When does a photographer exploit people?

[sashbar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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....

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]

...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]

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.

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 – 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

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]

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.

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.