# Taboo's in Photography?



## leopardforest (Sep 28, 2007)

Are there somethings that we as photographers just should not take pictures of?


----------



## Icon72 (Sep 28, 2007)

Nope. I don't think so. There are times when moral opinion is going to come in to play but if it weren't for photography there would be a lot of terrible things in this world that would seem less real to the masses. Obviously the word "taboo" conjurs up different images in everyone's minds though. What type of things were you considering?


----------



## leopardforest (Sep 28, 2007)

ok maybe taboo is the wrong word. I mean like places and people, maybe out of respect? I wasn't thinking in a moral since.


----------



## Icon72 (Sep 28, 2007)

So many different scenarios come to mind. I'm trying to think of things I wouldn't take a photo of out of respect. For instance I obviously wouldn't take a photo of a set of parents at their child's funeral or something like that but again I think you would get more feedback asking about more specific situations. Please do. I would like to hear what is on your mind.


----------



## leopardforest (Sep 28, 2007)

I think what started this for me was some post the other day that was talking taking photos of children at sport games and how that is not really accepted anymore.

I was also thinking along the lines of talking pictures of some structures because they are now considered terrorist targets. What I am getting at is, I was in Seattle this summer and I was taking photos of the city and one of the buildings (Columbus tower I think) I was asked to leave and not take photos of it. Later to find out that it was on some kind terrorist list. Maybe this isn't really taboo but I was just wondering if people ever get the feeling that they shouldn't be in a certain area taking pictures?


----------



## Sweetsomedays (Sep 28, 2007)

I was on a plane recently and there was a lovely sunset out my window. I was nearvous about taking pics on a plain cuz I didn't know if it had been banned or something for security reasons. I asked a flight attendant and she said it was fine.
So I know what you mean.
I don't take pictures of other people's children without permission out of respect. I wouldn't want a stranger taking pictures of mine to be honest.


----------



## Icon72 (Sep 29, 2007)

Sweetsomedays said:


> I don't take pictures of other people's children without permission out of respect. I wouldn't want a stranger taking pictures of mine to be honest.


 
Agreed 100%.


----------



## leopardforest (Sep 29, 2007)

yes that exactly what I am talking about! As I am new to photography, what other event, places, or people do you get this feeling?


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Sep 29, 2007)

Children are the big thing right now (and probably for as long as our society stands) that you have to be careful about.  You will hear plenty of stories of parents who have taken pictures of their kids in their birthday suits cause they were being cute and jumping on the bed, and how when they got the film developed they were reported.  Go to pick up your pictures and you are arrested and spend thousands defending yourself legally.  Plenty of lives have been ruined by this.

I think as long as you use good judgement, nothing is off limits.  I'd ask before taking any pictures that could be crossing the line - as mentioned pictures at a funeral.  I would definitely ask before taking any pictures there simply out of respect to the family.  As for childrens sports, I'd probably go to the bleachers and ask if anyone had a problem with me doing it.  Anyone who has a problem, ask what number their kid is so you can be sure to avoid him/her.  It's just one of those things, you dont want to end up with pictures of someones kid and angry parents thinking you are a pervert.  Sad that our world has come to this.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 29, 2007)

Your own moral compass, and an understanding of what is publicly acceptable, should be all you need.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 29, 2007)

I would definitely avoid taking pictures of women and mosques in Saudi Arabia, but that's mainly because I have no desire to be incarcerated at His Majesty's pleasure. I wouldn't have any moral objection though.


----------



## pandinus (Sep 29, 2007)

I agree with several of the former statements. If you want to shoot a socker game. (Football to all you europeans..) It would be a good idea to talk to the parents, and the coach.

My parents traveled to some "Socialist" country a few years back, and where warned of photographing the parlament buildings in the capitol. A tourist had been warned about the same some time before, but didn't listen... I believe he never returned. 

So if you are on vacation, make sure that it's safe for you to shoot the photos you do. Some places in this world people get arrested for far less...

(This is to me the worst case scenario..)

I've never come acrost any such problems, but you never know when visiting a different country and culture.


----------



## aries67 (Sep 30, 2007)

I recently got into trouble for shooting an overseas embassy in the city.  Although this one had a big sign out the front (that I honestly didn't notice!) many of them don't, so we ended up staying off a whole street!  But it was okay to shoot banks, the mint and even the federal court house!


----------



## Battou (Sep 30, 2007)

I have shot several Childrens sporting events this past year and will likely do more as I have a neice who plays sports. Generally I do not to put them on display with out the parents permission though however unless there is no means of identifying the kid lol. 

Any thing involving children and nudity is bound to be a no no, very rarely do you see people taking pictures with children and nudity or nude children being permitted to have or display the image. There are some exceptions to this but, if there is any thing taboo in Photography, that would be it.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 30, 2007)

It's not a taboo in photography. It's a taboo in society. What used to be ok before the advent of camera phones and cheap digicams is considered today wrongfully often to be perverted. Just look at the Time Life Photography book "Photographing Children"

The images: Krissy - Melissa Shook (1972), Child Light - Elisabeth Wackman (1979), or even a full group nudity of children: Children at Home - John Benson (1969), were not only acceptable then, but they were also publishable. 

No doubt photographing a young girl while she's asleep on the beach these days is more likely to end you up in hospital rather than in Time Life magazines.


----------



## Battou (Sep 30, 2007)

Garbz said:


> It's not a taboo in photography. It's a taboo in society. What used to be ok before the advent of camera phones and cheap digicams is considered today wrongfully often to be perverted. Just look at the Time Life Photography book "Photographing Children"
> 
> The images: Krissy - Melissa Shook (1972), Child Light - Elisabeth Wackman (1979), or even a full group nudity of children: Children at Home - John Benson (1969), were not only acceptable then, but they were also publishable.
> 
> No doubt photographing a young girl while she's asleep on the beach these days is more likely to end you up in hospital rather than in Time Life magazines.



Like I said there are exceptions, but never the less modern society is going to be the driving factor, as taboo by dictionary definition means "proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable". Unfortunatly society is not composed by photographers and artisans. xfloggingkylex said it best, A picture ment to be cute can end up getting CPS called. It's consitered perverted today due to perverted use by the few truely perverted who use this type of imagery for sexual gratification. It is truely sad but there is not a whole hell of a lot that can be done.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Sep 30, 2007)

Other people's kids, except when you are shooting someone's family event of course and it's known that you are there for that reason. 

And the Amish.
    "When we are gone, let us be remembered not by how broad were our noses, the height of our brows, or the angle of our cheekbones, but by what truly matters --- the lives we have lived and the examples we have left. Dust we are, to dust we shall return. Why frame and embellish and hang on the wall the pictures of this house of clay in which we live? Let us beware lest we permit Self to be exalted becoming unto us a graven image."


----------



## Mesoam (Oct 1, 2007)

i'm pretty sure common sense takes care of this...


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 1, 2007)

I am glad that people are more relaxed when it comes to pictures of children here in Europe. (Although I personally think children photography too exhausting  )

But what I avoid at all costs usually is to invade people's privacy. I would not take images of couples arguing, or of some family on their day out having fun or no fun (well, I would ask for permission at least), and I would not take images of personal grief which is _not _related to any agenda, politics or war. 
If grief however has an intrinsic message and documents things wrong on this world, then I would not hesitate to capture it on film or sensor. Same with poverty, hunger or violence.

I would not take images (or if taken at least not use them) which depict a situation which would falsely discredit a person or which is simply seriously embarrassing.


----------



## SteveEllis (Oct 2, 2007)

In our current times of easy access to satellite imagery such as google earth I find it amusing that we are not allowed to take photos of certain buildings and locations!


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 2, 2007)

SteveEllis said:


> In our current times of easy access to satellite imagery such as google earth I find it amusing that we are not allowed to take photos of certain buildings and locations!



google earth is not very up to date in all areas. in some areas are VERY old.


----------

