Question, Sir/ Madame--Shoul we take this kind of Photo ?

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
sanj said:
I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise.
You and I are on different continents of thought, then: by this logic, anyone can proclaim himself a "photographer" and photograph anything under any conditions, without regard to its effects on the subjects of the photos. Actions have consequences: photographers cannot step outside this reality, and aesthetics do not supersede kindness.
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
Hjalmarg1 said:
Brooklyn161 said:
If it is art, documentation or an accident and there is no intent of malice, then I see no ethical issue with it. -E-
+1, good answer. In Germany may be illegal to shoot one person but it's allowed to take the same person in a context where other individuals are present in the frame.
Not a bad rule.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,219
82
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise.
You and I are on different continents of thought, then: by this logic, anyone can proclaim himself a "photographer" and photograph anything under any conditions, without regard to its effects on the subjects of the photos. Actions have consequences: photographers cannot step outside this reality, and aesthetics do not supersede kindness.
Let me modify my comment: I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise as long as it does not DIRECTLY hurt anyone.

I expect of me, and other photographers to document the world uncensored for all to see. It could be war, sports, events, assassinations or poverty. If photographers censored themselves, we would not be able to see some other the shocking images of our past.
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
sanj said:
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise.
You and I are on different continents of thought, then: by this logic, anyone can proclaim himself a "photographer" and photograph anything under any conditions, without regard to its effects on the subjects of the photos. Actions have consequences: photographers cannot step outside this reality, and aesthetics do not supersede kindness.
Let me modify my comment: I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise as long as it does not DIRECTLY hurt anyone.

I expect of me, and other photographers to document the world uncensored for all to see. It could be war, sports, events, assassinations or poverty. If photographers censored themselves, we would not be able to see some other the shocking images of our past.
Ah, I see. I tend to take it one or two steps further: before I photograph someone (as an individual, not as an incidental part of a larger scene) I ask myself if my photograph benefits or harms the subject. If it benefits the subject then it's OK. If it harms the subject (including harm to personal dignity) then I need to ask myself if the real-world benefit to humanity makes up for that. I try to be modest about the effects my photographs will have on others, so in almost all cases the answer is no.

Censorship and ethical restraint are not two sides of the same coin. I agree with you regarding censorship, including self-censorship, but I try not to fool myself that my photographs are any kind of social documentation. If I were present at some important event, and I were in position to document it you can be sure the shutter would be clicking.
 

lion rock

EOR R
Jan 1, 2013
1,920
37
There are major considerations these days.
After 9-11, people are more concerned with "privacy", and they don't want you to take photographs whether it is in public or not. People are afraid, also, that you could use these photos to plan for bad deeds. It is not a legality question nor a morality issue.. It is just plain old fear.
On the subject of morality, taking photos of underage persons, male or female, will raise the flag of (1) privacy, (b) "obscenity" even if it is not nudity. Even baby pictures (unclothed) taken by parents are a taboo.
In this era of "politically correctness", "privacy" or "morality", a lot of our normal behavior is censored. Legality is taken back a step.
Now, I don't feel comfortable taking street photos in this country (the US), unless I'm in a tourist city. I could do so locally if I was with a group of photographers who are doing the same. I feel perfectly comfortable shooting local scene or street photos in a foreign country as a tourist. And with the 5D3, only one image is erased (my .jpg) in one of the cards while the RAW in the second is not. If asked not to photograph, I would just say, "Ok., I'll erase it ..." No harm done to them or me, ;)
-r
 
May 8, 2013
1,853
1
lion rock said:
And with the 5D3, only one image is erased (my .jpg) in one of the cards while the RAW in the second is not. If asked not to photograph, I would just say, "Ok., I'll erase it ..." No harm done to them or me, ;)
-r
If your plan involves deceiving someone, would that not be a hint you may be doing something unethical?

No harm done to them or me... except that you lied.
 

takesome1

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
98
Licking, Missouri
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise.
You and I are on different continents of thought, then: by this logic, anyone can proclaim himself a "photographer" and photograph anything under any conditions, without regard to its effects on the subjects of the photos. Actions have consequences: photographers cannot step outside this reality, and aesthetics do not supersede kindness.
Let me modify my comment: I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise as long as it does not DIRECTLY hurt anyone.

I expect of me, and other photographers to document the world uncensored for all to see. It could be war, sports, events, assassinations or poverty. If photographers censored themselves, we would not be able to see some other the shocking images of our past.
Ah, I see. I tend to take it one or two steps further: before I photograph someone (as an individual, not as an incidental part of a larger scene) I ask myself if my photograph benefits or harms the subject. If it benefits the subject then it's OK. If it harms the subject (including harm to personal dignity) then I need to ask myself if the real-world benefit to humanity makes up for that. I try to be modest about the effects my photographs will have on others, so in almost all cases the answer is no.

Censorship and ethical restraint are not two sides of the same coin. I agree with you regarding censorship, including self-censorship, but I try not to fool myself that my photographs are any kind of social documentation. If I were present at some important event, and I were in position to document it you can be sure the shutter would be clicking.
Faced with a natural disaster that people died. Seeing the devestation and being involved in it first hand. Knowing people had lost their homes, valuables and life. Being able to be their first hand as some struggled to survive or were devastated emotionally because of their loss. Having my camera gear at hand. Knowing that news organizations that were paid and were on the scene documenting everything.

With all this I looked at my camera and saw I was in the prime spot to document this, I choose not to. I do not regret the decision. I know I wouldn't want people taking pictures of my pain and suffering. People in this situation are seldom in a position to be asked if they can be photographed by the press. Their lives are put on display by the news media because the world needs to see, and in some ways that is beneficial.

Over the next few weeks the sight seers starting showing up, blocking traffic on the interstate they would slow to take pictures. A few times coming home I would pull along side of them and go the same speed they were going to block their view. These people weren't involved and taking pictures for of the disaster for their personal amusement.

So if some important event happens, if it doesn't involve taking pictures of people suffering, I would be taking pictures.
People hurting, in pain, loosing their lives and emotionally devastated. I do not pick the camera up.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,183
1,745
Canada
takesome1 said:
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise.
You and I are on different continents of thought, then: by this logic, anyone can proclaim himself a "photographer" and photograph anything under any conditions, without regard to its effects on the subjects of the photos. Actions have consequences: photographers cannot step outside this reality, and aesthetics do not supersede kindness.
Let me modify my comment: I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise as long as it does not DIRECTLY hurt anyone.

I expect of me, and other photographers to document the world uncensored for all to see. It could be war, sports, events, assassinations or poverty. If photographers censored themselves, we would not be able to see some other the shocking images of our past.
Ah, I see. I tend to take it one or two steps further: before I photograph someone (as an individual, not as an incidental part of a larger scene) I ask myself if my photograph benefits or harms the subject. If it benefits the subject then it's OK. If it harms the subject (including harm to personal dignity) then I need to ask myself if the real-world benefit to humanity makes up for that. I try to be modest about the effects my photographs will have on others, so in almost all cases the answer is no.

Censorship and ethical restraint are not two sides of the same coin. I agree with you regarding censorship, including self-censorship, but I try not to fool myself that my photographs are any kind of social documentation. If I were present at some important event, and I were in position to document it you can be sure the shutter would be clicking.
Faced with a natural disaster that people died. Seeing the devestation and being involved in it first hand. Knowing people had lost their homes, valuables and life. Being able to be their first hand as some struggled to survive or were devastated emotionally because of their loss. Having my camera gear at hand. Knowing that news organizations that were paid and were on the scene documenting everything.

With all this I looked at my camera and saw I was in the prime spot to document this, I choose not to. I do not regret the decision. I know I wouldn't want people taking pictures of my pain and suffering. People in this situation are seldom in a position to be asked if they can be photographed by the press. Their lives are put on display by the news media because the world needs to see, and in some ways that is beneficial.

Over the next few weeks the sight seers starting showing up, blocking traffic on the interstate they would slow to take pictures. A few times coming home I would pull along side of them and go the same speed they were going to block their view. These people weren't involved and taking pictures for of the disaster for their personal amusement.

So if some important event happens, if it doesn't involve taking pictures of people suffering, I would be taking pictures.
People hurting, in pain, loosing their lives and emotionally devastated. I do not pick the camera up.
Having taken part in a local triathlon, where my responsibility was to get pictures of the swimmers, I noticed that one of the swimmers was having troubles. I put the camera down, paddled over to check on her, and she grabbed onto the kayak and said "thank you" several times. It took several minutes to get the attention of the safety boat to pick her up, and by the time it was done, it was too late to catch the rest of the swimmers and continue shooting.

I paddled over to landing area, waited for things to calm down and all the bikes to depart, and then pulled up on shore to unload and put the kayak on the car. I was met buy the lady's husband who picked me up with a bearhug (I am NOT a tiny person) and then thanked me. Later, the organizer said something about how much they would have liked more pictures, but that they were even happier I helped the lady. (drowned swimmers are very bad publicity)

The moral of the story is, ALWAYS put your camera away when you have a choice of taking pictures or doing the right thing.
 

lion rock

EOR R
Jan 1, 2013
1,920
37
Yes, it is a lie.
I have not taken photos of people that may be in distress or distaste. Just once being confronted while taking a photo in front of a restaurant with large window and a colorful sign which was the object of my attention. A patron came out from within and asked what I was doing, if I was taking a photo of them dining. I showed them what I took that barely had a reflection of them near the upper corner of the frame, though I offered to delete the image. I was not pleased because he was not pleasant, and I was not trying to shoot them.
I ended up cropping them out anyway in my photo.
-r

AcutancePhotography said:
lion rock said:
And with the 5D3, only one image is erased (my .jpg) in one of the cards while the RAW in the second is not. If asked not to photograph, I would just say, "Ok., I'll erase it ..." No harm done to them or me, ;)
-r
If your plan involves deceiving someone, would that not be a hint you may be doing something unethical?

No harm done to them or me... except that you lied.
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
Don Haines said:
takesome1 said:
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
Orangutan said:
sanj said:
I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise.
You and I are on different continents of thought, then: by this logic, anyone can proclaim himself a "photographer" and photograph anything under any conditions, without regard to its effects on the subjects of the photos. Actions have consequences: photographers cannot step outside this reality, and aesthetics do not supersede kindness.
Let me modify my comment: I feel that it is unethical for a photographer not to photograph something he/she feels is interesting - visually or content wise as long as it does not DIRECTLY hurt anyone.

I expect of me, and other photographers to document the world uncensored for all to see. It could be war, sports, events, assassinations or poverty. If photographers censored themselves, we would not be able to see some other the shocking images of our past.
Ah, I see. I tend to take it one or two steps further: before I photograph someone (as an individual, not as an incidental part of a larger scene) I ask myself if my photograph benefits or harms the subject. If it benefits the subject then it's OK. If it harms the subject (including harm to personal dignity) then I need to ask myself if the real-world benefit to humanity makes up for that. I try to be modest about the effects my photographs will have on others, so in almost all cases the answer is no.

Censorship and ethical restraint are not two sides of the same coin. I agree with you regarding censorship, including self-censorship, but I try not to fool myself that my photographs are any kind of social documentation. If I were present at some important event, and I were in position to document it you can be sure the shutter would be clicking.
Faced with a natural disaster that people died. Seeing the devestation and being involved in it first hand. Knowing people had lost their homes, valuables and life. Being able to be their first hand as some struggled to survive or were devastated emotionally because of their loss. Having my camera gear at hand. Knowing that news organizations that were paid and were on the scene documenting everything.

With all this I looked at my camera and saw I was in the prime spot to document this, I choose not to. I do not regret the decision. I know I wouldn't want people taking pictures of my pain and suffering. People in this situation are seldom in a position to be asked if they can be photographed by the press. Their lives are put on display by the news media because the world needs to see, and in some ways that is beneficial.

Over the next few weeks the sight seers starting showing up, blocking traffic on the interstate they would slow to take pictures. A few times coming home I would pull along side of them and go the same speed they were going to block their view. These people weren't involved and taking pictures for of the disaster for their personal amusement.

So if some important event happens, if it doesn't involve taking pictures of people suffering, I would be taking pictures.
People hurting, in pain, loosing their lives and emotionally devastated. I do not pick the camera up.
Having taken part in a local triathlon, where my responsibility was to get pictures of the swimmers, I noticed that one of the swimmers was having troubles. I put the camera down, paddled over to check on her, and she grabbed onto the kayak and said "thank you" several times. It took several minutes to get the attention of the safety boat to pick her up, and by the time it was done, it was too late to catch the rest of the swimmers and continue shooting.

I paddled over to landing area, waited for things to calm down and all the bikes to depart, and then pulled up on shore to unload and put the kayak on the car. I was met buy the lady's husband who picked me up with a bearhug (I am NOT a tiny person) and then thanked me. Later, the organizer said something about how much they would have liked more pictures, but that they were even happier I helped the lady. (drowned swimmers are very bad publicity)

The moral of the story is, ALWAYS put your camera away when you have a choice of taking pictures or doing the right thing.
+10

I've never been in either of those situations, but I agree: there are few circumstances where taking pictures is the best choice at the moment. Taking pictures of official misconduct would be one example, assuming I were not in a position to intervene.