Ethics & Morality in Photography

[Scotty72]

I can think of only one, and that because it can be supported empirically; that our eyes are better than any camera!

We can extrapolate that out to the point of saying that some PP is essential, and that is also true to a greater or lesser extent. Whether it is Truth would be arguable by some.

Why is it that sometimes you see a scene, take a picture of it then only after looking at the picture, you notice things about that scene?

Maybe our eyes aren't so good after all.

[kiwi]

Yes !!! 100 posts

Thread closed, target achieved.

[Scotty72]

An ulterior motive for starting a thread... what about the morality of that?

[Dylan & Marianne]

the ulterior motive is revealed!

[kiwi]

Lol, I think 100 is a good kpi for a worthwhile thread don't you ?

[Irru]

Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?

To see this graphically, watch any random TV series (yes, moving pictures, but the point still holds). The people in that series are, on average, a lot younger, slimmer, better-dressed and better looking than real people, their homes are better furnished, their cars are cars that most people can't afford. Result: most ordinary people think that they are too fat, too poor, too ugly, and well behind the eight-ball of the average. This is why people burn themselves out working two jobs and going on stupid diets and having pointless cosmetic surgery and all the rest of it. Simply, because our communicators (photographers and others) lie to us all the time.

Is it ethically wrong to expect the viewers to have minds of their own?

Granted, many people don't seem to use their minds enough (whatever happened to self-education? It's far easier to do in the current day, and yet many - maybe most - people are as oblivious as ever). And yet, people apparently do believe everything they see on TV. Is that really the fault of the producer, or must we as individuals accept some blame upon ourselves?

I see way too much 'passing the buck' in every aspect of life, every day. Australians need to look within and recognise fault where it lays.

[Scotty72]

Is it ethically wrong to expect the viewers to have minds of their own?

Granted, many people don't seem to use their minds enough (whatever happened to self-education? It's far easier to do in the current day, and yet many - maybe most - people are as oblivious as ever). And yet, people apparently do believe everything they see on TV. Is that really the fault of the producer, or must we as individuals accept some blame upon ourselves?

I see way too much 'passing the buck' in every aspect of life, every day. Australians need to look within and recognise fault where it lays.

You know what? You are dead on.

When I was at school, I dared not ever ask a teacher, "How do you spell..?" for fear of having the dictionary thrown at my head for being lazy.

These days, the kids all have net-connected laptops at their fingertips with a desktop icon for http://www.yourdictionary.com/, yet they whinge when I refuse to answer the "How do you spell..?" question (even had 1 parent complain I was a bad teacher for not helping her kid).

Scotty

[zollo]

yes, i think far too little credit has been given to the viewer/audience of photographs, they are being treated like mindless zombies, the onus has been placed squarely on the photographer.

when viewing landscape photographs on a fine art photographers site - photoshopped or not, people are looking at the artists perspective on the landscape - not a scientists. hell, read the title of the site - FINE ART photographer, not scientist.

[Nikkie]

Taking a street photo of an interesting face is one thing; deliberately peering into someone's private domain is another entirely IMHO.

This is one of my own rules not only because its morally wrong but my own rule I also have a rule to never break the bounders in other words jumping a fence to get that snap no would I try and seek permission from the property owner yes I also feel in most case's if I explain the them I am a very very amateur photographer and I would like to take photos of his/her property whether it be a old farm truck or just the landscape yes I would. And also like Kiwi said

Absolutely fine in my opinion. If you take their photo when they have asked you not to however is rude and disrespectful rather than unethical or immoral, quite a distinction

using your big lens for peeking and taking photos for candid is 2 different things however I also would later tell that person that I did take there photos if I could like a neighbor I would say hey by the way I took these of you yesterday and offer them some on a disk same with the farmer offer some photos on a disk I am sure its better then trespassing

[enVision]

I think this thread has gone into almost too much detail. I don't think proposing various different situations and circumstances will help explore the subject, because it's too vast.

For me, ethics and morality in photography are very different. Ethically, I believe that I must not do anything which would bring myself or the photography profession into disrepute. This includes things which are illegal or frowned upon in the area I am shooting. This gives me a very clear direction on what I can/can't, will/won't do while out shooting and are a set of easy-to-follow rules which come naturally to any person (almost).

For me morality in photography makes me think more about my subject matter and are beliefs which I personally follow. For me personally, morality and empathy go hand-in-hand. If I feel wrong or uncomfortable in shooting something, then I won't do it. If that means missing 'the shot' then that's fine because I know that the confidence I have in myself that I have done the right thing instead of the wrong thing, far outweighs any kind of reward, payment or benefit form capturing that photo.

This does not mean that I can't step outside my comfort zone to try shooting new subjects or new styles as some people might be thinking. It relates more to how I get that subject matter in the first place.

/2 cents.

[Irru]

This is another example of something that is troubling ethically

Warning, graphic photo is linked

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/03/29/...r-award-given/

I think the first is morally dodgy. On the other hand, it isn't falsely representing the scene so I don't know that it is -wrong-. I don't think I could bring myself to take pictures of a dead person like that unless I was planning to use the picture to somehow benefit the subject (or in this case, the people as a whole, clearly the dead girl is beyond benefit).

The second is a shot that should have been taken and published, and I'm glad that it was. It depicts something important, and people should be shocked.

[Scotty72]

I think this thread has gone into almost too much detail. I don't think proposing various different situations and circumstances will help explore the subject, because it's too vast.

For me, ethics and morality in photography are very different. Ethically, I believe that I must not do anything which would bring myself or the photography profession into disrepute. This includes things which are illegal or frowned upon in the area I am shooting. This gives me a very clear direction on what I can/can't, will/won't do while out shooting and are a set of easy-to-follow rules which come naturally to any person (almost).

For me morality in photography makes me think more about my subject matter and are beliefs which I personally follow. For me personally, morality and empathy go hand-in-hand. If I feel wrong or uncomfortable in shooting something, then I won't do it. If that means missing 'the shot' then that's fine because I know that the confidence I have in myself that I have done the right thing instead of the wrong thing, far outweighs any kind of reward, payment or benefit form capturing that photo.

This does not mean that I can't step outside my comfort zone to try shooting new subjects or new styles as some people might be thinking. It relates more to how I get that subject matter in the first place.

/2 cents.

That's what I was trying to say (but got deleted ). Ethics is rules, morality is feelings... and are very different but essential considerations. Perhaps you expressed it better

Ethics are clear boundaries - morals are, would I like that if you did that to my mother...

[Scotty72]

I think the first is morally dodgy. On the other hand, it isn't falsely representing the scene so I don't know that it is -wrong-. I don't think I could bring myself to take pictures of a dead person like that unless I was planning to use the picture to somehow benefit the subject (or in this case, the people as a whole, clearly the dead girl is beyond benefit).

The second is a shot that should have been taken and published, and I'm glad that it was. It depicts something important, and people should be shocked.

For me, the line would have been crossed were they to touch the body (or have placed the props there). If she was dead, she was dead... they couldn't do anything for her but, the image itself may have prompted someone to donate money for relief etc. But, touching the body (in NSW anyway) would possibly have been a crime as you are not allowed to interfer with a corpse or a crime scene.

This is another serious example of morality, ethics and common decency being completely disregarded by Oz media (TV camera men - but, can apply to still phographers as well) when the guys with the camera are deliberately trying to change the circumstances (not just their interpretation of it) so as to deliberately trick the audience into believing something that just wasn't true.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s2870685.htm

They could have stayed 30 secs, got the shot they were after then, left the guy alone (the guy even offered them that). That would have been reasonable.

But, clearly, they wanted a shot of a 'raging Muslim' to pander to the commercial TV news' audiences - so, they needed to create a raging Muslim by provoking him to the point where Mother Theresa would have exploded too.