I think, at the end of the day, a PJ has a job to do.
I'm not a PJ, but I understand the detachment - I shoot crime scenes. One has to be detached in order to focus on the task at hand. The last thing I need, when I'm trying to capture every detail of a scene, is to have to deal with my own emotions (that comes later).
They are trying to convey, in one image, what the story is all about. I don't think ethics has anything to do with it. If they staged it or otherwise created something that wasn't, well, that's where ethics becomes a factor. IMHO.
Concede to a complete change of emotion when seeing the second picture, of all the snappers snapping, but then reset myself with the realisation that such a scene was necessary to shed light on what happened and hopefully prevent it happening again.
Now, what's perhaps more unethical, is that as far as I know physics, objects containing glass held by someone at arm height don't fall and land in a nice tidy way like that. I'm more disturbed by the prospect that someone moved her body and/or the picture frames to stage the shot. Not saying they absolutely did, but it does look a bit convenient.
@jinximages (I don't know what it means and why people say "jinx" when someone says the same thing as them but in this situation it carries an extra amusement dimension! :p )
@jinximages@eyebrows@indiannie_jones The first pic is haunting, and a great example of photo journalism. The detachment we see in the second pic, gives me pause, but there was really nothing these guys could do to help her. On the other hand, they do look like vultures....
Why do you all think the second journalist felt compelled to turn his camera on the other photographers?
I fuly believe photos like this MUST be taken, and available to the public. We can then choose to view or not.
But strangely i found myself having pangs of emotion tugging at me two friday nights ago... emotion won
Very late in the evening as i was drifting off to sleep we awoke to someone laying massive rubber in our small narrow winding street, which after he took off down a ways, landing the drunken idiot steering wheel to the chin/chest up against a tree two houses past ours :-\
Now no way did i get close to view the nastiness ... but from our 50m viewpoint i so desperately wanted to get my camera ... not to photograph the pain and suffering, 'cause boy did he suffer for the next 90mins while they shredded his car to cut him out, but WOW it was just such an impressive scene of flashing lights, multiple flood lamps and masses of emergency crews scrambling around in what is seriously a tiny sreet.
So no i didnt take a photo, still wish i'd had the guts to though.
Really, we have to applaud the ones who do ... i'm sure it is hard, but so necessary.
It doesnt bother me at all actually. They have a job like most people do, there's a job for everyone in this world. And if you put yourself in their shoes and think of the sights, the smells, the bits they DON'T photograph or publish... these people HAVE to maintain a certain detachment in order to get the job done.
The world can be so quick to criticize what they don't know or understand :-\
@jinximages@eyebrows - you two are rather funny @eyebrows - now you've got me thinking about those framed pictures @smapp - yes why did they take a photo of the other PJs?
Every image can't be a shot of a pretty flower, a happy child, or "the water drop" shot. This is life as it is seen. Life isn't always a happy ending.
This may sound rude, but perhaps it will remind kids and adults to understand that there are consequences for your actions, and that the Play Station reset button does not give you more lives.
People used to imprisoned for life for stealing a loaf of bread, so they could eat.
Sad, yes. And this, folks, is reality. Not the reality that is mashed into an hour long show with a million dollar prize at the end of the season.
> Why do you all think the second journalist felt compelled to turn his camera on the other photographers?
Because, if we're going to be using the term "vulture", he's the biggest one of the lot of them. And/or really rather cynical. He's exploiting the situation every bit as much as they are, but in the (possible) suggestion that he's "exposing" some hitherto unrealised (and, really, non-existent, and/or entirely inherent) "unethical" side to photojournalism, doing so even more and to a worse extent than they are.
@smapp haha, possibly, but I do think it's a rather deliberate attempt to make a statement. One that, whilst interesting to make, will only be perceived "wrongly" by most who'd see it. Such as "oh those wretched journalists, look at them, have they no emotion?!!?" which would stir/create anti-photographer sentiments and really not be good for anyone.
That's not to say he shouldn't do it, just I can see more negative consequences to it than positive.
Heh, well there we go, it was staged. Fair enough, the event happened, and the fact it happened needed to be sent out (via the medium of photography), but posing the dead girl and the items which cost her her life for a nice poignant shot is a far nastier thing than his shot of the other "vultures" going about their duty, if you ask me.
@kjarn mentioning you just to clear up your wondering. The second link of Slater's just above this is of some people posing her, so it's there if you want to see.
@moncooga, i agree completely with you. This is photojournalism and it's his job to portay a story through photography. Also these photos are stunning, moving and completely real. We shouldn't hide our world from reality.
Oh man.. they're only doing a job. Loads of jobs require you to be emotionally detached from things, but some more than others, and some more obviously than others.
If she's already dead then they can't help her, it's a simple as that, imho. I would guess that if any of those photographers would choose getting a good shot *over* helping someone they could help, then *that* would be unethical.
If you were a PJ and you were taking photos somewhere and you saw something terrible happening, like a child drowning, or someone about to get shot, or someone trying to escape a burning building .. and there was nobody around to help but you, would you try to help, or would you take a photo? If those photographers had seen something bad happening, but by the time they had set up their shot and taken a few, someone had died, when the PJ could have prevented it, *then* we'd be saying "What went wrong?" "why do these people have so few morals?" "why didn't they help?" Personally, I see nothing unethical about those photos.
I am, however, in agreement with Mr @eyebrows - if they did pose the girl for the shot, it does seem a bit crazy and wrong. What happened to having respect for the dead? Especially someone whose life was cut short so needlessly.
Having said that, I suppose that taking photos of a dead person isn't exactly having respect for them.. so maybe I just cancelled out my entire argument back there. But I do think that, although it may be a bit disrespectful, it serves a greater purpose; spreading the message to the rest of the world, who wouldn't have known about this otherwise.
@kjarn Also, I just assumed Mr @eyebrows was right and knew what he was talking about - not too sure why though. Ah well, that won't be happening again.. :P
The point of this post was to debate and then it became something to research, so that we were not jumping to conclusions. (Which is what the process of viewing art is all about ,right?) I think that both photographs raise important questions including " What would you do?"
I ask this fully aware that PJs and amateurs are different creatures. Still...
I like the irony...I think they should merge the 2 shots then add the caption :
"15 year old shot dead by police....and then several more times by photographers"
Sorry, I know this shouldn't be a laughing matter, but ethical or not, I like shots that make you think about where they come from!
@eyebrows --- Hmmmm ..... I'd turn the camera on the photographers too! To me, the picture of the photographers speaks volumes. It's a study of human nature. I would take a photo of the girl but not show her face. I like the term "vulture" because it is right to the point on what is happening. Interesting, I would never put myself into that catagory. Posing a dead body is unfathomable and crosses decency boundries as well as changing the true story. Isn't the truth what they are photographing or are they mere papparazzi? Looking for the sensational because in reality that's what draws people. Hmmm ....
I think the ethics of taking the photo aren't even worth debating to be honest. Bad things happen and it's better to be aware of them. The journalists do a good job.
I think the article is a bit unkind to journalists to judge them as detached. What enables you to do the job is professionalism, who knows the impact the scene has on the photographers, they will get plenty of time to mull it over later, reviewing the shots in some unfamiliar corner of the world far from home...
I think a more poignant angle of debate is, why is the 2nd photo more insidious to some? Both the author of the article as well as a number of 365’ers commenting in this thread have indicated that they considered the 1st shot acceptable photo-journalism but that the 2nd shot made them uneasy and came off as exploitative. Everyone seems to be in consensus that there is nothing unethical about (true, i.e. non-staged) photo-journalism. Yet a shot of what that looks like ‘behind the scenes’, so to speak, to accomplish that photo-journalism is bothersome to some. I think it speaks to the voyeuristic nature of humans. We want to watch/see/know, but we don’t want to be exposed for it and/or have to admit it.
@smapp In regards to the why of the second image - I see it as no different to the first. It tells a story. A story easily misinterpreted, perhaps, but then one has to consider the intended audience. Was it taken for other PJ's, to showcase that "behind the scenes" aspect? Was it intended (though I think not) to show PJ's in a bad light? The only thing that jarred me was that the first image gives the impression of relative isolation, and the second shows just how crowded it was - this surprised me, and made me wonder how so many photographers managed to find that story so quickly. It could be argued that the body was there for several hours already, but (in my experience) it looks to be very recent. I think there's something interesting in that.
@katiegc24 Let me caveat this by saying that I agree with your post. The point I want to make is that it is very easy for people to criticize a photographer for a decision they made in a moment, or to even go so far as calling a photographer heartless for taking a photo "instead of helping." Cases in point:
This photographer, Kevin Carter, was criticized for taking this photo instead of helping the girl. What is left out is that he did help her, immediately after taking the photo (in his own account at least - in another the bird flew away and the girl was never in danger from it). Had he not taken it, the story would not have been told, and many people would not have been woken up to the fact of what was occurring. Such a dramatic image, that burns into one's mind like that, has a great potential to draw much needed help to the area or situation.
Another one, but I won't link the image here, was a photograph taken of a group of men about to kill two men (again in Africa) with knives, sticks etc. There were two photojournalists present - one would not take pictures of it, but the other did (and won awards for it). Again, a story was told because a PJ used his camera to record it. Could he have stopped the killings? No. He would have died had he tried. But his photographs have the potential to help prevent more of them by raising awareness. I do not think it is fair to say a PJ should "try to stop someone from being shot instead of taking a picure" when the reality is that they are just a person with a camera - they are no more able than anyone else to stop a violent act without putting themselves in harm's way. There are people who will do such things, but most people won't pu themselves in danger for someone they don't know, and who can blame them? That's not to say there aren't situations where they could help instead of taking pictures, but often the pictures may save more lives. I think it is important for those photographs to be taken, and seen by the world.
@jinximages Agreed - if all that would have happened is that the photographer would have got hurt or killed too then there is little point in criticising them from their decision. But I *do* think that, regardless of whether or not it is your job, regardless of awards, or getting 'the shot of a lifetime' or whatever, there is something wrong when a human being makes a conscious decision to prioritise recording a moment on camera, over saving the life of another human being. Obviously it all depends on circumstances - no two situations are the same, and it is just down to common sense and a sense of moral obligation on the part of the photographer which is more important. :)
@jinximages@eyebrows@indiannie_jones@taidster@kjarn@moncooga@kellyjo26@katiegc24@tx_mendoza@dmortega@ukcam@tkallen I am continually impressed with they way so many folks on 365 can engage in civil discourse about heated topics and with such different opinions. Thank you for participating in this discussion. You have helped me figure out how I feel about this particular issue of ethics in photography.
Photography can be very tricky because it gives the appearence of being so real and therefore "true." This can be confusing to some who just assume every thing they see is real and true. As we know though photography is a much more plastic medium. Moving a little to the right, or changing the framing can give you completely different picture, a different "truth."
What is our responsibility as photographers? Is it to the truth? To our jobs, our art? To our fellow man? Ultimately these are questions that we must answer for ourselves. I do know that what we feel reponsiblity towards, informs who we are are photographers.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I'm not a PJ, but I understand the detachment - I shoot crime scenes. One has to be detached in order to focus on the task at hand. The last thing I need, when I'm trying to capture every detail of a scene, is to have to deal with my own emotions (that comes later).
They are trying to convey, in one image, what the story is all about. I don't think ethics has anything to do with it. If they staged it or otherwise created something that wasn't, well, that's where ethics becomes a factor. IMHO.
Now, what's perhaps more unethical, is that as far as I know physics, objects containing glass held by someone at arm height don't fall and land in a nice tidy way like that. I'm more disturbed by the prospect that someone moved her body and/or the picture frames to stage the shot. Not saying they absolutely did, but it does look a bit convenient.
Why do you all think the second journalist felt compelled to turn his camera on the other photographers?
But strangely i found myself having pangs of emotion tugging at me two friday nights ago... emotion won
Very late in the evening as i was drifting off to sleep we awoke to someone laying massive rubber in our small narrow winding street, which after he took off down a ways, landing the drunken idiot steering wheel to the chin/chest up against a tree two houses past ours :-\
Now no way did i get close to view the nastiness ... but from our 50m viewpoint i so desperately wanted to get my camera ... not to photograph the pain and suffering, 'cause boy did he suffer for the next 90mins while they shredded his car to cut him out, but WOW it was just such an impressive scene of flashing lights, multiple flood lamps and masses of emergency crews scrambling around in what is seriously a tiny sreet.
So no i didnt take a photo, still wish i'd had the guts to though.
Really, we have to applaud the ones who do ... i'm sure it is hard, but so necessary.
:-)
It doesnt bother me at all actually. They have a job like most people do, there's a job for everyone in this world. And if you put yourself in their shoes and think of the sights, the smells, the bits they DON'T photograph or publish... these people HAVE to maintain a certain detachment in order to get the job done.
The world can be so quick to criticize what they don't know or understand :-\
@eyebrows - now you've got me thinking about those framed pictures
@smapp - yes why did they take a photo of the other PJs?
This may sound rude, but perhaps it will remind kids and adults to understand that there are consequences for your actions, and that the Play Station reset button does not give you more lives.
People used to imprisoned for life for stealing a loaf of bread, so they could eat.
Sad, yes. And this, folks, is reality. Not the reality that is mashed into an hour long show with a million dollar prize at the end of the season.
As jinx said, PJ's have a job to do.
> Why do you all think the second journalist felt compelled to turn his camera on the other photographers?
Because, if we're going to be using the term "vulture", he's the biggest one of the lot of them. And/or really rather cynical. He's exploiting the situation every bit as much as they are, but in the (possible) suggestion that he's "exposing" some hitherto unrealised (and, really, non-existent, and/or entirely inherent) "unethical" side to photojournalism, doing so even more and to a worse extent than they are.
That's not to say he shouldn't do it, just I can see more negative consequences to it than positive.
Hey, I wonder what those other photographers thought of his shot?
@kjarn mentioning you just to clear up your wondering. The second link of Slater's just above this is of some people posing her, so it's there if you want to see.
If she's already dead then they can't help her, it's a simple as that, imho. I would guess that if any of those photographers would choose getting a good shot *over* helping someone they could help, then *that* would be unethical.
If you were a PJ and you were taking photos somewhere and you saw something terrible happening, like a child drowning, or someone about to get shot, or someone trying to escape a burning building .. and there was nobody around to help but you, would you try to help, or would you take a photo? If those photographers had seen something bad happening, but by the time they had set up their shot and taken a few, someone had died, when the PJ could have prevented it, *then* we'd be saying "What went wrong?" "why do these people have so few morals?" "why didn't they help?" Personally, I see nothing unethical about those photos.
I am, however, in agreement with Mr @eyebrows - if they did pose the girl for the shot, it does seem a bit crazy and wrong. What happened to having respect for the dead? Especially someone whose life was cut short so needlessly.
Having said that, I suppose that taking photos of a dead person isn't exactly having respect for them.. so maybe I just cancelled out my entire argument back there. But I do think that, although it may be a bit disrespectful, it serves a greater purpose; spreading the message to the rest of the world, who wouldn't have known about this otherwise.
Hrm. That all made sense in my head. :/
I ask this fully aware that PJs and amateurs are different creatures. Still...
"15 year old shot dead by police....and then several more times by photographers"
Sorry, I know this shouldn't be a laughing matter, but ethical or not, I like shots that make you think about where they come from!
I think the article is a bit unkind to journalists to judge them as detached. What enables you to do the job is professionalism, who knows the impact the scene has on the photographers, they will get plenty of time to mull it over later, reviewing the shots in some unfamiliar corner of the world far from home...
@katiegc24 Let me caveat this by saying that I agree with your post. The point I want to make is that it is very easy for people to criticize a photographer for a decision they made in a moment, or to even go so far as calling a photographer heartless for taking a photo "instead of helping." Cases in point:
http://randomsalt.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/blurb200_lg.jpg
This photographer, Kevin Carter, was criticized for taking this photo instead of helping the girl. What is left out is that he did help her, immediately after taking the photo (in his own account at least - in another the bird flew away and the girl was never in danger from it). Had he not taken it, the story would not have been told, and many people would not have been woken up to the fact of what was occurring. Such a dramatic image, that burns into one's mind like that, has a great potential to draw much needed help to the area or situation.
Another one, but I won't link the image here, was a photograph taken of a group of men about to kill two men (again in Africa) with knives, sticks etc. There were two photojournalists present - one would not take pictures of it, but the other did (and won awards for it). Again, a story was told because a PJ used his camera to record it. Could he have stopped the killings? No. He would have died had he tried. But his photographs have the potential to help prevent more of them by raising awareness. I do not think it is fair to say a PJ should "try to stop someone from being shot instead of taking a picure" when the reality is that they are just a person with a camera - they are no more able than anyone else to stop a violent act without putting themselves in harm's way. There are people who will do such things, but most people won't pu themselves in danger for someone they don't know, and who can blame them? That's not to say there aren't situations where they could help instead of taking pictures, but often the pictures may save more lives. I think it is important for those photographs to be taken, and seen by the world.
Photography can be very tricky because it gives the appearence of being so real and therefore "true." This can be confusing to some who just assume every thing they see is real and true. As we know though photography is a much more plastic medium. Moving a little to the right, or changing the framing can give you completely different picture, a different "truth."
What is our responsibility as photographers? Is it to the truth? To our jobs, our art? To our fellow man? Ultimately these are questions that we must answer for ourselves. I do know that what we feel reponsiblity towards, informs who we are are photographers.