When does a photographer exploit people?

[mmaria]

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

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

Can you elaborate more...pls

 

[runnah]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.
--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.

As for those who argue about having a "conscience"....I think that varies on the basis of what your values and beliefs are.... 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.

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]

...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]

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]

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.

exactly.

 

[Designer]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.