AdR
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Aug 06 11:53
Reply
dear all,
Our pictures on Woophy show us the world around us. That world is not only about holiday-pcitures and how great nature is over there, but is also about live.
If it is not the picture you would like to see, than push the next button.
If awareness of true live comes to you, the picture did what is should do, it told its story.
When is a picture a good picture?, when the lighting is good, when it is not out of focus or cropped correctly? Or when it told its story wether it is a good or bad?
A picture like on top will make you realize the rich live you have, and what you can do to help.
kind regards
Arjen
|
Frank Unbeliever
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Oct 06 15:14 - Edited by: Frank Unbeliever
Reply
Hello everyone,
This is a great topic and a difficult subject! I've read it with interest sofar. I think the closest thing to reality is the remark that we all should and will decide for ourselves. A few thoughts from me...
Different types of photographers have different ethics about their work. In these days it get's even more confused because digital photography is for the masses. You cannot expect from every individual who picks up a digital camera to have an understanding of ethics. I think in realtiy there are a lot of people with litle or no ethic consideration (I don't think that is a good thing).
On the other hand there are also rules and laws governing things like privacy that also aply to photography. Portrait-right is a good example. However you judge a picture on ethical basis, if it is legally takeable, the photographer stands in his right to take it.
And in the end, when it comes to publishing, the publishing medium also has the ability to apply ethic considerations. That should not be forgotten.
"A photo tells a thousand words" is an old saying, and it also tells a story of itself: a picture is a freezeframe in time of a situation. It is what the eye sees. If another sees it and goes home to write a story about it, that can be published. So why would a picture of the same situation not be publishable?
In my opinion, every picture taken in the public domain/places can be published. Every man could have seen the same thing, everybody with a camera on his/her mobile could have taken a shot. In fact, many do. If there was a celebrity there, then so be it. I know there are different views to this.
I'm not into paparazzi stuff, but if i would, as told here, have Pamela Anderson moor her boat next to mine in a public harbour: hey, why not? If she wants to have her privacy, she can do that indoors, out on see, or in a port that doesn't have touristboats on either side. I wouldn't have any problems with selling stuff like that. I could not stalk up on her, try to take indoor pics of her boat or in any other way invade in her privacy though, that is not me. But that is my decision.
In cases of picturing poverty, in general I don't think there is anything a photographer could do. I mean, perhaps you can find food for one, but there is not just one, and your not really helping with a one-time action only. If you don't plan of devoting your life to helping the poor, really all you can do is image it, and relay the story with it.
I do think that every living person has the moral obligation to help out in a life-or-death situation. As also told here, the question of picturing or saving a woman in the tsunami disaster: I think it is ones obligation to try and rescue if you can. Relaying the story is not an issue here. The Tsunami is such a big story that you can take tons of pics before or after saving a life.
I've been in places and functions with different uses of photography and filming, and every time there were my own considerations of a subject, but also the guidelines provided by the medium to comply with. Taking pictures for a newspaper demands totally different approach then taking pictures of a dance-event, and working for a magazine is different again.
My hardest work was for the Dutch equivalent of '911'. There I was part of a reporting team that went out every weekend, looking for disasters and reporting them. When you see people dead, dying and severly injured, it is hard to stay focused on your work. In these cases you cannot help, there are aidworkers doing that.
In one case though (where a car went into a ditch) we saw the aidworkers on the wrong side of the freeway. We called them by phone and guided them to our location (of the accident), and tried to calm the person in the car, who was trapped. Only when the emergency services arrived we got out the camera and started shooting.
In another case, where a motorbke crashed in a city, just us being there and filming angered the crowd, and the police ended up having to divide their forces between the accident and protecting us (we stood in our right to film).
In all cases in the beginning (the show was new too) we had to negotiate a way to cooperate with the emergency services. I remember the fire-dept to put peaces of cloth over human remains to prevent us from filming them. Which was not necessary, because in our guidelines we were not supposed to film actual blood&gore.
It was a heavy job, and I only managed to do it for 6 months. After those I almost ran screeming...
Right now I create my own projects and do some photo's in the entertainment bussiness. My main source of income is something else. But the attraction remains, as is the plan to pick up on it...
|
. 1 . 2 .
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 5