When does a photographer exploit people?

[mmaria]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Raj_55555]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

 

[mmaria]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

oh my!!