication" in the broad, "copyright" sense.

I am asking about pictures that NO ONE, not even for an audience of one (tho photographer), think should have been made. And why.

In an effort to get things right, I need a bit of qualification...

Have I ever taken a photograph INTENTIONALLY that I thought "should not have been taken"? Not that I can remember.

Have I ever taken a photograph that I found later to be one "that should not have been taken" due to qualities that I had not seen in the process (read: accidentally)? Yes. There are contact sheets containing images marked with the traditional letter "K" (for "Kill") in my files.
Reason/s? Usually, too "Hustlerish". Simply put, I don't do explicitly "wide open" Hustler type photography. Why, again? Because I do not want to.

Have I ever ... ? In trying to visualize other possibilities, there are a few "K"ed images that were LIES - not representing the circumstances present or my emotions when I took them - again "accidents". That is a LOT harder to explain. Possibly - very possibly - not really different from the "Hustler" business above.

What else? I can't at the moment think of any. I'll await response from others.

copake_ham · Sep 13, 2007

bjorke said:
.....
I am asking about pictures that NO ONE, not even for an audience of one (tho photographer), think should have been made. And why.

bjorke,

Perhaps its the lawyer in me, but I cannot think of any instance where this would occur.

Consider, for example, the current Phil Spector case. As I understand it, the evidence includes extremely graphic pictures of an individual who, either by her own hand or another's, has been shot through the mouth with (I believe) a .44 cal pistol.

As gruesome and graphic as these shots may be, they are crucial evidence at a trial of an accused individual.

Also, to follow your "dictate" above, one would have to imagine in one's mind's eye an image so distressing that if the situation were to actually exist, no one could fathom recording it.

I really don't think that's possible. I do not think there is any image of such total depravity that there would be no one whatsoever who would refuse to record it. Particularly because it would be an image beyond what anyone could imagine.

Discpad · Sep 13, 2007

Jim Chinn said:
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.

Conveniently left out of the Fresh Aire show on NPR was that when we retreated from Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" attack by al Qaida in Mogadishu, bin Laden held it up as an example of America being a "paper tiger" (his words)... And you can draw a straight line from that retreat -- fuelled by that PJ's shot -- to the 9/11 attacks, also by bin Laden.

So Yes, a photo can have a profound effect, for years to come.

dslater · Sep 13, 2007

Discpad said:
Conveniently left out of the Fresh Aire show on NPR was that when we retreated from Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" attack by al Qaida in Mogadishu, bin Laden held it up as an example of America being a "paper tiger" (his words)... And you can draw a straight line from that retreat -- fuelled by that PJ's shot -- to the 9/11 attacks, also by bin Laden.

If you believe that, then you have bought into his propaganda as much as his followers. bin Laden would have carried out the 9/11 attacks regardless of what happened in Somalia.

Discpad · Sep 13, 2007

copake_ham said:
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?

I agree 100%. And, when someone doesn't want a photo taken, my "crap detector" immediatly ratches up to "high," because it's usually something they are trying to cover up... Sometimes because of taste; many times for nefarious reasons. For a crystal-clear example, see Abusive Missouri Cop Caught on Tape.

A photo is a record of a particular instant in time: Without it, there is no objective record. That is why a LAT PJ was fired when he doctored photos from Iraq: If there's any kind of staging or (in my opinion) even posing, then it's a dishonest record.

That being said, a long telephoto lens comes in handy for moments like this murder scene, so as not to intrude into what is happening.

Ray Heath · Sep 13, 2007

g'day all

bjorke, we probably all have, for one reason or another, regretted the creation of an image/s

but, no artist, of any kind, can be held totally responsible for the effects caused by the experience of their work

the artist cannot always control the context of the experience

Ray

jstraw · Sep 13, 2007

Discpad said:
Conveniently left out of the Fresh Aire show on NPR was that when we retreated from Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" attack by al Qaida in Mogadishu, bin Laden held it up as an example of America being a "paper tiger" (his words)... And you can draw a straight line from that retreat -- fuelled by that PJ's shot -- to the 9/11 attacks, also by bin Laden.

So Yes, a photo can have a profound effect, for years to come.

Conveniently left out? The photographer was expressing his feelings about his photograph.

k_jupiter · Sep 13, 2007

The closest I get to an agreement is with George. I have my standards. And that's what they are. MY STANDARDS. I have seen many gruesome accidents on the Autobahn in Germany, shit happens at 200kph, and it's not pretty. I have never felt the desire to record that particular carnage in any shape or form.

Yet, I understand that what motivates me is not what motivates you. I would be royally pissed if you attempted to impose your morality, your sensibilities upon me. You might have the right to express your disapproval in my actions, yet you might then have the right to be told to fuck off. And I would.

I have on occasion not taken the image. I was terribly affected by Katrina as discussions with Sam P will attest to. Yet my reluctance, or even my inability, to deal with that situation doesn't mean I have the right to judge what others did in that situation, for whatever purpose.

Life isn't pretty. It's filled with meanness, anger, gore, dirt, filth, disgust, and all sort of issues we, as a civilized society, would rather choose not to deal with. Yet that doesn't mean I have the right to tell you, or even have an opinion on, how you relate to it, how you wish to capture it in your work, in your mind.

The story of the ER tech with the covered body... bad taste to photograph it? Why? If you are half the photographer you might think you are, you might find a way to pull something out of that scene that doesn't reflect a voyeuristic glee of horror. You might just find a way to pull the pain, the sorrow into an intense amazing work of art. Art for yourself.

Could I do it? Maybe not. But, if the scene presents itself to me, I might make the effort. I might see what you can't see. And I dare you to judge me.

I don't know what anyone would have seen in bloody bits of train induce gore. It's an accident on the autobahn all over again. But... it's not for you to judge.

tim in san jose

Sparky · Sep 14, 2007

k_jupiter said:
....I have seen many gruesome accidents on the Autobahn in Germany, shit happens at 200kph, and it's not pretty. I have never felt the desire to record that particular carnage in any shape or form....

That reminds me of being on the autobahn driving to paris one time - seeing a mercedes coupé that was about 2m long...! I'd NEVER seen anything like that in north america! It wouldn't be such a bad idea to have a pic of that to put on billboards though...! Give people a little reminder!!

Discpad · Sep 14, 2007

Sparky said:
That reminds me of being on the autobahn driving to paris one time - seeing a mercedes coupé that was about 2m long...! I'd NEVER seen anything like that in north america! It wouldn't be such a bad idea to have a pic of that to put on billboards though...! Give people a little reminder!!

Was it 2 meters long before, or after getting crushed in a wreck?!

Sparky · Sep 14, 2007

well - since we're on the topic of accidents on the 'bahn... I figured it would be understood that this was like a normal mercedes - but now 2m long due to impact. one can only imagine what happened to the passengers!

Discpad · Sep 14, 2007

I guess you've never seen my work as a professional motor racing (NASCAR & IRL) photog... Take a look at Dead Link Removed, and my gallery over on Dead Link Removed...

k_jupiter said:
The closest I get to an agreement is with George. I have my standards. And that's what they are. MY STANDARDS. I have seen many gruesome accidents on the Autobahn in Germany, shit happens at 200kph, and it's not pretty. I have never felt the desire to record that particular carnage in any shape or form.
(cut)
tim in san jose

bjorke · Sep 14, 2007

Ray Heath said:
bjorke, we probably all have, for one reason or another, regretted the creation of an image/s

What images? Why the regret?

You ducked the question while pretending to answer

Ray Heath · Sep 14, 2007

bjorke said:
What images? Why the regret?

You ducked the question while pretending to answer

you've missed my point bjorke, it doesn't matter what i think or feel about my work, it's how others respond that is important

Jim Chinn · Sep 14, 2007

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN

Here is a very poignant article that is very relevant to this thread.

Ed Sukach · Sep 14, 2007

k_jupiter said:
The story of the ER tech with the covered body... bad taste to photograph it? Why?

It was, in no way, a matter of "taste". In my evaluation (for want of a better word) I could imagine/ fortell the additional pain that image bring to the Firefighter - primarily. My choice was to NOT take the photograph - and I do not regret my choice.

If you are half the photographer you might think you are, you might find a way to pull something out of that scene that doesn't reflect a voyeuristic glee of horror. You might just find a way to pull the pain, the sorrow into an intense amazing work of art. Art for yourself.

Interesting. I should initiate a poll. "Do you think you are half the photographer you think you are"?

- I might "find a way"?
How on earth can you, from what I have described, draw the slightest inference that there was ANY sort of "voyeuristic glee of horror"? That scene was the polar opposite of anything like "gleeful, joyful, happy." There was nothing to celebrate., only the intense feeling of loss, tremendous sadness, frustration...

Too much to bear, really - or photograph.

Could I do it? Maybe not. But, if the scene presents itself to me, I might make the effort. I might see what you can't see. And I dare you to judge me.

Could YOU, or anyone else have "done it"? I don't know - possibly. I don't really care; all I know is that I did not photograph that scene.

I don't know what anyone would have seen in bloody bits of train induce gore. It's an accident on the autobahn all over again. But... it's not for you to judge.

What is this preoccupation with "judging"? I am not out to judge anyone ... why should I? I am neither evangelist nor moralist ... what others may do in photography is entirely up to them. I have enough trouble try to stay true to my own values. All I can, all I want to do, is to tell what happened and, feebly, why I did what I did.

catem · Sep 14, 2007

Jim Chinn said:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN

Here is a very poignant article that is very relevant to this thread.

Thanks for that link. I found myself reading every word.

As you say, very poignant, and very pertinent also.

Papa Tango · Sep 14, 2007

Anscojohn said:
Under the circumstances described about the death accident, picture taking is utterly and completely tasteless, inappropriate, irreverent, and disrespectful--at least people of my generation would feel that way.

John, I feel that this is a rather hasty generalization. From the timbre of your post, I gather that "my generation" consists of an older cohort. If this is the case it is my cohort also. I do not agree that taking a photograph of the EMT fulfills any of the adjectives you list--nor could I find anyone in my 50+ age group that felt any differently. So, there appear to be a few of us that see this another way.

Ultimately this is a very personal and particular matter. Words like morality and decency have been tossed about as well. These are very subjective words--a personal philosophy existing only in the mind and not independently of it--and the matter at hand does not have any fast and firm societal rules or behavioral decrees that apply. In the alternate, someone coming along at random and wishing to take a snap of the uncovered corpse with their cellphone would likely be seen as meeting those benchmarks you cited by the majority of those observing.

Rather, the decisions made to not photograph the firefighter or any similar slice of life is more a crisis of conscience. If one makes the decision to take the photo, no social norms or values have been violated in a way that marks the photograph itself as inappropriate. As to whether a photo causes some potential issue or dissonance with a set of viewers, that is the risk we take with almost any image...

bjorke · Sep 14, 2007

Remember, this thread is not about publication, it is about whether others should be allowed to photograph.

tasteless

inappropriate

irreverent
Dead Link Removed

disrespectful

Better to confiscate all the cameras.

T-t-t-talkin' 'bout my gennnnerAtion....

(And no Ray, you still didnt answer -- when people make sweeping generalizations and can't cite even ONE example, it sets off my b.s. detector.)

k_jupiter · Sep 14, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
It was, in no way, a matter of "taste". In my evaluation (for want of a better word) I could imagine/ fortell the additional pain that image bring to the Firefighter - primarily. My choice was to NOT take the photograph - and I do not regret my choice.

Interesting. I should initiate a poll. "Do you think you are half the photographer you think you are"?

- I might "find a way"?
How on earth can you, from what I have described, draw the slightest inference that there was ANY sort of "voyeuristic glee of horror"? That scene was the polar opposite of anything like "gleeful, joyful, happy." There was nothing to celebrate., only the intense feeling of loss, tremendous sadness, frustration...

Too much to bear, really - or photograph.

Could YOU, or anyone else have "done it"? I don't know - possibly. I don't really care; all I know is that I did not photograph that scene.

What is this preoccupation with "judging"? I am not out to judge anyone ... why should I? I am neither evangelist nor moralist ... what others may do in photography is entirely up to them. I have enough trouble try to stay true to my own values. All I can, all I want to do, is to tell what happened and, feebly, why I did what I did.

The whole damn thread is about judging the actions of another. If you distill it any other way, I am very confused.
I don't judge you for taking or not taking that photo. You did what you felt was correct. Great. Now give me the same courtesy to make the same decision, or at least share the same decision making process. The Firefighter... he is in no way affected by my actions... as my work is for me. I photograph for T. O'Brien aka k_jupiter, not you, not the media, not art for arts sake... me.

The whole "half the photographer".. a different can of worms I am sure. Too light hearted for this discussion in my opinion.

I did not infer anything about your personal motivations i.e. voyeuristic..., but for what reason would you NOT take that photo if, and the big word is IF... the work is for you alone? It should only be that it didn't strike you as what you wished to capture. Perhaps I overstepped a line in that comment, if so I sincerely apologize. I do take it you have no need to capture "intense feeling of loss, tremendous sadness, frustration...". I respect that. I just demand that others respect the need in someone to try and bring that particular set of energies , or any others, onto a photographic sheet of paper if they see the need within themselves to attempt it... without judgment.

Thank you you Bjorke for your point making images, they don't make my point, but they sure the heck made yours.

tim in san jose

laverdure · Sep 14, 2007

There are plenty of ways to be an asshole with (or without) a camera. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes it's just not a big deal. How much more is there to say about it?

Papa Tango · Sep 14, 2007

Grammar Please...

Asshole is a noun, or possibly an adverb. We are discussing adjectives here. Please remain on topic...

Times when photos shouldn't be taken

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency