Things you cannot photograph [Archive]

SolaresLarrave

04-02-2008, 10:27

People who do not look good in that particular moment, like people eating, crying or in distresss... unless I were a photojournalist and wanted to make a point. But as an amateur, I prefer to shy away from photographing people if the prints would bring back sad memories or would make them look unattractive or simply bad.

Otherwise... what else? :confused:

bmattock

04-02-2008, 10:30

Hi, is there any things you cannot make a picture from? Out of personal deontology etc.
For me : people kissing, people suffering, children (for safety reasons mostly, but that has been discussed before).

I think that is the first time I've ever seen the word 'deontology' used in a sentence with regard to photography!

If what you are asking is if there are scenes I will choose not to photograph out of a sense of ethics, the answer is probably none. I would photograph anything that can be photographed if my job required it or if the situation called for it, and assuming it was legal.

However, there are scenes I choose not to photograph, because I do not choose to photograph them. Scenes such as the ones you describe come to mind, as well as accident and crime scenes, results of war, and so on. But this is not because I feel it would be 'wrong' to photograph them. I just don't want to. If it were my job, I'd do it.

ibcrewin

04-02-2008, 10:39

Apparently "the president" of the current U.S. Government is one of them...

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=70207

Hultstrom

04-02-2008, 10:41

Hello Stéphane,

Here I was, thinking we were going on a philosophical escapade.

1st photographer: You cannot photograph the smell of spring flowers.

2nd photographer: Oh, but you can. When you capture a brilliant photograph your audience will associate it with the smell... etc.

But no. We weren't going to discuss logic and the essence of photography. We were going to discuss ethics. Personally I am not a fan of deontology or the ethics of duty, and in this case it gets really obscure. If you have a duty not to photograph people kissing or children can you then photograph a wedding? Not to mention suffering, where would photojournalism go and what about documentary photography?

The teleological discussion brings us further. You may photograph your brother kissing his wife at their wedding. You may also photograph the flower girls, because it is what they want and everyone will be happy with you having taken the pictures. Maybe you should not take pictures of unknown children bathing with a telephoto lens because their parents may take offence. It may very well be alright to photograph children playing at the local playground where your children also play, or that kid yelling "Take my picture! Take my picture!" at the top of his lungs, because it will be appreciated.

For me there is no model, object or scene that you have a duty not to photograph, but there are situations where the effects of taking a photograph may make you abstain.

Yours,

Michael

oscroft

04-02-2008, 10:44

"Deontology" always sounds to me like it should mean something to do with teeth.

From a purely personal and amateur position, I think I would have ethical difficulties photographing people in distressed conditions (as has been suggested). Fortunately this has never been tested, because on the very rare occasions I've encountered such a situation when I've had a camera with me, I simply didn't think of taking photographs.

erikhaugsby

04-02-2008, 10:46

Apparently "the president" of the current U.S. Government is one of them...

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=70207
I don't think it was President Bush that the Secret Service didn't want pictures of, but rather the security checkpoints.
After all, if the terrorists can see what the checkpoints look like, it's an obvious natural progression that they can use their terroristic intellect to be able to get through the checkpoints with ease! :bang::bang:

bmattock

04-02-2008, 10:57

Apparently "the president" of the current U.S. Government is one of them...

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=70207

A most excellent news story about the ongoing struggle for photographer's rights, but I don't think it has much to do with a discussion of what one might choose not to photograph because they felt it unethical (deontological).

swoop

04-02-2008, 11:05

Cemetaries. I won't photograph them, I refuse.

Al Patterson

04-02-2008, 11:17

Apparently "the president" of the current U.S. Government is one of them...

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=70207

Your reading comprehension needs work. It was the security measures in place, not the individual in question.

mmikaoj

04-02-2008, 11:32

I think that you should be able to photograph everything that you allow yourself to look at. It is how and if you chose to show the photos afterwards that really matters.

For example, a man is vomiting in a street corner. If I can stand to watch him, and not feel "embarresed" by doing so and other people seeing that I am watching, I should also be able to photograph him.
In my opinion it isnt more perverse or voyeuristic to photograph as opposed to just watching.

Now I might not take that photo if I think that the man vomiting might see me doing so and take offence. Also I would think twice about who and how and IF I ever show the photo to someone / have it published.

Always take the photo If you can manage yourself, after all thats what we do as photographers. Other people watch, we watch and make pictures.

Ming The Merciless

04-02-2008, 11:42

I don't photograph the homeless. Nor do I photograph persons who are eating or asleep (especially with their mouth open.) Persons in wheelchairs I would likely not photograph.

williams473

04-02-2008, 11:45

No, there is nothing in this world that a good photogrpah cannot be made from, because photos are an abstraction of the thing(s) being photographed - not the thing itself. In the end all you have are silver halides fixed on paper in patterns, lines, textures and shades of grey that together, approximate things we recognize from real life. It's not the thing - it's a photograph of the thing.

Athos6

04-02-2008, 12:36

The Federal building in downtown Seattle.... Learned that one personally, trying to photograph a Noguchi sculpture. Likely you can't photograph federal buildings at all. I've also found that shooting pictures in a public bathroom is frowned upon :) JK JK

Pherdinand

04-02-2008, 12:37

Since i got a camera with a self-timer, i can photograph everything i ever wanted to photograph! :D

bmattock

04-02-2008, 12:55

Larky

04-02-2008, 13:07

I don't photograph anything that feels wrong at the time. What that is will change randomly depending upon how I feel at the time. In Cuba I found I couldn't shoot certain scenes because the people in questions looked so damned fed up with sitting on a crappy chair with nothing to do all day. I missed the shot of the year because the lady in question, along with her two kids, looked so sad.

But, I don't have anything specific I wont shoot for ethical reasons.

robridge

04-02-2008, 13:15

Since the majority of UK police forces seem to think that all amateur photographers are potential terrorists there is much I would like to photograph but cannot. There are some things that I would not photograph simply because they are either not worthy of a frame of film or because it would feel uncomfortable or obtrusive so to do. I would stress that I don't think the same rules could ever apply to professionals - they have to remain objective and dispassionate in order to survive.

bmattock

04-02-2008, 13:21

tvagi

04-02-2008, 13:48

i don't think there is something u cannot photograph!
it would be like saying there is something u cannot look at!
when we are taking a picture we capture the moment,something interesting or even shocking!that is what our brain does!our brain is the "film" and our eyes the "lens".

robridge

04-02-2008, 13:54

I spent three years at university, then another two postgraduate years wrestling with it - the reply was intended to be facetious (you know the sort of thing - maybe appeal to those who have a sense of humour - I will leave you to look that one up).

Silva Lining

04-02-2008, 15:13

This is a difficult question and whilst it is possible to derive deontological ethics that would govern actions of a photographer, they would surely differ based upon the personal and cultural values of that individual.

Personally I thought that I would suggest that a duty of beneficence would prohibit me taking a photo of someone or some event where it would be more important to intervene to prevent harm to another - (e.g. if you are standing outside a burning house, with a ladder in the garden, do you you take a picture of the soon to be victims, or do you scurry up the ladder a help them to safety? I think most people would eschew the photograph.) This premise and example appear to be sound and maybe even could be universally accepted until, with slight lateral adjustment in scenario you consider the pictures of the protester standing in front of a tank in Tienanmen Square, the Vietcong prisoner about to be shot... does the impact of the publication of these pictures have more benefit than would have been gained by intervening to save that individual (or at least remove them from hams way) One of course has to consider the practicality and feasibility of intervention. If we accept the notion that in some cases taking the picture can be 'for the greater good' we come to the paradox of deontological ethics, in acting in the interests of the majority we comprise or deny the rights of the individual, which, by definition comprises the rights of the majority as a collection of individuals.......

Personally I would say that I would not photograph a situation here it was clear that my actions or inaction would lead to harm to the person or persons I was to photograph...

phew...:)

bmattock

04-02-2008, 15:21

Personally I would say that I would not photograph a situation here it was clear that my actions or inaction would lead to harm to the person or persons I was to photograph...

phew...:)

Isn't that the First Law of Robotics?

Just kidding - great examples.

I was thinking in terms of war correspondents. Some have walked among friend and foe alike - taking photos. To take up arms, even to save a life, would at the very least, end one's ability to ever report both sides of a story again. To drag an injured soldier to safety - a difficult decision (well, I would do it, but then I'm not a war correspondent), perhaps less so if there were no other person present who could do it.

Think of contrast/comparison to Red Cross personnel and clergy in a war zone. They likewise are prevented from taking up arms, even to defend a life or lives. Some have crossed that line - and been celebrated for it. But they put at risk the 'neutrality' presumed among other members of their own coterie, possibly putting many more in danger in the long run.

Hmmm...

Dektol Dan

04-02-2008, 15:45

One can niether photograph, nor lift a fart.

bmattock

04-02-2008, 15:48

One can niether photograph, nor lift a fart.

I suggest you examine your driver's license.

Bob Michaels

04-02-2008, 15:55

Hi, is there any things you cannot make a picture from? Out of personal deontology etc.

In a word, No!

There have been occasions where I chose not to do so but I may make a different decision if they happened again.

Nh3

04-02-2008, 16:11

Being a Neitzschean at heart I photograph what will make a good photograph. :)

"Whats good for me is good in itself."

mwooten

04-02-2008, 16:19

I have on occasion chosen not to photograph some people. The one time that I remember best was this past summer. Each Friday, I would take my mother to the downtown location of Starbucks to celebrate a week of treatments. We were sitting outside enjoying our coffees, and there was a fellow sitting inside the store. He was a ragged looking fellow and seemed a bit touched. The cops came into the store and took him outside, in front of our the table. My bag was sitting on the table, and I thought this might make an interesting shot -- cops hassle homeless fellow. Then I thought a little more and felt it just wouldn't be right.
I wouldn't want someone to photograph me in the same sort of situation.

Joe

04-02-2008, 16:33

Hi, is there any things you cannot make a picture from? Out of personal deontology etc.
For me : people kissing, people suffering, children (for safety reasons mostly, but that has been discussed before).

Well it's a good thing you're not Eisenstadt(kissing), Sally Mann or Diane Arbus(children), Don McCullin or Weegee(suffering, kissing, or children).

Empty doorways are a safe bet. You'll be sure to get into heaven;).

edrodgers731

04-03-2008, 05:20

I had a long discussion with a non-photographer last weekend about this very topic.

I was talking about how often I was harassed or kicked out for taking photos in public, or semi-public places.

She was of the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to take pictures of strangers because it's weird, creepy, and very unethical.

My argument was that If it's fine to look, it's fine to photograph. As long as it's lawful, I will maintain my right to do so.

That said, there are plenty of times that I do not photograph people (or sometimes property) for fear of ticking someone off, making them feel uneasy, or if my intentions may be construed as evil.

I photographed a surprise wedding recently, and before the surprise was sprung, I had to pretend to be an out-of-town relative. It was creepy for me and everyone else as I was going around photographing people I didn't know. I received plenty of "looks".

As soon as the ceremony started though.. Bang! I'm a professional photographer. Everything changed and I could shoot anything at all and nobody thought it was strange.

So, I suppose that if it were understood by my subjects that I have some reason for photographing them, I have no problem. If they think I'm taking pictures of them for no reason, they are uncomfortable, and then so am I.

denkrahm

04-03-2008, 07:40

In my opinion taking a picture and publishing/using a picture are two seperate things. Can taking a photograph or reclinig to do so, be an ethical duty? Publishing the picture is something else. We also need to take care not to mix the act of taking a picture and the (immoral) act that is being pictured.
Is pressing the shutter something that can be called ethical? I don't know.

Silva Lining

04-03-2008, 08:00

Isn't that the First Law of Robotics?

Heh, Yes, yes it is...I seem to recall Asimov considered much of his science fiction from a socio-philosophical point of view, espeicllay the foundation series (Although it's 20 years since I read them...)

Just kidding - great examples.

I was thinking in terms of war correspondents. Some have walked among friend and foe alike - taking photos. To take up arms, even to save a life, would at the very least, end one's ability to ever report both sides of a story again. To drag an injured soldier to safety - a difficult decision (well, I would do it, but then I'm not a war correspondent), perhaps less so if there were no other person present who could do it.

Think of contrast/comparison to Red Cross personnel and clergy in a war zone. They likewise are prevented from taking up arms, even to defend a life or lives. Some have crossed that line - and been celebrated for it. But they put at risk the 'neutrality' presumed among other members of their own coterie, possibly putting many more in danger in the long run.

Hmmm...

Great examples - In the medical or religious case one could argue that those that medicate or minster in such testing conditions are doing so through a calling which, to them, is the prime determinant of their ethics and morals. For them perhaps such ethics are codified in a holy book or medical oath and these form the basis of the deontological framework.

I wonder if the same could be applied to a war correspondent/photographer, in as much as the strength of character and resolve to do that job is no less, but without the religious or medical philosophy what drives it?

kuzano

04-03-2008, 08:05

Cemetaries. I won't photograph them, I refuse.

While traveling the midwest, I seriously considered the possibility of a "coffee table" book of cemetary's. It's probably been done, but some of the cemetary's and their locations are fascinating, and not in a macabre sort of way.

bmattock

04-03-2008, 08:09

I wonder if the same could be applied to a war correspondent/photographer, in as much as the strength of character and resolve to do that job is no less, but without the religious or medical philosophy what drives it?

Some might argue that the function of a free press in a civil society is one of the highest priorities of liberty, guarantor that information is available to the citizenry, and proof that a given government does not fear sunshine.

Given that the courts have often recognized the power of, and need for, this unelected 'Fourth Estate', I believe this is a strong argument for a 'duty' as described in the traditional deontological debate - perhaps even higher than a medical or clerical duty. After all, it affects not a person, but all persons in a given country.

In other words, it might well mean that one's duty as a press photographer or war correspondent might supersede all other moral obligations, including the common desire to come to the aid of injured fellow human beings.

This does not mean that a press photographer who took photographs of a military attack on our troops while failing to render aid to those nearest by who might be injured would not be subject to criticism - but that he might have a 'higher calling' in the sense of duty to a necessary function of free societies.

Interesting to ponder, isn't it?

Silva Lining

04-03-2008, 08:11

While traveling the midwest, I seriously considered the possibility of a "coffee table" book of cemetary's. It's probably been done, but some of the cemetary's and their locations are fascinating, and not in a macabre sort of way.

I was photographing in one, halfway up Slieve Guillion in Ireland, only last week - Its right and proper to show respect, but old cemetries are indeed facinating....

bmattock

04-03-2008, 08:14

While traveling the midwest, I seriously considered the possibility of a "coffee table" book of cemetary's. It's probably been done, but some of the cemetary's and their locations are fascinating, and not in a macabre sort of way.

I understand entirely. Although I have seen far too many infrared 'goth' photos of cemeteries, I have also lived in the American Southeast, where cemeteries are frequently found on family-owned property in rural areas, and in some cases, in cities.

The town I live in has one such that always struck me - a small chain-link fence next to an auto-glass store, which contains four headstones. The store and fence are modern, the stones appear quite old. I can only presume that the land was formerly rural before the town expanded, and a codicil on the property deed required that the graves be respected and maintained in perpetuity.

1066

04-03-2008, 08:26

I would not photograph patients in a hospital.

BillP

04-03-2008, 08:33

Interesting thread.

I did a project a few years ago on memorials of the roadside variety. It started because there was a spate of RTAs close to where I lived. I recorded about six or seven; some of them were quite poignant. I stopped not because I found it unethical, but because a) I couldn't see what I would do with the body of work and b) it was depressing to me.

In a way, I was making a record of ephemera. None of those memoria are still there.

Regards,

Bill

FallisPhoto

04-03-2008, 08:45

Hi, is there any things you cannot make a picture from? Out of personal deontology etc.
For me : people kissing, people suffering, children (for safety reasons mostly, but that has been discussed before).

Sure. I can think of several. The one that first comes to mind is that, although I do a lot of nude photography, I will not shoot porn. I feel that it does not just degrade the model, but everyone else involved as well.

nikon_sam

04-03-2008, 09:37

Having read everthing up to this point...I would have to say that I have shot many things people here have said they would never shoot...I cannot think of anything right now that I would consider forbidden photography (other than any type of porn)...
Now, having said that, I have walked away from many scenes because at that moment photographing it just wasn't the right thing to do...

Athos6

04-03-2008, 10:10

Well if you want to get technical, there is nothing that I could not photograph. Ethics are used to control behavior and are based on some concept of right vs. wrong. Both of these concepts are abstract and not based on anything real (as in a natural law, such as electromagnetism, or the strong and weak nuclear forces), there is no right force or wrong force. So ethics would play no part in my decision to take a photograph or not, what would affect me is whether or not I was interested in taking a picture at that moment. In the case of things people commonly refer to as "bad," like the burning house example, I would be more interested in saving the people than taking the picture, not because it was right but because I enjoy (the operative word) helping people, and it could benefit me in the future. A less honest person, or a true believer, would claim that they were motivated by what was right, not believing in right/wrong I have to explain my motivations in different (non ethical) terms. My status in society is also important so in other instances I would chose to, say, swim rather than take pictures of semi-clothed teens, etc... So my decision to photograph is based primarily on interest, risk/benefit analysis, legal/illegal, individual rights. Likely my actions conform 100% to the American ethical code, however I can admit it’s not because it’s what I believe is true, but what is needed to participate in society, work/family/fun etc…

swoop

04-03-2008, 10:29

i don't think there is something u cannot photograph!
it would be like saying there is something u cannot look at!

The sun. Go ahead, try it. I dare you.

teo

04-03-2008, 10:53

Why? With a lot of NDs....

raid

04-03-2008, 11:08

It's often a struggle with myself to see whether I will allow myself to take certain photos or not. A question to ask would be :"where would I display such an image?" and "would I really want to take another look at such image?" It is always a struggle.

Al Patterson

04-03-2008, 11:13

The sun. Go ahead, try it. I dare you.

I have photographs of the sun, taken with special filters.

I would NOT try just pointing my RF or SLR straight at the sun though. I'm blind enough as it is...

bmattock

04-03-2008, 12:20

It's interesting how things change with time. In the past it was common (round here) for portraits to be taken of corpses on their deathbeds.
I have a small collection of these, bought in junk shops and flea markets.

Good point! When child mortality was (unfortunately) a fact of life, photographs were often taken of deceased children dressed and posed as if they were merely asleep. Seems creepy now - at the time, a treasured keepsake for a family.

bmattock

04-03-2008, 12:33

I thought it was mostly a european-catholic thing.

Did that happen in the US too Bill?

Yes, it did. Here it was known as the "Mourning Portrait" and was popular during the heyday of the daguerreotype, roughly ending prior to 1900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem_photography

Arthur

04-03-2008, 13:04

Choose. Maybe save a life... or maybe take an iconic photograph?

Some Kantian choices are easier than others.

Arthur

georgef

04-03-2008, 13:08

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I do not wish to speak for Stéphane, but before posting your response, may I suggest that if you do not know what the word 'deontology' means, you might look it up before commenting.

The O/P is not asking what one CANNOT photograph because it is impossible, or what one is FORBIDDEN to photograph because it is illegal, but rather what one SHOULD NOT photograph due to it being a violation of their ethical duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

This is an extremely interesting philosophical question, but it has nothing to do with taking photographs of federal security fixtures or your naughty bits or what you do with them.

I think you missed the "...etc..." right after deontology in the O.P.. That leaves room for other reasons such as mentioned above.
I personally do not subscribe to deontologic principles and agree with the poster who said it depends on situation and mood.
In a wedding I will take pics of people crying, in a funeral I will not. As a genersal rule, I do not take photos of children, because I have my own and would not like others doing the same without asking.

bmattock

04-03-2008, 13:16

I think you missed the "...etc..." right after deontology in the O.P.. That leaves room for other reasons such as mentioned above.

Yes, it is so much more interesting to discuss whether one can or cannot photograph "a fart" or "the sun."

Perhaps I was just hoping for a conversation a tad bit more engaging than that.

But perhaps it is best if we stick to endless debates about camera bags.

raid

04-03-2008, 13:33

Pitxu,
I guess, he implies that tears at a wedding are tears of joy whereas tears at a funeral are tears of pain and sorrow.

projectbluebird

04-03-2008, 14:02

I carry a camera to take photos, if I thought there were things I shouldn't photograph, I wouldn't carry a camera. Do we have a moral obligation to make people look their best? Or to avoid things that are not "beautiful"? Personally, I don't think so.
That said, at my grandmother's funeral I couldn't bring myself to photograph her in her casket or indeed the casket itself, though I took many photos that day.

That has been the only occasion that I "couldn't" take a photograph.

varjag

04-03-2008, 14:08

My ethics must be flexible, because I can't come up with something I wouldn't photograph on grounds of morality. I often skip over a photo opportunity, but such decisions are not based on values of any sort.

I don't say of course that I'd photograph a kid sinking in a river instead of jumping to help, but it wasn't the original question in my understanding.

Arthur

04-03-2008, 14:50

Choose. Maybe save a life... or maybe take an iconic photograph?

Some Kantian choices are easier than others.

Arthur

Hypothetical:

Suppose you are a 'crummy' photographer.

Or.

Suppose you are a 'crummy' swimmer.

How do those 'circumstances' affect your decision to 'jump' or 'photograph?'

***

I wonder. Does humankind 'improve' because of such conundrums?

Arthur

nikon_sam

04-03-2008, 14:52

I have taken photos at a funeral...not going about snapping and flashing in everyone's face but quietly in the background not drawing attention to what I'm doing...
I have also sent photos taken during the "Service" to family members of the deceased and was "Thanked" for doing so...

projectbluebird

04-03-2008, 14:54

To further my research, did you photograph anyone crying?

I did. Most of the people there did at one point or another, myself included. One of those photos I consider to be the best portrait I've ever taken, yet I haven't printed it. I haven't printed any of the photos from that day.

FallisPhoto

04-04-2008, 11:34

The sun. Go ahead, try it. I dare you.

Sure, no problem, with any of several types of camera. If you're going to be shooting photos of the sun, the things you have to watch out for are:

1. Fresnel lenses, in combination with TTL viewfinders (you want a ground glass focusing screen, ESPECIALLY if you are going to be using an SLR). With a fresnel lens, the image is magnified and the light passes through the lens to your eye. With a ground glass focusing screen, the image is projected onto the focusing screen. Fresnel lenses are brighter and easier to focus in dim light, but ground glass is more precise -- and it won't focus sunlight sharply enough to melt brass; your retinas are considerabley easier to burn than a sheet of brass.

2. Telephoto lenses in combination with TTL viewfinders. Looking through ANY kind of telescopic device at the sun is just wrong. You are pretty much just asking for seared retinas.

3. Electronic shutters on digital cameras (there is no real shutter, the camera just turns the sensor on and off). Since the shutter is always open, the sensor literally gets burned like an ant under a magnifying glass. This type of "shutter" is common with digital P&S cameras. I don't have every kind of digital camera here in front of me to test, so I don't know if any other types than P&S cameras use this type of shutter. I do know that no film camera does.

4. Focal plane shutters (to shoot the sun, you want a leaf shutter). The reason is that the lens can and will concentrate sunlight. It can and will burn holes in your shutter curtains. Well, leaf shutters are made of metal. It can't burn holes in them.

#1 and #2 can sear your retinas.
#3 and #4 can damage your camera.

rolleistef

04-06-2008, 10:55

Kant! Here's the answer. He says very interesting things about the concept of morality. Nowadays it seems a bit old fashioned a word, and, for some people, rude and offensive. But moral is a very basic and (to my eyes) important concept.
It is only the capability of putting yourself at the place of somebody else, as if you came into his body but without any particularity. You need to impersonate an abstract individual , a Man with a big M (a M5 or M8 for instance ;)), a man as concept and no as person. That's pretty difficult because that means you need to imagine yourself a completely objective individual and ask yourself, in this : "Can I take that photo or not? If I were that person, would I like to be taken kissing my b/f or g/f, would I agree to have my children taken?" etc. Just examples of course.
Somebody once told me "The most important isn't to have rules, but to know not to follow them." I found it the most hypocritical thing ever. It's both offending for you and the others. But most plagues on earth come from the mis-following of the Golden Rule : You shall not do to your neighbour what you wouldn't like him to do to you. It's pretty common to every civilisation and religions but so hard to follow sometimes!

ClaremontPhoto

04-06-2008, 11:05

1 I wanted to photograph inside public bathrooms for a project. Stephen Gandy told me it was 'sicko'. Later my mother loved the photos, and they have been well-received generally.

2 Somebody got badly run over by a truck outside my place. I was there, and had a camera, and wanted to photograph the brave fire and rescue workers wriggling into the mess. But I didn't.

We must make our own decisions at the time.

rolleistef

04-06-2008, 12:59

See, that's something completely personal. I like taking some toilets, as long as they're clean and b&w.
http://photophoto.bloxode.com/page,9.html
tenth article you after the Rolleiflex

georgef

04-07-2008, 07:49

Because I'm interested in different cultures and their differing ethics, could you explain why you wouldn't take pics of crying people at a funeral?

...I would feel very obtrusive to someone going through such a hard moment with my camera there, especially given that my interest would be objective...sort of "...I feel your pain...don't move, the light is hitting you just right!..."
Just a pesonal comfort level more than anything I guess.

georgef

04-07-2008, 07:51

Pitxu,
I guess, he implies that tears at a wedding are tears of joy whereas tears at a funeral are tears of pain and sorrow.

Exactly. I also feel that a wedding is an event you want to share with others, whereas a funeral is an even you HAVE to share with others. More private..to me anyway.

MickH

04-07-2008, 15:01

http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/panoramas/philharmonic_pub_toilets_360.shtml

If you Google "The Philharmonic Toilets" you will see some images of this amazing temple to urination.

rogue_designer

04-07-2008, 15:16

This past weekend we were at a farm, Inn, thing... relaxing.

As we walked down past the pigs, we saw that one sow was giving birth, and had kicked one of the piglets down into the clay mud by the lake front. It was stuck, and drowning.

KT and I scaled the fence, waded into the lake (around the electrified fence sections) pulled the piglet out of danger and placed it up on high ground.

I know it's a small thing - the life of a pig is much less than the life of a man - but I was proud that when I was in a position to act or observe, I chose to act without thinking about it.

Obviously if I was unable to help directly (if it would have made things worse, or unduly endangered others, etc.), then photographing would have been an option again.

FallisPhoto

04-08-2008, 13:09

Yes, it did. Here it was known as the "Mourning Portrait" and was popular during the heyday of the daguerreotype, roughly ending prior to 1900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem_photography

Do you suppose that would even be legal now? I mean, dead people have no rights, and are legally property, so would there be any legal bar to someone doing that? I can't think of anything offhand that the authorities could charge you with, but making up a body and propping it up in a chair for photos would offend so many sensibilities these days that they would surely try to find something.

rolleistef

04-09-2008, 08:32

I wonder if it's still not used in some villages in southern Italy...
Taking a photo a dead relative woudn't stop me, because it's a relative. But the one who took the photo of dead President François Mitterand in 1995 (with a Minox 35GT btw) certainly didn't have too many scruples.
It turned out to be a burning issue with the Lady Diana case. The photographers were found guilty of "unlawful murder". Hadn't they been only lead by the smell of money, those papparazzis (one papparazzi, two papparazzis, since Papparazzi is the name of a character in La Dolce Vita) wouldn't have chased a Mercedes 600 driving over 100mp/h in the streets of Paris at Night (how silly!). You never know the consenquences of such acts, that's why I think it's better deciding of guidelines before.