|
I am in favor of photographing respectfully--if a shot feels wrong it probably is--there are plenty of ways to get good shots that are outside of your comfort zone as a photographer without being intrusive.
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
M. Aviña edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
If the guy was in a wheelchair, recovering from the injuries, there would be no value, no point to the shot, if anything it would possibly appear mocking.
If on the other hand the incident that caused the injury had just occurred, I would have had no hesitation in pressing the shutter, but then we move from street to editorial, different ball game.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
No, I would not have taken the shot. What would have been the point? I am proud of you for not wanting to add to the man's pain. One can be uncomfortable, exposed, threatened and morally on the wrong side without causing pain. Good on you.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Larking, considering the situation I wouldn’t have. I don’t think it would have reflected what the instruction is about. Possibly the situation didn’t help, coming across someone on the street in such circumstances and having to take their picture without talking to them or making some sort of approach may result in some uneasiness for you and the person you are photographing.
I do agree with M.A. and also if it doesn’t feel right to you, then why do it. You have to ask yourself: what am I trying to say by taking this photo? If you took the shot it would have just been a photo of “a man with some terrible injuries - in wheelchair, head and neck brace on and possible facial surgery or burns"
[sorry correcting my awful grammar!]
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
E.Yelsel edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
No, I couldn't do it either for the reasons already stated.
In my opinion you made the right decision on moral/ethical grounds.
We have got used to seeing distressing images of wounded and vulnerable people in the papers taken by press photographers, but there is a whole world of difference between "journalism" and SP to me.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I took this last year. I knew it was shitty when I took it, but I couldnt work up the nerve to let her see me shoot it. The result is the equivalent of a hip shot.
">
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
justinsdisgustin edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
I wouldn't either, but I have to confess that I have a looong list of what 'not to shoot'.
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
T Silva edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
I could have shot the one that Justin took though. There is also a difference in shooting and posting...some I took but can't post because I've had qualms about it later.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yeah, it's easy to take if the person you are exploiting doesnt see you. But the pictures looks chicken shit. Anybody can shoot somebody in the back, but shooting somebody in the face is a different story.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
True. There's potentially a dilemma about photographing any one if they don't see you..... from front, back or sideways.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For me it depends how good the shot was likely to be - if it was just the fact of his injuries then probably not, but if the shot 'said' something more than that then I'd take it though if I was sure he'd see me I'd probably reset and come back for it later from a different position or with a longer lens. But again, like Julia, whether I'd post it or not is another matter...
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
bart1eby edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
Having pressed the button, I'm wondering now whether I should have shown more self restraint.....and picked someone who might have hit me rather than someone who wasn't going to.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
why? What is the preoccupation with violence? I keep reading that. You're lucky you didnt get hit or whatever. Is that what people are afraid of? Im mainly worried about making somebody feel bad.
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
justinsdisgustin edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
I think most people are worried about making someone feel bad, hence Larking thread. It's a such shame there is not much input into this discussion it would have been nice to hear some voices.
Yes Justin, violence shouldn't be the main concern.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I also think you did the right thing, LA. This instruction, taken literally, reminds me of the Milgram Yale experiment in the 60's (the electric shock one). Although I was initially annoyed by this instruction, it's the difficult ones that really help define what kind of a photographer you are. Personally I don't want to make anyone look bad and in general I look for beauty in the streets. I'm all for making gentle fun of mankind, but for me it needs to be respectful (and it almost always is among the well-know photographers - even Gilden loves his subjects!). This instruction, has really helped me refine my ambitions and I think I'm not the only one. Only problem is - I still don't have a shot!
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
Alison McCauley edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
Maybe the emphasis on the risk of getting hit partly comes out of the stuff about which areas of London might or might not be difficult and uncomfortable. On whether or not to take the shot - I suppose that depends on what it's for and how well you can justify that purpose. I don't think this SPN project is a good enough reason to upset people! But someone like Don McCullin had a reason for doing what he did (though he's fairly pessimistic about the outcome of recording the violence he witnessed). And I'm also still struggling to get a shot that works for this week.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I seem to have angered a few people this week on the streets- mainly the police (but what is new?)- I have noticed a change in police attitudes (in the UK, well in London) since the student protests late last year, although the Met police does have a lot of unanswered questions at present- that is probably another story/ thread.
I have no objection to stepping out of my comfort zone- that is one of the reasons I joined this project; if I continued to shoot the same things with the same mental attitude that I had before coming on the project then I would consider it a waste of my time. I am enjoying feeling uncomfortable and closer to the edge this week and getting into areas I would not normally go into.
For me, this has been one of the most challenging of instructions and I thank Mirko for setting it.
To return to Larking's point- I think only you can make that judgement call at the time, and to me it sounds like you made the right choice. There is a line between gritty realism and voyerism, but I supsect that line will be different for all of us.
I suppose in the same way that it seems obvious what is porn and what is an arty nude you can tell what is good street and what is exploitative; taking your man's photo (sorry, I've stopped talking about porn now- back on the original point), just because he was injured sounds like it would have crossed the line, whereas I would not rule out taking a photo of someone with injuries/ disabilities/ death/ dying/ crime if it was in context.
I suppose the photo of the week so far for me is the one of his father being helped to be dressed. I think that shows what I am trying (in a poor way) to explain- the subject matter could have been, if taken in a different way, been superficial and exploitative, whereas I found that photo as showing great respect and dignity and moved me.
Sorry for the ramble....
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yeah WobblyT. I agree with you on your last point, that photo does it for me too.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The comments and discussions in this thread have really lifted my heart. There is an interesting article on David Campbell's and Joerg Colberg's websites about 'pornography' and how photography can be used to 'shamelessly ogle'. And it's good to see the spn community so unanimous in it's conviction here.
What's also reassuring for me is there seems to be a difference between photographing out of your comfort zone and photographing what you're not comfortable with. Social documentary is a different kettle of fish, but for street photography it seems to perhaps embrace a lighter or more optimistic spirit than other genres.
I too agree about this image and a very thought provoking instruction this week...
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Now saying that, this image we are talking about: social documentary or street? Or am I going to diverting this thread into something else? If I am ignore me....
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey, Justin, I think your bicycle girl picture is inspiring, it made me admire that girl. I have two legs and never learned to drive a bike! I think both respect for the others and our own safety are valid concerns.
On the first theme, respect, you can't control everybody''s thoughts. I have a picture of an old lady dressed with very colorful sport clothes, the interesting colors draw me to her photographically, but some commenter made fun of the lady for supposedly inappropriate dressing. As a viewer, I found his dressing choice kind of nostalgic and sad, not fun, but both are just opinions based in very limited information. My point is, anything (or everything?) can be offensive for someone out there. If you start thinking too much about it, you can get paralyzed or taking only pictures of flowers and stones.
About safety or violence, in my own experience of two years of continuous shooting and after thousands clicks on all kind of people and public places in my very dangerous country Venezuela, I don't have even one incident, not only nobody has punched me, but not even gave me insults or threats. Just once a guy asked me about the pictures and to my shame I was the one responding too much (the poor man walked away a little scared for my answer). I do think in my safety and act accordingly but I think most of the wannabe street photographers fears are overrated.
And about the injured wheelchair man... if the light was good and I could frame the situation interestingly, maybe I had pressed the button. I mean not all interesting subjects make interesting pictures. But you have to be there to be sure if you have the guts.
Originally posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
cristiano007 (I received the new camera!!!) edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
I was once menaced in my boring city (Montreal) by a girl whose dog I was photographing! She said she was going to break my camera.
I was also once screamed at by a lady in Bogota.
I was also "mean" enough to take a picture of a trio of bling people in the metro, people around seemed to be offended, but the blind, of course, were oblivious and seemed happy anyway!
But yes, go with the feeling - people have such vision about themselves. Some perfectly beautiful, manucured, well-dressed woman could feel insecure and get mad when one is taking her picture, and someone in a wheelchair could be glad you take his picture because you are not afraid of his condition and ready to face that it's what life is. It really depends on the vibe.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@kidsentiment - your last paragraph is exactly what I was just coming back to say now I don't need to :)
I expected a lot of people to say they would not have pressed the button - I was more interested in those that would have....
I have kind of not liked this week- but that is a good thing - anything that makes me think this much has to have some effect!. I'm normally comfortable enough shooting people up close and kids etc but being a bit literal I thought I had to get something a bit extreme like the wheelchair guy so I have been on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster finding my boundries - which there are more of than I would have thought.
There is still so much contradiction in me though as I would happily own a book with a photograph of a person injured as described. Also I don't fully approve of for example some of Diane Arbus's work as I wonder about her motives - but yet I own her book. Yet I will not own a Sally Mann although her motives are probably much purer.
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"document it or not document it?"
I think the photos above are a good example of what you are talking about...
I had the same debate today with the photographer (Agnieszka_Napierala) who took these photos and she said:
"I do not ask myself this question "to document or not to?" anymore. the role of the photographer is to pass the message, to describe the situation.
A bit like a doctor who has to help a sick person, a photographer should take pictures.
it s about how you take these pictures. how you react on people, how sensitive you are on their sufferance, feelings, how much compassion you have.
the respect I believe is the most important aspect during such moments.In photography a person should always come first. photos should be always a side effect of human meetings."
I totally agree with her and with MR avina...Respect is the key- word..
I believe her images are strong and personal...they express feelings and tell painful stories....
but that's what a photographer does, right?
Posted 16 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Instruction #17 /
Discuss
No, I would not have taken the shot. What would have been the point? I am proud of you for not wanting to add to the man's pain. One can be uncomfortable, exposed, threatened and morally on the wrong side without causing pain. Good on you.
Feed – Subscribe to Instruction #17 discussion threads
