Times when photos shouldn't be taken

catem said:

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

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

Click to expand...

I think of myself as being very hardened to the evils of the real world, but that is one image that I cannot look at, it hurts so much. I find it incredibly disturbing. Far worse, to me, anyway, than images of war, traffic accidents, clinical specimens, etc.

dmr said:

I think of myself as being very hardened to the evils of the real world, but that is one image that I cannot look at, it hurts so much. I find it incredibly disturbing. Far worse, to me, anyway, than images of war, traffic accidents, clinical specimens, etc.

Click to expand...

No-one has mentioned in all this, the oversaturation of terrible images, how more is not necessarily best - even if photographs could undeniably be trusted to be wholly 'true' which they cannot - yet another shot of a carnage could be not only not needed, but worse than that, could be merely yet another dumbing, desensitizing image. Or taken merely to be sensational, rather than to tell or attempt to tell any sort of story worth telling. Could that in any way always be worth it? I don't think so. And apart from that consideration, the point of the original tourist photographing (snapping?) on tribal land and causing deep offense has somehow been left out of the equation.

The photograph of the 'falling man' is different from anything I've ever seen before. It is beyond the photographs I have seen of war, famine, disease, brutality, disaster. By 'beyond' I don't mean in the sense of being worse, but different. Too complex, too terrible and multi layered to talk about here.

As for when to take photographs or when not to take photographs, we make our own moral judgments due to particular circumstances, and they will often of necessity be intuitive, snap decisions (and not worse for that).

To come up with a blanket rule that says photographs are always morally permissable (as opposed to actually permissable) is as ridiculous as saying they should never be. I would be very concerned about the role of photography, and photographers in the world if it was not acknowledged that there are times (and we must decide for ourselves when those times are) when it is better to put the camera down.

laverdure said:

There are plenty of ways to be an asshole with (or without) a camera.

Click to expand...

Ah..now you're talking about something I'm familiar with! I remember back in high school...we gave out the asshole for the day trophy each and every day. I have to admit, I won it my fair share of times.

k_jupiter said:

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.

Click to expand...

Let's chill out a bit.

I see this thread as asking "Whether or NOT there are "photographs that should NOT be taken." - not "Do I think that anyone has the right to deny another photographer to take a photograph - under any circumstances?"

I reacted to

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[/QUOTE]

k_jupiter said:

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.

Click to expand...

Let's chill out a bit.

I understood the original topic to be a question of "Whether or not there were situations where photographs should NOT have been taken". I agree with this. Yes there ARE.
Along the line, there was reference to a web site,
[ http://www.unphotographable.com ], supporting the idea that, YES, there were - and describing the circumstances behind the individual photographers' decisions.
To add to the mix, I posted a description of a situation where I had decided NOT to take a photograph, and something of my thoughts behind that decision.

If you understood the subject to be something else ... "Do you think anyone has the - ANY - "right", or divine duty - or something similar - to prevent another photographer from taking a photograph"" - I would have to say "Yes", rarely - but those circumstances would be limited to a much narrower field.

Read my posts again - I say, repeatedly, that the decision to take, or not take a photograph is one to be made by the photographer. I have neither the responsibility nor the desire to determine what another photographer will do.

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

Click to expand...

What was "too lighthearted"? My response, where I was trying to make sense of what you wrote: - Or your original statement?

... 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.

Click to expand...

You lost me here. I agree and support everything in this last quote. I'm just going to have to think - a lot - about why you seem to have interpreted what I had written differently.

Ed Sukach said:

Let's chill out a bit.

I understood the original topic to be a question of "Whether or not there were situations where photographs should NOT have been taken". I agree with this. Yes there ARE.
Along the line, there was reference to a web site,
[ http://www.unphotographable.com ], supporting the idea that, YES, there were - and describing the circumstances behind the individual photographers' decisions.
To add to the mix, I posted a description of a situation where I had decided NOT to take a photograph, and something of my thoughts behind that decision.

If you understood the subject to be something else ... "Do you think anyone has the - ANY - "right", or divine duty - or something similar - to prevent another photographer from taking a photograph"" - I would have to say "Yes", rarely - but those circumstances would be limited to a much narrower field.

Read my posts again - I say, repeatedly, that the decision to take, or not take a photograph is one to be made by the photographer. I have neither the responsibility nor the desire to determine what another photographer will do.



What was "too lighthearted"? My response, where I was trying to make sense of what you wrote: - Or your original statement?



You lost me here. I agree and support everything in this last quote. I'm just going to have to think - a lot - about why you seem to have interpreted what I had written differently.

Click to expand...

The 'too light hearted' is in response to making a poll of something that is quite likely introspection that should bring a level of contemplation within us that doesn't raise itself to the seriousness of the other subjects raised in this post. I would find this sort of internal regressive thought pattern more amusing than anything else.

I will re-read your original post and see if it's my interpretation that is faulty in the context of our dialog.

tim in san jose

bjorke said:

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.)

Click to expand...

g'day all

bjorke, i'm quite confused by your posting, all these images have been published, what is your point?

sorry to tweak your BS meter, but maybe you know more about BS than most

Turnabout

As a poster noted, the discussion moved quickly away from the train accident incident and the motivation to make a photograph of such a thing. We have seen some striking photographs, most of which have been very compelling images. Back to the original subject, the "inappropriateness" of capturing the train incident. For those who have difficulty visualizing such a thing, here is a train accident photo.

Ray Heath said:

sorry to tweak your BS meter, but maybe you know more about BS than most

Click to expand...

heh

dude, I'm in marketing and show biz -- I can detect the type of grass eaten from 20 yards.

Patrick, do you have any details on this photo, or on your motivations for showing it, and its ramifications? Did you shoot it?

It's a gruesome and thus strong photo. A problem with strong photos (and a strength) is that they take on their own lives in the mind of the viewer. You have created no clear context in which to channel that force. As such I can't tell if you purpose is to shock, to illustrate a humane point or a hostile one, or... what?

BTW, this entire issue is far more complex than any APUG thread and I'd recommend to all two books: Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others and Hauser's Moral Minds

bjorke said:

BTW, this entire issue is far more complex than any APUG thread and I'd recommend to all two books: Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others and Hauser's Moral Minds

Click to expand...

OK, first, I'd like to apologize to anyone who had hoped this thread was done for good. I'm not trying to stir the pot. (I tuned out of this discussion quite awhile ago myself) I don't really have a point, but I must share something I heard this evening on the radio. This is only a paraphrase and I readily admit that my facts may not be entirely correct.

This evening I heard a radio interview with Pulitzer prize winning (and fellow Canadian) photojournalist Paul Watson, in regards to his book "Where War Lives." For those of you who have forgotten, Watson is the man who snapped the now famous shot of American Staff Sgt. David Cleveland whose body was dragged and degraded in the streets of Mogadishu in 1993. (The inspiration for the film Black Hawk Down) Watson happened upon the scene almost by accident, and instantly recognized a scene of journalistic importance. He had recently described a similar event (which he had not photographed) only to have his claims flatly denied by every American official connected to the mission. This new event then provided him an opportunity to prove his case. As he prepared to snap the shutter, Watson says he heard a voice, loud and clear, in his head and in the air, "If you do this, I will own you forever." (that was the line in the interview that made me stop the car and grab my pencil)

The photo has followed Watson ever since. It earned him the Pulitzer Prize, and played no small part in reshaping the role of U.S. troops in Somalia and no doubt was a factor in the West's refusal to intervene in Rwanda. The photo also handed a great victory to one Osama bin Laden, who learned the power of imagery in promoting terror. Watson has never really recovered from that experience. The image and the accompanying voice haunts him to this day. He suffers from deep depression and speaks as someone burdened with a great weight.

Should the picture have been taken? To Watson, it is not an easy question. It is an image that does not easily leave the mind. It may have done more bad in the world than any good in the name of journalism.

Here is an article which tells the story much better than I have.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=39320e3d-f2b7-4606-aa9d-73340a9a7752

Take the photo if you're of a mind to. If others object they'll no doubt let you know. It strikes me as humorous that some of the most vocal posters on this thread have been foremost in offending the sensibilities of some members in the recent past. Maybe sensibilities are an individual thing best left to individual judgments? Perish the thought...

Toffle said:

The photo has followed Watson ever since. It earned him the Pulitzer Prize, and played no small part in reshaping the role of U.S. troops in Somalia and no doubt was a factor in the West's refusal to intervene in Rwanda. The photo also handed a great victory to one Osama bin Laden, who learned the power of imagery in promoting terror. Watson has never really recovered from that experience. The image and the accompanying voice haunts him to this day. He suffers from deep depression and speaks as someone burdened with a great weight.

Should the picture have been taken? To Watson, it is not an easy question. It is an image that does not easily leave the mind. It may have done more bad in the world than any good in the name of journalism.

Click to expand...

You're going to blame a great courageous photograph for the lack of balls in American foriegn policy? You going tell me OBL didn't know how to shock the hell out of the west long before this picture was taken?

You have got to rethink the whole equation. Jeez, I am shaking at the thought that that photo did any of these things. That weak little people (with a lot of power) hide behind that image and blame so much on one very strong person. That he is beset by doubt now, I just hope like hell he gets some help.

Maybe you too.

Damn! That picture HAD to be taken.

tim in san jose

k_jupiter said:

You're going to blame a great courageous photograph for the lack of balls in American foriegn policy? You going tell me OBL didn't know how to shock the hell out of the west long before this picture was taken?

You have got to rethink the whole equation. Jeez, I am shaking at the thought that that photo did any of these things. That weak little people (with a lot of power) hide behind that image and blame so much on one very strong person. That he is beset by doubt now, I just hope like hell he gets some help.

Maybe you too.

Damn! That picture HAD to be taken.

tim in san jose

Click to expand...

Tim, I'm really not trying to stir a post-911 debate. I heard this story for only the first time this evening, and was most moved by the prophetic pronouncement Watson heard as he took the picture and the effect it has had on him in the years since.

Also, the stated effects of the photo are not my opinion. Google it.

OK, I'm sorry I brought it up.

Tom,

Sorry to infer anything personal. I don't need to Google anything. I am not a product of the mass media, I don't listen to talking heads to define my thoughts.

But my thoughts about the power of photographer vs. people hiding behind some theory of how that photograph cause all this to come down is very clear. You can run but you can't hide. That man did a service to this world.

I will repeat, that photograph needed to be made. That the world made bad decisions based on it is not his problem.

tim in san jose