# When does a photographer exploit people?



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

When does a photographer exploit a person in order to get a good photograph?

When a photographer snap a street portrait f.e. of a happy person, it seems like no one sees that as an exploiting. When a photographer take a portrait or a scene with an homeless person or person a viewer can tell he/she lives in not so good conditions, then the answer become a bit complicated... 

At least, that's happening to me.

They were there, hugging, kissing... waiting for me to take the shot, it seemed. I didn't think twice. I just wanted to capture them in the front of the Central Station in Brussels. I didn't think if that was appropriate to capture an intimate moment of some random strangers or not. It was a nice scene. If they noticed me, told me that they do mind their picture taken, I would back off. But they didn't and because of that, I have a nice shot. I do regret not approaching them and asking for their contact, to send them the picture. I was to insecure for that-didn't know will I produce a shot I could send them.




as a tourist, Central Station, Brussels by Sounds of Shutter



The other example could be this one...

My impressions, as a tourist there, in Grand Place, were: "What a beautiful place". Looking at those magnificent buildings, lots of tourist smiling, taking pictures, lots of happy people, lots of a nice energy... and then ... a reality check. 
I saw him, I saw other people, I saw a scene and I wanted to shoot as soon as possible because I didn't want his face to be shown in the picture.
The thing is... I spent some time thinking is this right or is this wrong... Can I use him a s a subject? Is it ok for me to take a picture of him... 





Grand Place, Brussels by Sounds of Shutter


The third example are some of the photographs I don't post.

I was in the subway and saw a great scene, a great example of fortunate-unfortunate people. I crouched and took a shot. The person saw me taking the shot and waved me not to do that. He did that in a most humble way and I felt soo wrong. I told him I didn't make it, I'm not showing the picture. I don't know if he understood English but I know I felt wrong.

Few months ago I shot some poor kids and families. With the most of the pictures I didn't have troubles thinking are they right or wrong. I had a task and I did my best to fulfill that task.
However... I was in the house with two kids and I shot them in their room. We laughed and we had a good time together. The mother came in the room and I asked to photograph her. She said ok. I placed her to sit on the bed, the kids were hiding on the other side of the bed. I stood on the chair and took a shoot from above. I wanted to capture her struggle... and I did. That is one of my most powerful pictures (according to me of course, because no one saw it)

I have her consent for the picture, but I couldn't publish the picture for the world to see. It felt wrong to show her struggle. She looked right to the camera and show a great amount of emotions in her eyes. 

I have also a picture where she's smiling with her kids and I have no troubles to show the picture because it shows some happy feelings. It's a nice scene and a fine photograph. I don't feel I used her in any way in that picture.  But for the one I described above, I do feel wrong because that picture shows how vulnerable she is...

Is this correct, that we tend not to call "exploiting" people (as photographers, and for the good shot) when they're happy or indifferent? But we do feel/think of exploiting/using them as a subject when they're shown in their bad/sad/vulnerable situation?


----------



## SCraig (May 6, 2014)

It's called "Having a Conscience".  An inner feeling of knowing what is right and what is wrong.  Many people who shoot street photography don't have one and all that matters to the is "The Photograph!"

To me, yes, it is wrong to intrude on someone's private moments, regardless of whether they are in public or not.  That's when I just lower my camera and go a different direction.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

It's completely different set of mind for a documentary photographer f.e. He has a task and there's no room there for a consciousness. His job is to present the situation in the real possible way.

When I shot by the task, I didn't have those "right-wrong" questions in my head. I had a job and I did it. I wanted to show to the world how some people live. But, I still couldn't use the picture, even if the mother said it's ok to use it. I react emotionally every time when I come across that picture.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2014)

Are you taking someone's photo for your own gains or for theirs?


----------



## Raj_55555 (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> When I shot by the task, I didn't have those "right-wrong" questions in my head. I had a job and I did it. I wanted to show to the world how some people live. But, I still couldn't use the picture, even if the mother said it's ok to use it. I react emotionally every time when I come across that picture.


TBH I don't think there's anything wrong in posting that picture, specially considering you had the consent of the mother before you took the shot. If  you're so emotional about it, they could very well be one of your best.  It looses it's value if only you can admire it. Just my opinion!

I once saw a cute child giggling and laughing around in a mall. He had this energy about him, and my first thought was how great it would be if I could capture this emotion. Unfortunately I lack the ninja powers some of you guys have, and the father saw me taking the pics. He strongly told me that I should have taken his permission and made me delete those pictures. It was rather embarrassing for me in public, and I haven't tried a similar shot since.


----------



## SCraig (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> It's completely different set of mind for a documentary photographer f.e. He has a task and there's no room there for a consciousness. His job is to present the situation in the real possible way.


Regardless of whether it's a job or a hobby people should still do what they know is right.  Using the excuse "It's My Job" is just that: an excuse.  Using the excuse "If I don't do it someone else will" is just that: an excuse.

You did the right thing.  You listened to your conscience and did what you knew was right.  You could have posted the photograph yet you knew that it would be exploitative of the woman so you didn't.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> Are you taking someone's photo for your own gains or for theirs?


 yes, that plays a great role here. If it's just about a good photograph, then I feel it's not worthy


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Are you taking someone's photo for your own gains or for theirs?
> ...



Homeless make fantastic subject as they have textured faces and whatnot. That being said I would take their photo unless I was doing so to raise money for them.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> TBH I don't think there's anything wrong in posting that picture, specially considering you had the consent of the mother before you took the shot. If  you're so emotional about it, they could very well be one of your best.  It looses it's value if only you can admire it.


 I agree with you to some extent. There are images that show certain situations and I showed those images. I'm a very emotional person and I do feel something when looking at those pictures. But with "the mother" I simply don't feel good if I showed it. 
Maybe one day, in years to come, my feelings towards that picture change, in a sense that I become indifferent and I do show the picture... but then again, however my feelings are I feel it's a loss-loss situation...

I smiled about the boy


----------



## Braineack (May 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> Are you taking someone's photo for your own gains or for theirs?



to exploit presupposes a victim.  but it also implies dependence.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

SCraig said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > It's completely different set of mind for a documentary photographer f.e. He has a task and there's no room there for a consciousness. His job is to present the situation in the real possible way.
> ...


I agree also that even if it's a job, there must be some limitations in what a photographer should or shouldn't show.


----------



## JoeW (May 6, 2014)

Great topic.  Okay, multiple thoughts on the matter:

1.  MMaria, I think you're defining the term/phrase "exploit people" in a pejorative sense (like "exploit women" or "exploit vulnerability").  Realistically, any time someone benefits from another, you've exploited them.  So yes, photographers exploit people all the time.  Many times it's willingly (like when you pay a model to produce work that you then sell--you've exploited her but it was done willingly and both parties benefited).  However, if we take your perspective on the term, there are plenty of times when a photojournalist exploits someone and it's ultimately for a greater good.  Case in point:  I just read an example of someone in Ukraine who was stopped at a checkpoint, denied he had a camera, spoke in Russian (most Ukranians speak both Russian and Ukrainian), and said he was just visiting his grandmother to see if she was okay.  Once he got past the checkpoint, he then proceeded to take a series of pictures about government buildings being seized and ransacked by pro-russian militia and incognito Russian Spetznaz forces.  Absolutely the journalist exploited the naivety of the untrained militia at the checkpoint.  Talk to any photojournalist and they'll tell you that they have hundreds of similar stories.

2.  But you're also getting in to a different issue that is separate from exploiting and that's taking pictures when people don't give you permission.  For instance, go to Guatemala and the indigenous people will demand that you pay them in order to take their picture.  Doesn't matter if it's in public or your focus is on some American friends, if they're in the background they'll expect payment.  This is true in a lot of places around the world as well.  Or an instance where someone is taking pictures of a person/people, you also take a few pictures and someone comes up and says "hey--you don't have permission".  Maybe it's a personality, maybe a wedding in public, maybe a corporate PR announcement (like a ribbon cutting or support for a charity).  But the key point is that they've picked someone to be the photographer, it wasn't you, so they insist you don't have the okay to take pictures of them in that public setting.

I think the real issue you're getting at here is NOT about exploiting people.  B/c if you never show the photo to anyone and keep it private, how have you exploited someone?  I think the real issues here are: respecting people's privacy and seeking to be agreeable rather than divisive as well as the issue of who gets to decide if it's okay to take a picture in public...the photographer or someone else?  I can respect that position.  But it's a position that ultimately would say that you don't take someone's picture if they're asleep or unaware (focused elsewhere).

If we view this on a continuum with the Paparazzi or private detectives/spies on one side (meaning...it's okay to break in to someone's house or hospital room to get some pictures of them, especially if they're nude) vs. a position that says you only take someone's picture if they've given you approval first...well, there's a lot of middle ground.  For instance, there was a bill somewhere (Texas I think though my memory is wrong) of a state legislature that would make it illegal to take pictures of a farm from public land.  In other words, you couldn't pull over on the side of the public road and take pictures of someone's farm (even if there were no people in the picture).  This legislation was driven by farmers and aimed at making it difficult for PETA and animal activists to get pictures of industrial farming.  I know that's not what you're focused on but it's part of the same issue--to what extent does the photographer get to be the "decider" of who takes the picture?  So on one side we have people who not only feel it's okay to take a picture of anything they want, but they'll break the law and then deliberately seek to invade privacy in private space vs. others who would argue that all of us shooters are threats to security and business and privacy and if someone comes up and doesn't like the 3rd, 5th, and 9th photos we took of them then they can force us to delete them.

My particular position (which is someone cultural-specific and also driven by a bit of photojournalism background) would be:
--if it's in public in a public setting, someone is fair game.  The photographer decides what to take.  If you don't want your picture taken when in public, then either don't go in public or work to restrict the ability of people to take your picture.
--compromise when security or safety issues are involved (took a great picture of sleeping children in a 4-person stroller at a museum and nanny frantically came up followed shortly by a body guard--they were kids of diplomats from a country where kidnapping is common, they were told to avoid having pictures taken of the kids or of security arrangements...so I deleted the photo).
--try to respect dignity and highly emotional moments when possible (for instance, shots of people dying by the roadside from a traffic accident, someone comforting a sobbing family member at a funeral, someone playing tennis and a boob has just popped out of their top...all shots to walk away from personally).  Realistically, as a member of the press, sometimes these moments ARE the money shot.  But for non-working shooters, there are places we can each personally draw our line.
--while I'm not willing to make enough of a principle about this to get in to a fight, generally someone else doesn't get to decide if I delete a picture or not--that's my decision.  The world is not full of models who have paid me to take their pictures and have done a "work for hire" arrangement and thus control what shots stay or go.  We can talk about it, but unless they're big and ready to fight I'm usually going to be the one who decides what stays and what gets deleted on my SD cards.

As for those who argue about having a "conscience"....I think that varies on the basis of what your values and beliefs are.  When Nick Ut took a picture of a screaming, napalmed burned, frontally nude girl in Vietnam, he was absolutely exploiting her.  His bureau chief (Horst Faas) fought to get the photo disseminated (despite that it violated AP standards against frontal nudity and also nudity involving minors) and he did so for conscience reasons.    I can respect those who's conscience dictates that you don't take pictures of people without their approval b/c you respect their privacy and control of their lives.  But also recognize that some people who would take the picture you wouldn't may also be dictated by a conscience.  I'm not arguing that paparazzi are dictated by a conscience, only that differences in values and value hierarchies can mean that your conscience and mine may dictate different outcomes...and we're both acting with a conscience.

Now, having said all of this, I certainly respect those of you who have a different take.  It's not about being "right" or "wrong" but rather, having different perspectives on this issue.


----------



## Designer (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> The thing is... I spent some time thinking is this right or is this wrong...



You're not a photo-journalist.  

You're you, and will never be a journalist.  

Don't change.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

JoeW, I would certainly have more to say on your post and I share similar way of thinking but I don't have enough of time right now


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

Designer said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is... I spent some time thinking is this right or is this wrong...
> ...


Are you implying I'm not good enough to be a journalist!?

oh my!!


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Are you taking someone's photo for your own gains or for theirs?
> ...



Can you elaborate more...pls


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2014)

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Are you taking someone's photo for your own gains or for theirs?
> ...



Your implication supposes that the victims is indeed a victim of circumstance rather than having a predisposition for victim-hood that is implied by the viewer


----------



## AlanKlein (May 6, 2014)

Here's an extract from my Samsung Galaxy S-4 smartphone operating manual.  Of course the camera is made in Korea so their culture may see things differently.  In any case, I thought it's interesting what they recommend.

_Important! Do not take photos of people without their permission. Do not take photos in places where cameras are not allowed. Do not take photos in places where you may interfere with another persons privacy._


----------



## JoeW (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> JoeW, I would certainly have more to say on your post and I share similar way of thinking but I don't have enough of time right now


I look forward to the response (and insights).  You started a very thought-provoking and important conversation for all serious photographers and you did so very intelligently and with some lovely examples (good photos that also were relevant to your topic).  I think it does us all good to spend some time reflecting and discussing these topics.


----------



## Designer (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> Are you implying I'm not good enough to be a journalist!?



Of course not.  As nearly as I can tell, you are a good photographer, but since you have a heart, you would never be a journalist.

A photo journalist doesn't need feelings, only an attitude.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

JoeW said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > JoeW, I would certainly have more to say on your post and I share similar way of thinking but I don't have enough of time right now
> ...


oh my... now I'm nervous and :blushing: and I wont be capable to write anything more then I did so far...


The working day in this part of the planet is done... have to go


----------



## AlanKlein (May 6, 2014)

mmaria said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > mmaria said:
> ...



Yikes!  You're spending time posting to this forum while you're at work and your conscience is bothering you about what photos are ok to shoot?  Hmmm.  I trust you're doing this on your breaks.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 6, 2014)

Designer said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > Are you implying I'm not good enough to be a journalist!?
> ...



It's not that they don't need them. It's just that they have to gauge which is more important, the news photograph or the sanctity of the moment through the use of both their mind and their conscience. A good photojournalist also shows some sense of compassion toward their subjects while still managing to convey the story through their images. That's the _ideal_ according to the Associated Press. This is in their code of ethics:

*"Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of 
crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see."*

The code is often thrown to the wayside for the sake of the image (thanks to the _whomever gets the story out first wins _model), which has produced the public perception that photojournalists are heartless scum.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

JoeW said:


> 1.  MMaria, I think you're defining the term/phrase "exploit people" in a pejorative sense (like "exploit women" or "exploit vulnerability").  Realistically, any time someone benefits from another, you've exploited them.  So yes, photographers exploit people all the time.  Many times it's willingly (like when you pay a model to produce work that you then sell--you've exploited her but it was done willingly and both parties benefited).  However, if we take your perspective on the term, there are plenty of times when a photojournalist exploits someone and it's ultimately for a greater good.


yes, I thought about exploiting in a pejorative sense here. I agree, and we all do, that almost everything is exploiting of something or someone, but there's a huge difference in what is willingly done between the people and what just one person decided for both of them involved. 
If there are a greater causes then I, as a photographer, have something to hold on to, something that approves invading people's privacy to some extent. I know my intentions are good and I use those intentions as a justification of photographs. That was my way of thinking when I took those documentary photographs. I felt good because I wanted to help. I justified my photographs just because of that.
But... I know where my limitations are. It's me. It's about the way I percieve the world, not just the photography. Ultimately, this has nothing to do with photography, it has everything to do with what kind of person a photographer is. 




JoeW said:


> I think the real issue you're getting at here is NOT about exploiting people.  B/c if you never show the photo to anyone and keep it private, how have you exploited someone?  I think the real issues here are: respecting people's privacy and seeking to be agreeable rather than divisive as well as the issue of who gets to decide if it's okay to take a picture in public...the photographer or someone else?  I can respect that position.  But it's a position that ultimately would say that you don't take someone's picture if they're asleep or unaware (focused elsewhere).


It doesn't matter really if I just saw the picture. Does the lack of viewers somehow make it right? No. I saw, I know, I have troubles with myself. Sharing the photograph could just deepen the feelings of myself doing something wrong.

I also took a photo of a woman sleeping on a bench in an airport. She has been an interesting subject and was completely unaware of my presence. I didn't even for a second thought that I exploited her just because of the picture. No. She did nothing wrong and she was just some women sleeping on a bench. She, as a subject, wasn't compromised in any way other then sleeping. She didn't carry any kind of a burdein. She was just interesting enough for me to make me want to take a picture.



JoeW said:


> My particular position (which is someone cultural-specific and also driven by a bit of photojournalism background) would be:
> --if it's in public in a public setting, someone is fair game.  The photographer decides what to take.  If you don't want your picture taken when in public, then either don't go in public or work to restrict the ability of people to take your picture.
> --compromise when security or safety issues are involved
> --try to respect dignity and highly emotional moments when possible  Realistically, as a member of the press, sometimes these moments ARE the money shot.  But for non-working shooters, there are places we can each personally draw our line.
> ...


Similar as I said above, I think that every person deep inside, in their heart, know what's good and what's bad. I will find a way to calm down my consciousness or my inner alarm, but only in some situations. 
If a person doesn't want to be on the picture, it's ok, I don't want them on my pictures either. If a person doesn't care, I'll try my best to make a photograph.

I saw a war, poverty,broken homes and families, illnesses, people struggling in lots of different ways, and on the other side wealth, health, simple minds...Also, being the way I am, all those situation probably affected me and shaped in a certain way.

Explointing people in photography, it's the same as exploiting people in all other areas of life. you do it or not


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

JoeW said:


> ...You started a very thought-provoking and important conversation for all serious photographers ....  I think it does us all good to spend some time reflecting and discussing these topics.



It's been a few words/posts related to the topic, in some different threads, since I'm here, but not a thread. I particularly remember one thread when Traveler mentioned similar decisions made by the OP of that thread.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Yikes!  You're spending time posting to this forum while you're at work and your conscience is bothering you about what photos are ok to shoot?  Hmmm.  I trust you're doing this on your breaks.


 lol
 yes, I'm bad!


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> It's not that they don't need them. It's just that they have to gauge which is more important, the news photograph or the sanctity of the moment through the use of both their mind and their conscience. A good photojournalist also shows some sense of compassion toward their subjects while still managing to convey the story through their images. That's the _ideal_ according to the Associated Press. This is in their code of ethics:
> 
> *"Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of
> crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see."*
> ...


exactly.


----------



## Designer (May 6, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > mmaria said:
> ...



My impression may be an unfair generalization, but it sure seems as if most of the photo journalism is produced by people who want to get the shot above all else.


----------



## mmaria (May 6, 2014)

rexbobcat mentioned "good photojournalists". There are tones (and I might also generalize) of the other kind of photojournalists that want to get the shot above all else.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 6, 2014)

I can't make generalizations about PJs because that is such an ambiguous field.
For myself, I won't take a picture if it unfairly uses the distress of anyone as the sole power in the picture.

Feeding off of someone's agony is exploitative and if it is only for a picture to get attaboys, that's even worse.


----------



## sashbar (May 6, 2014)

MMaria, listen to what your conscience tells you but never try to second guess.

You may think you can not possibly exploit happy lovers, but they may have an extra marital affair, and your photo on the net may ruin their families and their kids will be unhappy ever after. You may think you are exploiting a homeless guy, but then you talk to him and he tells you he is more than happy to be photographed because he wants people to be aware of the problem that exists under their noses. Or because today is a suuny day and he just does not give a damn. You never know.  You may look at people as a photographer and create your story. But the real story may be completely different. 

Now - a million dollar question - can we "exploit" people in the street? I must say your photos are both really shy and do not even start to approach anything that can be seen as an "exploitation". You shot the lovers from far far away - and you know the mantra: if it is not close enough, it is not good enough. From that point of view, as an image of two lovers, I am very sorry to say, the shot is weak. And yes, you are way too shy to be a good photojourno .  But you may like the image for other reasons. 
I have some ( many) shots I will never show exactly for this reason - "exploitation". But to illustrate what I mean I will show you one, in my view benign, image depicting a pair arguing in the street.  
Am I being ethical by publishing it or not?




The answer to this question ( to me personally) really is - if you are in a pubic place you should expect to be seen by public.  And it does not matter what do I mean by "public"  - is it a dozen of pedestrians or a thousand users online.  
You are in public, and if you start behaving the way you may later regret, it is your problem. There are many exceptions, of course and any decent person understands it very well.  People stumble and fall, get sick etc etc and these are vulnerable moments that should not be exploited. 
So if you feel awkward, if you feel it is not right, just follow your conscience. But I admit I had moments when I openly exploited people who did not want to be photographed. But the result was well worth it and I would do it again. One of my fairly recent images ( already posted here) can be seen by some as a shamless exploitation. But it is a good image. 



Do I exploit them? Do I not? It is sometimes a diffucult dilemma. 
But the most important are your feelings about the image and the people depicted. 
There is a great feeling of empathy towards these guys in this image, I do feel for them, I almost hear the music, and it tells me I was right to take the picture.


PS I like your second image - the light is beautiful. And some talented Brussels photography on your Flikr. Very nice.


----------



## Stevepwns (May 6, 2014)

I work in Washington DC,  before the tourist season is in full swing, there are homeless everywhere.   Since I always have my camera with me, I have had more opportunities than I can remember to take shots of the them.  I thought about it on more than a few occasions, but just couldn't bring myself to do it.  I don't think it would be in good taste for me to do so.  I don't think it would be exploiting them, I don't know what word I would use though.  I just don't find it respectful to take pictures of people for the pure fact that they are not different than the norm but in most cases, just in a bad place in their life.  I know I wouldn't want anyone taking my picture if I were in that situation.  They aren't freaks to show off, they are people with a story. Unless you intend on telling their story, I would hope one wouldn't take their picture and parade it around.  

The only people I take pictures of that I don't know, intentionally, have their back to me or are in a happy moment. 

All that being said, this is a great topic to discuss and you are a good person, MMaria.


----------



## konijntjesbroek (May 6, 2014)

Stevepwns said:


> I work in Washington DC,  before the tourist season is in full swing, there are homeless everywhere.   Since I always have my camera with me, I have had more opportunities than I can remember to take shots of the them.  I thought about it on more than a few occasions, but just couldn't bring myself to do it.  I don't think it would be in good taste for me to do so.  I don't think it would be exploiting them, I don't know what word I would use though.  I just don't find it respectful to take pictures of people for the pure fact that they are not different than the norm but in most cases, just in a bad place in their life.  I know I wouldn't want anyone taking my picture if I were in that situation.  They aren't freaks to show off, they are people with a story. Unless you intend on telling their story, I would hope one wouldn't take their picture and parade it around.
> 
> The only people I take pictures of that I don't know, intentionally, have their back to me or are in a happy moment.
> 
> All that being said, this is a great topic to discuss and you are a good person, MMaria.



I think this is the basic problem here: defining people by their condition. "There are homeless everywhere" exhibits this sentiment the most.  By dehumanizing the population they become little more than active scenery. If we take the time to get to know a subject, what drives them, what they enjoy/fear/hope for, we can better tell their story while still showing a common respect. Having been without a permanent address on a few occasions and very close to it more times than I like to remember, sometimes that little kindness of being treated like a human being even though I smell bad, look rough feel sore goes a long way to thinking a way out of my conditions.


----------



## JoeW (May 6, 2014)

There have been a couple of references to photojournalists in this thread.  Let me offer a few thoughts as they relate to exploiting people and conscience.

Most of you have probably seen the picture (or series) more commonly referred to as "Falling Man."  It depicts a worker in one of the Twin Towers on 9-11 who chose to jump to his death rather than burn to death.  The series was taken by AP photographer Richard Drew.  You can read more about it here: The Falling Man - Tom Junod - 9/11 Suicide Photograph - Esquire

People have asked Richard Drew how he could shoot while seeing that.  His response (and I can relate to it) is that you're so focused on the mechanics of getting the shot that the recognition that you are seeing a fellow human being who is willing jump to his death b/c of the heat and fire in the tower does not freeze you in horror and shock...instead you continue to function.  This is much like training that the military or first responders go through--so you don't shut down during times of stress.  It isn't about not feeling but being focused on "the job".

Did Richard Drew "exploit" the "Falling Man"?   Of course he did.  There was no model release (not that it was necessary since this was a public and news-worthy event).  It clearly captured a very private and personal act (suicide).  That photo created tremendous outrage, when it was on the front-page of many papers, it drew condemnation as "porn" and being obscene.  But I'd argue that shooting it was appropriate and publishing it was likewise.  Sometimes the world is ugly.  And our cameras are capable of documenting that ugliness.  It's difficult to draw the line about where to stop--I'll acknowledge that completely.  But I'd also argue that the story of 9-11 isn't complete without the understanding of how terrible it was in those towers before they collapsed--terrible enough from the heat and smoke that many chose to jump from a great height knowing that they'd die in order to escape that inferno.  And "Falling Man" absolutely captures that reality.


----------



## nzmacro (May 7, 2014)

Its a hard one. I have to see it to feel it ....... if you get my drift. The shots you posted there, no issue at all and mainly (for me only) its a small part and not an intrusion, that you got right IMO. Its when something is isolated and targeted I have issues sometimes to be honest. We all have different ethics and we all get to see certain things from different countries and yep, we all feel differently. Very interesting question actually  You make me think. 

All the best Marija and its a very personal thing I guess, I know when I see it if I find it upsetting and crossed the line. We all have different lines though 

Danny.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2014)

JoeW said:


> There have been a couple of references to photojournalists in this thread. Let me offer a few thoughts as they relate to exploiting people and conscience.
> 
> Most of you have probably seen the picture (or series) more commonly referred to as "Falling Man." It depicts a worker in one of the Twin Towers on 9-11 who chose to jump to his death rather than burn to death. The series was taken by AP photographer Richard Drew. You can read more about it here: The Falling Man - Tom Junod - 9/11 Suicide Photograph - Esquire
> 
> ...


oh geez. i thought that would be worse than it was before i clicked on the link. i have photos of the landings on one of my backup drives i think.


----------



## mmaria (May 7, 2014)

sashbar said:


> You may think you can not possibly exploit happy lovers, but they may have an extra marital affair, and your photo on the net may ruin their families and their kids will be unhappy ever after.


omg it didn't even cross my mind....deleting picture 



sashbar said:


> You shot the lovers from far far away - and you know the mantra: if it is not close enough, it is not good enough. From that point of view, as an image of two lovers, I am very sorry to say, the shot is weak. And yes, you are way too shy to be a good photojourno .  But you may like the image for other reasons.


 yeah, I know... I like it because of the recognizable (to people from Brussels ) Central Station. It's a part of series of the Central Station. 



sashbar said:


> I have some ( many) shots I will never show exactly for this reason - "exploitation". But to illustrate what I mean I will show you one, in my view benign, image depicting a pair arguing in the street.
> Am I being ethical by publishing it or not?


 I don't see the trouble here. Yes they're arguing but I'm not feeling the image as a wrong one.  



sashbar said:


> One of my fairly recent images (already posted here) can be seen by some as a shamless exploitation. But it is a good image. Do I exploit them? Do I not? It is sometimes a diffucult dilemma. But the most important are your feelings about the image and the people depicted.
> There is a great feeling of empathy towards these guys in this image, I do feel for them, I almost hear the music, and it tells me I was right to take the picture.


 I remember that image and yes, it's a good one. Is it exploiting, yes it is. Is it justified... I don't know... If it were mine, I would spend some time thinking about it....



sashbar said:


> PS I like your second image - the light is beautiful. And some talented Brussels photography on your Flikr. Very nice.


 Brussels is a beautiful town and I'm very sorry for not having enough of time to explore and shoot more. Thanks for your words, it's always nice to hear something nice


----------



## mmaria (May 7, 2014)

Stevepwns said:


> ...this is a great topic to discuss and you are a good person, MMaria.


I just quoted this line to see it twice in the thread


----------



## mmaria (May 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> Homeless make fantastic subject as they have textured faces and whatnot. That being said I would take their photo unless I was doing so to raise money for them.


Did you mean "I wouldn't take their photo unless..." or it's my English again?
You mentioned something I think also. I like their faces and they are fantastic subjects. Actually, any person that's been trough a lot in their lives make a great subject. It's just that a photographer needs to make a decision when, what and how to capture a scene.



Stevepwns said:


> I don't think it would be exploiting them, I don't know what word I would use though.  I just don't find it respectful to take pictures of people for the pure fact that they are not different than the norm but in most cases, just in a bad place in their life.  I know I wouldn't want anyone taking my picture if I were in that situation.


"A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text: P. Brooklyn 47.218.135",(c. 664 BC &#8211; 323 BC) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" I've just googled my version  of this saying and got this from Wikipedia  



konijntjesbroek said:


> I think this is the basic problem here: defining people by their condition. "There are homeless everywhere" exhibits this sentiment the most.  By dehumanizing the population they become little more than active scenery. If we take the time to get to know a subject, what drives them, what they enjoy/fear/hope for, we can better tell their story while still showing a common respect. Having been without a permanent address on a few occasions and very close to it more times than I like to remember, sometimes that little kindness of being treated like a human being even though I smell bad, look rough feel sore goes a long way to thinking a way out of my conditions.


 No matter with who you're talking to and where they're standing on the social letter, it's always about showing them some respect. There are ways to show the conditions and unfortunate life but without being disrespectful. That's something a good photographer should have installed in their camera. Sometimes a smile is enough, the way you walk/talk/not talk/look and else might be enough for the subject to see and recognize that you don't dehumanizing him/her and don't look at them just as a subject for your photograph.

JoeW, don't get me wrong... but I wish I could unseen that photograph...


----------



## mmaria (May 7, 2014)

JoeW said:


> People have asked Richard Drew how he could shoot while seeing that.  His response (and I can relate to it) is that you're so focused on the mechanics of getting the shot that the recognition that you are seeing a fellow human being who is willing jump to his death b/c of the heat and fire in the tower does not freeze you in horror and shock...instead you continue to function.  This is much like training that the military or first responders go through--so you don't shut down during times of stress.  It isn't about not feeling but being focused on "the job".


 I can relate to my brain being in "shooting mode" because I honestly think I've never been to Brussels. I've been at that workshop I attended there, but other then that I didn't see enough of Brussels. I was in the "shooting mode". I saw it trough the camera, trough capturing scenes and moments. When I'm the photographer I completely miss everything.



nzmacro said:


> Its a hard one. I have to see it to feel it ....... if you get my drift....
> All the best Marija and its a very personal thing I guess, I know when I see it if I find it upsetting and crossed the line. We all have different lines though
> Danny.


yes, lastly, the main criteria is the feel.


----------

