|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/16/2004 02:26:07 AM · #1 |
If you follow the forum threads at all, you will have seen this thread. I used the wrong editing rules for an open challenge. As soon as I realized this, I took action to have it removed from the challenge. I could not sleep knowing that I had, however inadvertantly, broken the rules. This also started me thinking...
We've all heard the term photographic integrity. This is of course the standard for this site. All photo's must look like photos. I would like to coin a new phrase: photographer integrity. What do I mean by this? Well in the above instance, I broke the rules so I fixed the situation that I caused. To a photojournalist, this would mean you don't alter pictures to create a reality to fit your story. But what about other possible scenarios...
Lets say you come across an accident scene. People are hurt but you are not qualified to help with medical treatment. You call the authorities who assure you that they are on the way immediatly. You have your camera with you. Do you shoot the scene? Do you shoot the victims? Do you shoot the rescue attempt not knowing if someone could die right in your viewfinder?
Lets say you come across a beautiful landscape scene. Not too far from you is a couple in a passionate embrace. Do you frame your shot with them inside the frame or outside of it? Why?
Lets say you are in a big city skyscraper shooting the cityscape with a long lens. Scaning the next building over, you notice a (very beautiful woman/handsome man) naked. Do you take the shot?
Lets say you are shooting in a cemetary and you come across a grieving widow on a new grave. Very picturesque scene. Do you capture the emotion of the moment or move on quietly and let the grief run it's course?
The possible scenarios where our integrity as photographers can be challenged are endless. I guess my question for all to ponder is what are our responsibilities as photographers?
Message edited by author 2004-07-16 02:26:54.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 02:40:03 AM · #2 |
TC...it's not nice of you to make us think this early in the morning!! LOL
Seriously, I'm too big of a chicken yet to take people's pictures surreptitiously. I would feel guilty about an accident scene. If it were my job, like for a newspaper, then that would be different, of course.
I don't know about our "jobs as photographers," as I don't consider myself a "photographer"...I just dabble. I think it comes down to a matter of respect and human decency, and the good old golden rule. Would you want your picture taken as you and your significant other shared a very private moment, or while you were dressing/undressing? Probably not. So I would just miss the chance at the shot to avoid personal guilt...don't know if that's good or bad.
...But of course, if the naked man was Antonio Banderas, I'd be all over that one, baby!
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 12:11:10 PM · #3 |
Good question. Each of the three scenes you propose have a different answer based on what I would feel is privacy versus documenting the world around me and and my reaction to that world.
An event that could be newsworthy as in the first scene should be documented. If I was the only person there with a camera and I didn't get in the way, it would be ok to take pictures and offer them to a local newspaper. I would not feel comfortable taking any pictures for personal use. I probably would never have this opportunity because I don't believe in gawking. If there are bystanders around the accident, I would move on and let people that can actually help have the room.
The second one is pure intrusion and I wouldn't even think twice about minding my own business. It's just not right.
The third is the most interesting one. One wouldn't want to intrude on the moment of grief but at the same time, it would be so tempting to capture the emotion of it all. But then, how do you tell someone that you took their picture in this situation? I could see how it could be ok, but I might feel guilty about stealing their privacy and knowing that, I probably wouldn't take the shot.
I'm at the stage where I can take candids but I want to let the person know, sometimes after the fact, so they can tell me if they have an objection. I would delete them if the person asks. So far, I've been lucky. No one has said no and after a few attempts, I'm getting a little more confidence.
Thanks for the thread TC.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2004 12:49:38 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
If you follow the forum threads at all, you will have seen this thread. I used the wrong editing rules for an open challenge. As soon as I realized this, I took action to have it removed from the challenge. I could not sleep knowing that I had, however inadvertantly, broken the rules. This also started me thinking...
We've all heard the term photographic integrity. This is of course the standard for this site. All photo's must look like photos. I would like to coin a new phrase: photographer integrity. What do I mean by this? Well in the above instance, I broke the rules so I fixed the situation that I caused. To a photojournalist, this would mean you don't alter pictures to create a reality to fit your story. But what about other possible scenarios...
Lets say you come across an accident scene. People are hurt but you are not qualified to help with medical treatment. You call the authorities who assure you that they are on the way immediatly. You have your camera with you. Do you shoot the scene? Do you shoot the victims? Do you shoot the rescue attempt not knowing if someone could die right in your viewfinder? |
There is always something you can do to help, even if it is just to stay out of the way so others can get the job done. But, if they are being properly cared for, why not? The camera is meant for documenting; whether it is documenting the facts as in photojournalism, documenting the perceived human condition as in photographic art or anywhere in-between.
Originally posted by TooCool:
Lets say you come across a beautiful landscape scene.
Not too far from you is a couple in a passionate embrace. Do you frame your shot with them inside the frame or outside of it? Why? |
If including them enhances the scene, I see no problem with it. Getting the nerve to do so, or to get a model release afterward, is another matter entirely. If they wanted privacy, they would not have put themselves on public display.
Originally posted by TooCool:
Lets say you are in a big city skyscraper shooting the cityscape with a long lens. Scaning the next building over, you notice a (very beautiful woman/handsome man) naked. Do you take the shot? |
If they were doing something interesting (get your mind out of the gutter), sure -- I wouldn't do anything public with the resulting photo, but if I thought it would make a good photo I would snap the shot. However, the world is quite saturated with images of beautiful men/women in various stages of undress, so just being naked is really not that interesting. ( <--did I just say that!)
Originally posted by TooCool:
Lets say you are shooting in a cemetary and you come across a grieving widow on a new grave. Very picturesque scene. Do you capture the emotion of the moment or move on quietly and let the grief run it's course? |
Again, if the shot was good, I would take the photo -- but, I would wait until the grief had run its course before asking for a model release (if appropriate), even if it meant I never get one because they leave before the grief has run out.
[/quote=TooCool]The possible scenarios where our integrity as photographers can be challenged are endless. I guess my question for all to ponder is what are our responsibilities as photographers? [/quote]
Currently my responsibility as a photographer is to learn what the heck I am doing. :) I can operate the camera. Perhaps not at a perfessional level, but well enough that just taking a good picture is not enough anymore. I want to say something with it.
In "In the Groove #4" digistoune directed us to this article which asked a crucial question about what it is we are wanting to do and accomplish. The recently resurfaced debate about photographic integrity helped me to define that term clearly for myself, and in the process I answered the crucial question from the article as well.
I defined photographic integrity with these words, "A good photograph has something to say, and says it by communicating on an emotional level. Many of the better photos express their message on many different, sometimes very subtle, levels -- this is generally referred to as the art of photography. However, the communication with the viewer, whether deemed worthy of the title of 'art' or not, is the effect of the photo. Thus, photographic integrity is maintained when the entirety of the effect of the photo, its communicated impact upon the viewer, is achieved by what is within the photo itself and is violated when the effect is achieved by elements (tangible of not) that are added to the photo. Any tool, and I do mean any tool, can be used to strengthen the effect as long as the effect is coming from the captured light itself."
This in turn helped me to fill in the blanks "I have a passion for capturing light, and I want to use that light to communicate below the level of words (ie on an emotional level)."
The author of the article promised that anyone that could fill in the blanks in that sentence would see an immediate improvement in what they were doing. I have to admit he was right. The first photo I took after defining this for myself is my 'Freedom II' entry (can't link to it right now), which is well on its way to becoming my personal best and potentially the first of my photos to get out of the dreaded sink-hole of the completely average and boring 5's.
My personal view and experience is that you are definitely progressing in the right direction to get your groove back (if you haven't yet). Thanks for taking us along for the ride, it has been an experience.
David
/edit: clarity and formatting
Message edited by author 2004-07-18 00:35:48.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2004 02:05:29 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
...But of course, if the naked man was Antonio Banderas, I'd be all over that one, baby! |
They tell me that if you squint real hard and look out of the corner of your eye, I kind of, in an off hand manner resemble slightly Antonio Banderas... :-0
All kidding aside, bumping to see if there is more insight to be had...
|
|
|
|
07/18/2004 01:15:55 AM · #6 |
Oh man, I killed another one. :(
.
.
.
CLEAR! ... KaZzzzztka--thump.
David
|
|
|
|
07/18/2004 01:30:00 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Oh man, I killed another one. :( |
...better you than me...that's usually my job! LOL
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:54:40 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:54:40 PM EDT.
|
