Photography ethics.

[jlacoy82]

I was just curious as to peoples thoughts on this. Today while traveling in NH I passed a rather bad single car, roll-over accident. It happened just moments before, as there were no police or EMT present yet, just several good samaritans who had stopped. I passed by, knowing I didnt have anything to offer to the situation and continued on my drive. Had I had any medical training or had a skill that could be otherwise useful I perhaps would have stopped, but in this case "if you arent part of the solution, you are part of the problem," so drove on. The apparent driver from what I could tell was out of the car, highly distraught, crying, wailing and laying on the road looking into the rear area of the overturned car, a pretty disturbing scene.

NOW, I had all my photo gear in the back seat, and could have possibly taken pictures without putting myself in the way or otherwise bothering anyone else. Personally I feel it would have been highly rude and disrespectful, given the circumstances and didnt want to put anyone under any more stress than they already were.

Now if you were in this same situation, would you pull over, park, and start snapping away, if say you could forward the photos on to a local newspaper or otherwise? What involvement would you take? If you could would you be right in near the scene, amongst people, or take the route I did and just keep on driving by? I'm just extremely new to this, and dont know that I would really have much purpose in taking any such photos, but perhaps someone else might. Just curious on peoples thoughts on a situation like this?

-Jeff

[Streetshooter]

I would make pictures of the scene...and then tell the victum that I would be glad to provide pictures for thier insurance company.....don

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I would have taken pictures, and given my card to her and say "in case you need some shots for insurance, I've got them", and then went to the newspaper and sold some of them.

[elTwitcho]

I'd be personally very angry if someone were to start taking pictures of an accident in which someone I knew was hurt. If you're going to invade on someone's privacy and share a traumatic moment of their lives with the rest of the world uninvited, you'd better have a very good reason to do so, and it had better be a **** of alot better than "I wanted to see if I could get my name in the paper with my photo" or "I wanted to round out my portfolio". Doing something like that would be at best sleazy and exploitative and at worst despicable.

Only my opinion, but at the same time, if someone shows up in my life taking photos where they aren't wanted, they had better be an even better runner than they are a photographer ;)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'm not speaking about myself, but technically a photog, in most places, can take shots of whatever he wants. Yes, it may be "low", but yet he's allowed. Taking into account the laws, at least where I live, if you catch up to that photographer you're chasing, you'll get yourself into a whole world of trouble....might be worth it, I suppose. Depends on your outlook.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Different types of photography demand totally different sorts of inherent ethics.

Yes,. I'd agree there are cardianl laws of morality that all should adhere to..

But a photo-journalist might have completely different ethics regarding photography than a nature photographer might have.. etc..

Anyway.. if the shot was newsworhty.. of course a photo journalist would get the shot.


It's odd your specific circumstances,. as they mirro one of the greaterst missed oportunities of my life,. and THE greatest missed opportunity of my photographic "career"

I was driving with a trunk load of photo-gear to Meet fellow photog and Mod Scottes out on the Cape for a day of shooting shore birds two years back. Just passed Fall River there is a bridge across a river.. that yopu approach going down a very steep grade.. behind is a mix of old mills and trees..

Right there at the end of the bridge was a car in flames.. it was towing a delepidated trailer,. a crappy make shift motor home behind a beat junker pickup also loaded with stuff.
The owner, a 40 ish man who looked liek time had not been good to him, was sitting with his back to the guard rail with his head in his hands.. all he owned in life was about to go up in smoke..

Thick thick black acrid smoke was Pouring out of the engine bay and huge flames licked up.

The Sun was just rising over the rise..
As yet only one officer was on the scene..

I did not stop.

I had a dozen reasons not to.. don't cpaitialize on this guys pain, don't get in the way.. don't miss my appointiment.. etc..

It was the wrong decision. And I regret it deeply every time I think about it. The confluence of ingredients that was gelling together for this "perfect photo" I will never see again.

[Tlee05]

mmm if no one was hurt badly, i would stay out the way hit it up too 200mm and snap, they wont notice you're there so no harm done, i would feel abit low in doing this if some one was hurt badly so on, just depends really,

[elTwitcho]

I'm not speaking about myself, but technically a photog, in most places, can take shots of whatever he wants. Yes, it may be "low", but yet he's allowed. Taking into account the laws, at least where I live, if you catch up to that photographer you're chasing, you'll get yourself into a whole world of trouble....might be worth it, I suppose. Depends on your outlook.

I don't deny that, although to be honest the laws in Canada are a bit screwy enough that the photographer probably COULD be charged with invasion of privacy. There was a court case where a photographer took a photo of a fat girl eating her lunch in public and he was still found to have invaded her privacy. Now, don't get me wrong in thinking I'm glad the laws are this way, because truth be told I think in normal circumstances if you're out in public, you're open to being photographed, but I think as a human being you owe a certain amount of respect to everyone else you meet. I don't think exploiting someone's tragedy for something as petty as boosting your portfolio or tear sheet count is respecting other human beings.

But it's just me, I can't try and argue that MY opinion is the correct opinion, because we're all entitled to think differently, but I think exploiting someone's misery without justification is morally questionable, whether it's legal or not is another issue.

It's subjective anyway, and like I said there are places and times it could be justifiable. Is it wrong to take photos of starving people just to add some emotional content to your portfolio? Probably. Is it less wrong to take photos of starving people because you want to show the world what is happening and motivate people to help out with the situation? Well there's where it becomes tricky, because it's a big huge gray area. Interesting discussion anyway

[DocFrankenstein]

There are much worse things you can do to a person than take a picture of him in times of stress.

Journalist's "obligation to inform the public" justifies a LOT... much more than a car crash.

James Hatchwey sticks his camera in the crying face of a mother burying her son and then sells the shot.

Another "what's-his-name-famous-photog" sneaked into Ghandi's room to take a picture of his corpse with a leica.

I'm being respectful and after two hours of shooting I have a couple hundred pictures of people's backs to go through.

Choices... choices

[Radtech1]

Interesting topic.

I doubt if anyone remembers (maybe CDS), but we went through this 2 1/2 years ago. Below is one of the first shots I ever posted here, along with my text. Keep in mind that my 10d was only a couple months old, and my idea of advanced photo-shopping was selective colorization. I was trying to ask what to do to make this an even more powerful image and that set off a small firestorm. The census was that I was within my rights to take the photo, but was very tacky in asking how to enhance it.

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14882&highlight=begin) is the link to the original thread if you are interested enough to read the entire duologue. Keep in mind, in those days, 100 views of one post made it almost legendary. Also, the external link no longer works.

Rad

All,

The image is powerful enough as is. It is less than one hour old. Having been on the receiving end of cataclysmic personal trauma, I know first hand what the families are going to face.

Perhaps that it why it is such a strong image to me. [- side note, is the image powerful ONLY to me, that my experience magnifies it?]

The question is, what to do now? Crop? Sharpen? Blur the background? Color issues?

Radtech1

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh I remember,. and there was an odd furor over the shot.. (we were sooo much more naive then too... )

I still think it's a brilliant and powerfull image! Remarkeable in it's statement and yet sanitary in it's lack of actual "victim"

[Jon Foster]

I would have taken some shots. If they turned out good or had something to merit their use I would have used them accordingly etc...

Jon.

[Steve Parr]

I was walking through Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery one afternoon. I saw an much older man, probably in his 80's or 90's, sitting in a folding chair next to a gravestone. It looked as though he had been there for a while, as I saw an empty picnic basket next to him as I walked by the gravestone, which had a woman's name on it.

I'm not even sure the old man was aware that I had walked by.

For a few seconds, I thought of how powerful an image that would be taken from a distance. I walked a ways down the paved path, and turned around. I raised my camera, zoomed out to 200mm, focused, and framed my shot.

The old man had his head in his hands, and he was crying.

I can't put my finger on it, but I just couldn't pull the trigger. The way I saw it, it was simply way to private a moment for some random photographer to walk away with. It was clear to me that, at that moment, that was his time to be there, not mine.

I felt like I would have been invading his privacy. That's something I don't normally don;t like to do anyway, but I sure as Hell wasn't going to do it in a cemetery.

I lowered my camera, turned around, and walked away.

I think about that day from time to time; how I walked away from what I know would've been a great photograph. I still believe I made the right choice.

Ethics? I dunno', but it was the right thing to do at that time...

Steve

[saravrose]

actually this is something i've put a lot of thought into. I have a very emotionally demanding job as a hospice social worker.. A lot of the people that I work around and for very intimately are living the last minutes of there lives. the portraits that open up in front of my eyes are incredible, and emotional.. A lot of the time I would love to take photographs of some of the things I experience on a day to day basis. But the aspects of my job has really forced me to realize that there is a time and place for everything. as much as i'd love to bring out my camera and part of me feels like I could justify doing so.. it's just not the time and place. I'm there for a much different purpose and it's soo far removed from being about me and what I want that it has never occured to me to attempt it....

sari

[saravrose]

steve I understand what your saying....I was walking down a corridor with a beautiful woman that had lost her hair from chemo last week.... a group of young children walked past her and started looking scared at her bald head.. the way she pushed herself against the wall and pulled her arms up over her head was soo intense that I can still see it in my head.. and I couldn't have taken that photo...there are moments in other's lives that just don't belong to you... I have co-workers that promise that the day will come that it doesn't affect me as much.. that scares me more somehow....

sari.

[cdifoto]

I'm cold and heartless. I would have grabbed the shot and sold it to the paper(s). If I didn't grab it, someone else certainly would have.

[joeseph]

I had no problem taking this on the motorway a coupla years ago, knowing damn well there wasn't anyone in it. There would have been no way I'd have done it if I hadn't been sure. Sent it to the local paper & they printed it with a story about the guy who'd borrowed his girlfriends car for the afternoon.

60950

[weka2000]

A couple of months ago me and my 2 girls were at a beach when we happend upon a real surf rescue. I changed my lens and took a bunch of photos of a mother and son about to drown unless the surf life savers got to them.

I felt guilty, excited and money orientated. Ok sell them to the news paper, a real life and death event and I got it. How the hang can you stand there taking phots while these 2 people are fighting for their lives.

So here is what I did.

I spoke to the life guards after and said what I had on "film" they asked if it would be possible to have a copy as they never see their hard work in action, so I did.

At the end of the day put yourself in the other persons shoes and ask what would you feel if it was you displayed somewhere and you saw it.

[cdifoto]

If it was me in any kind of tragic event, I'm certain I'd have more important worries than whether anyone photographed me and/or who did it. Assuming I came out alive. If I died I don't think I'd care if my picture was taken. ;)

[primoz]

No matter how bad this will feel now but... If I would know I can sell this photo to newspapers I would stop and shoot. And I wouldn't be too bothered about someone having problems with this. Even though I shoot sports only for money, you learn to put your feelings behind and do you job. So this would be job only.
But since, at least around here, newspapers don't publish photos of every single car accident which happens around here, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't sell it, so I would do exactly same as you did... drive away. Of course if I couldn't be of any help. Since at least for me personally, shooting stuff like this doesn't go under "shooting for fun and pleasure", I don't need and I don't want to have photos like this in my archive. So no stoping and no shooting for me.

[chemicalbro]

I'd have stopped but only becasue i've got 1st aid training............. the camera would be the last thing on my mind.... making sure the guy was ok would have been top of my priority list........... tbh I don't really like taking pictures of anybody unless they know i'm doing it and don't mind..

[vjack]

I would absolutely not stop to take pictures. Had I nothing to offer and no cell phone, I would keep driving just as you did.

[Jon Foster]

Here's the only car crash I've ever shot. The picture was taken with a cheap Olympus P&S I carry around...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/jfoster48386/Miscellaneous%20Shots%20Non%20300D/Miscellaneous/Crash.jpg

Jon.

[jlacoy82]

Interesting, figured the topic might bring up some different points of view. Any picture I might have walked away with would likely hold little interest to me, and have never dealt with selling photos or otherwise, so the likelihood it would have gone to a newspaper or otherwise was slim in that regard. Thanks for the responses.

[RTMiller]

This is an interesting thread. I am intrigued by the idea expressed by some here that the tastefulness of a photograph is somehow proportional to the pain and anguish of the subject.

By this standard the picture of the fireman carrying the baby from the wreckage of the federal building in Oklanhoma City would be inappropriate. In my opinion this is one of the greatest images ever taken.

What about joeseph's picture (above) of the burning hatchback. That is a good picture. Would it no longer be good if I told you there actually was a person in that car? It certainally would change the emotion of the picture.

What about the 1963 pictures of the monks burning themselves to death in the streets of Siagon? Or the pictures I see of mothers and fathers crying at the funerals of their children who died in Iraq?

I would have taken the picture of the man at the grave site and I would not feel ashamed of my actions. But I think I would have regrets if I snapped a picture of a man in quicksand with his hand outstretched to me.

[shakin360]

This is an interesting thread. I am intrigued by the idea expressed by some here that the tastefulness of a photograph is somehow proportional to the pain and anguish of the subject.

By this standard the picture of the fireman carrying the baby from the wreckage of the federal building in Oklanhoma City would be inappropriate. In my opinion this is one of the greatest images ever taken.

What about joeseph's picture (above) of the burning hatchback. That is a good picture. Would it no longer be good if I told you there actually was a person in that car? It certainally would change the emotion of the picture.

What about the 1963 pictures of the monks burning themselves to death in the streets of Siagon? Or the pictures I see of mothers and fathers crying at the funerals of their children who died in Iraq?

I would have taken the picture of the man at the grave site and I would not feel ashamed of my actions. But I think I would have regrets if I snapped a picture of a man in quicksand with his hand outstretched to me.


I completely agree with this statement.

In highschool I was hurt playing football (american), bad enough that I was taken off the field on a stretcher and into an ambulance. My parents stopped videotaping when they found out it was me. Afterwards, I was little upset that they stopped. I really would have liked to see the whole scene unfold. Also some nice close up pics would have been great! :-)