| Author |
Message |
Coutinho
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 20:49
Reply
John Melskens wrote this comment to the picture underneath:
"I don't want to rate a picture like this, because it is misery I am rating then - but the photo is excellent".
This reminded me a never ending discussion about phtography. For instance: would I not rate the following picture:
because I am not christian?
Or I should not rate pictures like the series of John´s Gay Pride because I am not gay?
So, my question is this:
Are there any limits, can we censor ourselves, should we censor ourselves?
Unfortunately most of the great photos are about misery. Why?
I would like to read comments on this issue, that has puzzled me for a long time.
Amongst all the pictures in Woophy I could have chosen many more to illustrate my point. But I know you will find them.
@John Melskens:
Thank you for reminding me this subject. It is very important to me to read your opinion.
|
36Clicks
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 22:31
Reply
Hi Coutinho,
This is indeed a very intriguing subject, and one that re-emerges every now and then... I don't think any of us can provide you with a satisfactory answer, so I will only share my thoughts.
I think the moral standards differ from person to person, from culture to culture. In my opinion,a photographer who influences the course of history by his action crosses a distinct line in this issue.
As an example: Should the winner of the World Press Photo capturing the image of the person after the Tsunami have assited in rescueing the person in stead of taking the award winning photo?
I think not. It's the photographers' job to relay the story, not to mingle in it. If the photograper would've rescued the woman, he would've saved a soul, but kept millions from learning what happened.
More important, in most cases we forget the circumstances under which the photo was taken. As the image doesn't tell us the whole story, the photographer might as well have been surrounded by rescue people. As we are unaware of those circumstances not included in the photo, who are we to judge?
To illustrate this from a more personal experience, I've had the chance to do an assigment to shoot the status of humanitarian aid roughly a month after the devastating earthquake in Bam, Iran in 2004. A job that made a huge impression on me - the misery of the people trying to pick up the remainders of their life after the earthquake, living in tents in front of what once used to be their house. Even more impressive and haunting: the huge shovels clearing out the rubble of their houses, under which the bodies of their kin were still buried. My job? To capture the scene. Did I enjoy it? No, not for a single moment. But I was able to tell the story through images so the humanitairian aid could be optimised. The effect of that optimisation was significantly more effective than anything else I could've done. Even stronger, the sole fact that I was there gave hope to the people, as they recognised the presence of the press as the reassurance that their story was being told to the people who DO have the power to help them.
On another level, I've read a thread about a photographer who took a photo of a moth drowning in a blue pool; not a spectacular photo, but the type of comments were in line with the ethics: should the photographer have rescued the moth? And, how did the moth end up in the pool? If the photographer stunned the moth and placed it in the pool, it's a different story all together. In the first, the photographer was merely capturing a scene as it happened, in the latter he influenced "history". The first would be OK from my point of view, the latter in conflict with ethics.
So, I believe there's nothing wrong with capturing the downsides of life, as long as the photographers' job isn't to influence it, and as long as the photographer captures the scene without prejudice, and does his job to relay the course of actions that has already happened.
It's a very thin line, and opinions may differ. I think, especially in an international oriented community, such as Woophy, with people from many backgrounds, nationalities, cultures and religions, it's very important to keep a distinct line between venting political opinions, and keep conversations strictly to photography. It cannot be in our benefit, nor that of the community to try to shock people, nor express views that might be controversial or offending to others - it's a code of conduct. Judging people on the nature (like of dislike of the subject) of their photos is easy, but often very speculative as the viewer is unaware of the circumstances under which the photo was captured. IMHO, the only fair assessment of a photo is therefor on the technical merits. Would I rate it? Probably not, as I feel uncapable of making a distinctive choice between the appreciation of the subject and the appreciation of the technical merit myself. Do I agree with John on not rating the image for the reason he provided? Don't think so either, for the reason mentioned above. Do I respect John for his opinion? Without doubt!
As to your quesition on self censorship and if we should? Another very personal question. After my experience (and sleepless nights) after shooting the reportage in Bam, I don't envy jounalists, but my respect for them has grown considerably, as long as they tell the story evolving in front of their eyes without bias and without interfering in it. That is their job. They simply cannot interfere in it without taking sides, and when they do, they would cross the line, IMO.
I have made a deliberate choice to not strive for becoming a photojournalist. But I know that if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I will use my camera to the best of my abilities to tell the story - on autopilot, and without pleasure. Those photos will not be good, nor will I be proud of them. But I will make the decision to either get involved or to show them to the world.
Are the greatest photos about misery? Again, I would be tempted to disagree.They are, however, the ones with the biggest impact on mankind, as they quite often tell a story we don't want to hear (or see). But it's not the photographer to blame, I believe.
I hope tihs makes sense. I'm as intrigued by what other people have to offer on the subject as you are.
Another question of ethics: When on vacation in Turkey, Pamela Anderson moored off next to our boat. As soon as we noticed her, I started snapping happily away, and being the first on scene (actually even before Pamela arrived) I sold those photos for a substantial amount of money. I had someone else sell the photos for me, as I couldn't stand the idea that I was intruding on a private get away (and given the fact that she was between some sort of legal prosecutions and needed that get away) of a "celebrity". In hindsight, I wish I hadn't taken those photos. But then again, soon after, the paparazzi swarmed around her boat like flies, and if I hadn't taken those photos, someone else would've had the scoop. Was I wrong in taking those photos?
I think the moral standards between the two examples I described are identical. Bottom line is that it's up to each and every one of us to make that decision, and that as long as the reasons behind that decision are unknown to the observer, we should not critisise them.
|
nature
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 22:32 - Edited by: nature
Reply
@Coutinho: your "storie" remind me one of my pic: 
this pic was no commented during a long time, until a 1st comment that seem to release spirits. Now there are 3 comments. So maybe people wait to give their opinion on delicate subject because they don't want to shock ... I don't know
For the answer of "can we censor ourselves?" I think it's YES (I hesitated to post this pic because it's a symbol for some people and I don't wanted to give a bad representation for them, I don't really know what the christian thinks of the representation of their religion)
and for "should we censor ourselves"I think it's NO because it's good to be openminded as long as there is respect for other people.
|
giz
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 23:09
Reply
Couthino, as I said in my comment I didn't rate misery but I rated it fot the fact that it makes us aware of misery, a fact that is so easely forgotten in our day to day comfortable life. Your picture made an impact and told a story.But I agree,36 clicks, it is up to each and everyone to make the decision, in my case I took the decision to rate and not neccessarely for the quality of the picture ( which by the way is excellent ) but for the subject that made a big impression on me.
|
|
Coutinho
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 23:12
Reply
@36Clicks and nature
Thanks for your post. I am going to read it so very carefully tomorrow. But for now, I wish there is no doubt: in any moment I disagreed with John´s opinion. I have used it just for an example. I respect all and every opinin on this subject.
Rgds.
|
|
Coutinho
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 23:20
Reply
@giz
Exactly. Misery is all over; the question is: can we decide to show only part of it or the whole misery in it´s "splendor"? Going further: just to have a good shot, can we invade people´s privacy? On the other hand, not shooting erases the reality? That´s the issue here, at least for me.
|
|
36Clicks
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 23:32
Reply
Hi Coutinho, No worries, I understand what you mean very well, and I do respect Johns (or Giz's?) decision as well. It's not an issue of agreeing with it or not. I think you picked a very good example, as it shows what the ethics discussion should be all about. I'm looking forward to hear what you think of my thoughts.
As to the first photo, for all I know, you know this woman and child very well, and have paid her generously to take the photo. Or maybe you captured this photo without her consent, and made a substantial amount of money selling it. Eventough I trust neither explanation is true, I am not in a position to judge, and I can only assess the photo on technical merits. Any rating based on assumptions on what you did prior to or after taking this photo is limited by the personal moral standards of the person rating it, if you know what I mean. So I won't judge, nor do I qualify myself as capable of judging...
Excellent topic, though. Definitely food for thought!
Nite!
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Aug 06 23:57
Reply
Hi Coutinho,
I think we can sencor ourselves and, but it is up to each and anyone itself were we draw the line. My moral standards are not the same as anybody else. But to say don't take pictures of misery, its like sticking your head in the sand. Misery exists, don't close your eyes for it . As 36clicks says But I was able to tell the story through images so the humanitairian aid could be optimised., as photographer he was helping in a very different way, that was his purpose to be there.
For a few months ago I shot a picture of a little child carried into a chopper, the child was transferred to an other hospital. http://www.woophy.com/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=3&topic=124 6
The same evening they asked me, local press, if I was willing to send the picture to the local newspaper, I refused because I thought it was to hard for the parents to see their child a day later in the newspaper.
I would never invades people privacy further than I did with that picture. That makes me not suitable as photojournalist. For which I'm glad, I think it is the hardest way to make pictures. But I do respect their work, it is necessary, its the world we live in with all the good and bad.
I think why pictures of misery do so "well" is because of the fact the humankind is a curious being and I think we compare it with our own situation we live in.
kind regards ruud
|
|
36Clicks
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 00:24
Reply
Very well put, Ruud, I've seen that series of photos, and think you made a noble decision not to sell it (or even send it). Many people would've decided differently, as I guess is their due right.
As this is not a right or wrong issue, please allow me to ask for the sake of discussion: If you (IMO for good reasons) refused to send the images to the local newspaper, what made you decide to upload them to Woophy? Just curious where you draw the line...
Cheers,
36Clicks.
|
John Melskens
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 01:53 - Edited by: John Melskens
Reply
Thank you Mr. Coutinho for bringing this dilemma up.
Thank you 36 Clicks, Nature and Giz for your input.
First to the picture of Mr. Coutinho. The quality was as always with pictures from Mr. Coutinho, very good. (I do not use that "Mr." not lightly but out of respect for a good and honest man.)
The picture moved me. At that moment, I felt I could not rate the "subject" of the photo. There is so much poverty in the world, so much people that are starving every day. I try not to think about those things to often. I try to ignore the poverty, the hunger, the misery in the world; I try to ignore all those millions of people.
By going to decadent places and to parties. By looking for FUN.
Because I cannot change those things. I cannot help those people, though I would like to.
I have tried it in politics at a small, local level. Here where I live there are poor people too. I don't compare them with hungry people in Africa or people in area's of war or with casualties of a nature disaster.
I want to see everything in its perspective.
Everyone has his or her own ethics and morals. Because where we were born and because who raise us our ethics ands morals differ. Some. Not in every aspect. We all like peace (for ourselves and the people we like!), we all want to have a roof over our head, bread and water (at least) on our tables. In addition, most of us want that for the people we know (and do not know!) as well.
After we have that minimum of comfort, we can start thinking about "higher" morals, about more education, etc. Moreover, we have the peace of mind to start thinking about helping other people to a better life to. (However, nearly always in the way we have been raised and have those things ourselves.)
Therefore, when I talk about these things it is from my background.
Three different situations: war, disaster and celebrities.
Celebrities also have a right to privacy. To a point. They have their status because they are in the public eye. They earn a lot of money sometimes because they are famous. And with that fame comes a certain obligation to the public, a responsibility.
Nevertheless, everyone needs some time for him or herself. I understand that some paparazzi rather have the money then to think about that. And I can understand that too – they have to eat also. And their family. The life of paparazzi is not an easy life.
I would not make that picture as 36 Clicks did. Alternatively, maybe I would but not sell the picture. I would make the photo because I could. But I don't have to sell it. That is my choice.
I do not care that much about money. I want to be able to look myself in the face every day.
I do not condemn what 36 Clicks did, but I would do something else.
Moreover, I will not lie in bushes to catch a celebrity nude or in some other private position. Not unless they know! That is my opinion.
Many years ago, I had to take pictures of Prince while he was staying in The Hague. Every day I hung around that hotel and tried to work it out with his bodyguards. They knew why I was there and I knew what their job was.
On the third day, they "tipped" me that Prince would come out of the backdoor of that hotel in 15 minutes. Then I could take my pictures – which meant that they would not stand in front of me (they were BIG!) and that "the boss" had okay-ed it.
With this, I want to say two things: 1) you can take your picture often if you talk to people, make them understand and 2) you do not have to get yourself in a dilemma because you have invaded their privacy.
Disaster. Taking photo's of people in need, which are hungry, starving or very ill is a problem for me. In every case, I would consider all the alternatives. When and if there are any.
I was a press-photographer and although I have not been in that situation myself I have discussed it with people who have been there.
Most of them take that picture. With a bleeding hart. And it sometimes took them months before they could sleep again. (However, they will overcome that problem – you have to.) Some of those photographers crossed the line and tried to help. I like that, but do they always know what they are doing? As I said before, we like to help other people but in a way that we would like to get helped ourselves.
Sometimes it works for a while. Helping others is by the way never a guarantee that it will work for those people in the long run. And other things might happen that are unforeseen.
I would try to help, I think. AND take that picture if I had the feeling that it could do any good in some way. Also to other people in the same situation.
War. I have never taken war-pictures and although I collect military stuff I hope never to experience war myself. (It is the duality of men: collecting military stuff and NOT liking war…) That is, I was in Vietnam in 1972. The war was still going on. Lots of warships before the coast as our (Shell) tanker sailed up the river. We all had our helmets and flack-jackets on.
Between 17.00 and 19.00 hours the cook and I had to be on the lookout for divers with bombs. I was not scared – I only knew war from war-movies and TV.
However, suddenly there was shooting at the other side of the river and you realize that you could be hit by a stray bullet.
The next morning I was sick. Scared and sick. We were already leaving Vietnam so the war was over for me. War is very different in real life then on TV or in the movies.
But it started me thinking about war and why people fight. As I said earlier most people do not want war, but peace. It is the politicians or people that in some way profit from a war that start wars and the people just have to fight and die.
I wish "the people" came up more for themselves. For their rights.
Would I take pictures? Maybe. Would I try to help the people? I like to think so. Would I take sides? I am almost certain. Yes, I would get involved and cross that line.
Maybe I could do both. Trying to make that picture, if I would feel that it could help some people AND getting involved. I would even fight myself if the cause were just and fair – in my opinion. In addition, I cannot stand injustice…
Then one more thing: religion. Religion in my opinion is personal. After saying that I realize that to many people it is more then that. Therefore, I will not talk about religion. It has nothing to do with self-censorship but with the fact that I do not know enough about (all) religion(s). I am not a religious person myself. I leave it at that (although I was raised a catholic….).
On Woophy that last topic is best left alone, I think. Religion has caused the most wars in history, is my opinion, and we do not need a fight on the Woophy-website.
Did I forget something or left something out? I hope not. This letter took me to long. However, I felt it my obligation to answer a so sincere request for my opinion of Mr. Coutinho. And out of respect to the others.
We will have to make our own decisions in life. Set our own moral standards and ethics. That is what I feel.
We have to make our own rules by which we can live and hopefully those rules do not interfere with those of the other people (around us).
I am not used to talk about these things in English so forgive me if I made some language-errors.
John
|
|
John Melskens
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 01:57
Reply
@ De Stilte - sorry, I forgot to mention your input.
|
|
36Clicks
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 07:36
Reply
@ John:
Thanks for your elaborate (and clear) outline of your thoughts. I think the distinction you make between the various types of photography (Paparazzi, celebrity photos and reportive journalism of the more gruesome aspects of life) as well as the three different kinds of misery (poverty, war and desasters) is a very important one in assessing where each of us draw the line. That line is likely to vary from subject to subject.
I also find it interesting to see that you mention "crossing the line" in respect to getting involved too.
The complete separation of religion is IMO a bit too strict; Of course, religion is a personal issue, but I guess that could also apply to war and desasters. I'd say it's only human that as soon as any of those have an immediate effect on you, you'd be personally and emotionally involved. I believe that's a complicating factor to determine where you draw the line to also become physically involved.
Cheers,
36Clicks.
|
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 09:00 - Edited by: de stilte
Reply
@ 36Clicks,
I'm a little bit into spiritual things, compare it with "Reiki", it is not complete the same, but it is the best explanation I can give.
At the moment I was present there I felt the grieve, the pain, the sorrow of the parents and the child. The same time I felt a HUGE amount of energy floating towards the parents and their child.
Knowing that a lot of people can send a lot of energy and love towards them I decided to place the picture here on woophy with the call up to the members to send energy also.
When I had sended the picture to the local paper I think the effect of the picture would have been opposite with what I was trying to reach. Something like this accident is very radical for those who have to deal with it. About all the troubles ,wars, miseries in the world I can do very little......With this picture I think I / we helped a lot.
As I mentioned before I would not been fit as a photojournalist, first people and then the 'scoop'
kind regards ruud
@John...doesn't matter..my nick is de stilte ...........;-)
|
|
36Clicks
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 09:22
Reply
@ De Stilte, Thanks for your explanation, and I see what you mean. Interesting thougth, too, and one that is in most cases too easily overlooked, or is being paid not enough attention too. (I know I didn't...:P) The Intentions of the photographer are definitely a very important issue in where to draw the line, as is the "targetted" audience. Very good point!
Cheers,
36Clicks.
|
|
John Melskens
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 12:50 - Edited by: John Melskens
Reply
@ ALL
There is one more thing: I don't like it when people are made a target of ridicule. Ever. I feel that people can do that themselves - and they do often enough. As a photographer I do not want to make pictures that ridicule people. Or made fun of.
You all know that you can take a picture in such a way that the person(s) are looking ridiculous or, even worst, BAD in that picture.
I am not trying to make photos where all people look their best - I am not completly objective, I am not even trying to do that - but I am not deliberatly going to take pictures where people look BAD in any way.
You have to feel for the people you are taking pictures of. In a way, connecting with them. For the best photo-result, but also out of plain respect for another human being.
Yes, I like to be subjective, yes, I have taken pictures of people that I do not like, but I hope that did not show in the picture. If it did it was never deliberatly.
|
|
John Melskens
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 12:53
Reply
@Ruud / De Stilte - that is what you get what a nickname like yours... ;-))
|
miek waling
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Aug 06 15:16
Reply
This is a very good topic. Thank you Coutinho for bringing this in. Thanks to all of you who have been responding. I have been reading your opinions with great interest.
Though the issue is not an easy one, 'cause it appeals to our deepest feelings, our common way of thinking etc., the tone of the messages is heartwarming.
Of couse, the issue is concentrated on photography, for that's what Woophy is about. And it is fantastic that we have the possibility to meet eachother here and to share our thoughts.
Photography, for me, is embedded in my way of being. All the questions I ask myself, all the descisions I have to make, they tell me something about my own likes and dislikes, background, fears, joy, standards, (un)awareness and so on. And all these aspects effect me in daily life. I don't have a clear answer ready to this broad topic. And maybe I never will have. But it is inspiring me to go on, to grow, to be(come) open minded, to face my own 'shadows'.
Thanks again, love to you all.
Miek.
|
Phillipo
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Aug 06 01:18
Reply
My dearest Coutinho ...
I think that Photographer's Ethics ... I mean ... a real photographer, goes beyond of Religion/Politicl/Etnic/Etc/Etc/Etc ...
To a photographer it's not important this kind of ordinary things ... I mean ... her/his eye it supposed that has learned for not to see it ... it's Ethic doesn't let her/him ...
I'll tell a real example about what happens to my friend Pistachon (do you remember him???) when he was woking as a photojournalist: In those days ... many days/years ago ... he was commisoned for to cover a Rolling Stone's concert ... yes ... oohhhh yes ... and as a boss of the photographers team, he selected some of his best photographers and they went to do "The Job" ... some member of his team says: Well I'm here ... in the Rolling Stone's concert ... and I wont let go the opportunitie for to dance and scream this few minutes of my life ( they had only some few minutes for to take pictures in the concert ...) this member took some pictures ... BUT ... the rest of the team done the job ...
What I wanted to let you know is that no matter where you are or what kind of pictures you have in front of you ... you always will have an only two choices ... an attitude as "Photographer" or an attitude as an "Ordinary Civilian" ... in this fact you need to know what kind of comments or what kind of attitude you will wish to have ...
If you want to see some more of this kind of pictures that someone don't like them ...
Visit this web site ... just visiting the web site and seing the pictures you will learn more about it ...
www.magnumphotos.com
My Reagards To You Imagination's Finger !!!
|
|
John Melskens
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Aug 06 11:06
Reply
@ Philipo - as I understand it, you mean that ones you are a photographer you do just that? Take pictures, no mather what? I am a human being first and a photographer after that.
I know that most professional photographers go first for the picture and then maybe for something else. But I am glad I don't have to do that anymore.
I feel that it is important to think first: why should I make this picture? And if I shot a picture in a reflex, because suddenly something happend, what should I do with it?
Keep it, destroy it, show it to someone or the world, should I sell it?
We make the choises ourselves. As a photographer you are not some robot that just takes pictures. You feel and think before you do something.
|
|
Phillipo
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Aug 06 17:07
Reply
My dearest John Melskens ...
BUT of course !!! ... I know and understand your point of view ... there aren't a photographer that can forget her/his human part before to take a picture ... what I mean ... (back to the Coutinho pictures) ... if somebody feel some kind of "horror" about some pictures ... in this case with misery ... why everybody needs to know it ??? of course I feel much respect about your pint of view with/about misery ... but the thing is so simply ... if you don't like something ... ok ... enought ...
In My Opinion: If some picture don't like it, I don't send any comment and I don't give any rate ... not even downrate ... If I don't like it ... BUT ... If In My Opinion needs some kind of editing or croping or somethig else, I'll tell you or I'll suggest to you what to do ... or ... I'll give you a constructive critic about it ...
I WONT GIVE ANY CRITIC WITHOUT CONSTRUCTIVE OPINION ... NEVER ...
And this point of view is a Part Important Of My Ethic ... In My Opinion Of Course !!!
If someone will falldown from a canyon, I wont take the picture ... I'll give her/him my hand ... life is important, pictures must wait !!!
My Regards John !!! Truly !!!
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 2