The Ethics of Photography

[John King]

Cheers Rick. But who says it's not forensics? That's just an opinion. Others may (and in fact do) disagree. It is every bit as much an attempted suppression of beliefs to say "anything goes and that's the way it should be" as it is to say what Mr Cox says.

Put it this way:

Donald Trump meets up with Miranda Kerr to open a new luxury marina. They tour it in a small boat. Just at the wrong moment, a freak wave comes along. Trump is washed overboard, soaking his expensive suit and rinsing the orange dye out of his hair. He will probably drown if you don't jump in to rescue him. Meanwhile, Miranda Kerr manages to keep her feet but suffers an unexpected and very revealing wardrobe malfunction. You are the only photographer there. What is the correct thing in this circumstance?

Take a photo of both, then ponder the moral dilemma as to your legal position of not being required to throw a life preserver to a drowning man, but having an ethical but unenforceable duty to do so ...

Perhaps read John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill's essay "On Liberty" to further inform your thoughts about navigating this moral dilemma ... .

[richtbw]

Cheers Rick. But who says it's not forensics? That's just an opinion. Others may (and in fact do) disagree. It is every bit as much an attempted suppression of beliefs to say "anything goes and that's the way it should be" as it is to say what Mr Cox says.

Put it this way:

Donald Trump meets up with Miranda Kerr to open a new luxury marina. They tour it in a small boat. Just at the wrong moment, a freak wave comes along. Trump is washed overboard, soaking his expensive suit and rinsing the orange dye out of his hair. He will probably drown if you don't jump in to rescue him. Meanwhile, Miranda Kerr manages to keep her feet but suffers an unexpected and very revealing wardrobe malfunction. You are the only photographer there. What is the correct thing in this circumstance?

Hope the battery is fully charged, there is enough space on the memory card and you got the right lens fitted.

[feathers]

Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't take any pics

[Mark L]

Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't take any pics

I don't mind if people take photos of me??

[markdphotography]

I have been offline for a few days setting up a new PC and modem and this discussion seems to be evolving and a couple of comments

Lance B - Hmm. I disagree about the Sea Eagle and the dead fish being staged and therefore wrong and that he needed to admit that he planted the fish. I was not making a decision one way or the other but justy giving an example of ethics and bird photography. On saying that it depends on the context but generally nature and bird photography are seen as natural images and one of those images would not be accepted in a "Nature" competition/exhibition. Mind you he was showing it in a pictorial context but when asked about the process, indicating the circumstances is being truthful/ethical. You do not have to go into in depth detail but if someone asks? This can also be assocaiated with the recent political discussion and the "pub test" scenario. Most of the MP did not think what they did was wrong, they deserved these privileges for all the work they do and the low pay they get - just that the public did not agree. Sometimes justice has to be seen to be done. I remember being taught ethics in my uni degree and the teacher said - if the true story appeared on the front page of the paper, what would the average person think after they read the story. Photographer captures stunning images of sea eagle catching fish in the wild OR Photographer uses canoe and dead fish to capture stunning images of eagle?

Jim - "It's kind of interesting how different people will read the same passage and see entirely different things." Agree with you I did not think he was telling people this is the new law - just quoting from his self learning and hoping that others would agree.

Rick - "There is no correct thing... it is whatever the photographer decides." I disagree and there are lots of examples of the the wrong thing. One that always comes to mind is the great photographer Frank Hurley (albeit a news photographer) but the same point needs to be asked - how far do you go to get that shot.

I am not on a moral crusade here but just discussing the subject is a good thing. If you would like to read more about this subject have a look at https://photographylife.com/the-impo...in-photography . Although ethics is very personal it does have a group/global expectation that we should consider.

[ameerat42]

The only things he suggests others should do are "don’t cause lasting damage to the landscape, and don’t wilfully deceive your viewers." By which he appears to mean you should be willing to tell people what changes you've made to a scene in order to create your photo. I find it hard to see anything much wrong with these suggestions.

All that stuff about not moving leaves and so on are presented as personal choices he has made about his own photography, and effectively defended on that level.

This is about the nub of it.

[Steve Axford]

"wilfully deceiving your viewers" takes a bit of thought. It very much depends on your viewers. With eagles catching fish it depends on whether the audience thinks the eagle is catching live fish in the wild or doesn't care. If it was in the cinema, then belief would probably be suspended, but not always. With nature docos it is a fine line. I have heard of cinematographers tieing fish to a plank, so they stay upright, so the audience can't see that it is a dead fish. That can, of course, be found out and then there is a fuss and the filmer can never do that again and probably loses business becausye of it. in an area as obscure as fungi time lapse (my own specialty), almost anything goes. Not because there is any attempt to deceive, but in an attempt to make it look as real as possible. Much of it is real, but you can't take a two week time lapse in a real forest because in reality things change to much. I think you need to look to your audience and ask, " would the audience be upset if they knew what I did?" If you feel you need to keep things secret, then the answer to that is probably yes. That's not to say there is anything wrong with what you do, just that your audience thinks, rightly or wrongly that it is "unethical".

[markdphotography]

"wilfully deceiving your viewers" takes a bit of thought. It very much depends on your viewers. With eagles catching fish it depends on whether the audience thinks the eagle is catching live fish in the wild or doesn't care. If it was in the cinema, then belief would probably be suspended, but not always. With nature docos it is a fine line. I have heard of cinematographers tieing fish to a plank, so they stay upright, so the audience can't see that it is a dead fish. That can, of course, be found out and then there is a fuss and the filmer can never do that again and probably loses business becausye of it. in an area as obscure as fungi time lapse (my own specialty), almost anything goes. Not because there is any attempt to deceive, but in an attempt to make it look as real as possible. Much of it is real, but you can't take a two week time lapse in a real forest because in reality things change to much. I think you need to look to your audience and ask, " would the audience be upset if they knew what I did?" If you feel you need to keep things secret, then the answer to that is probably yes. That's not to say there is anything wrong with what you do, just that your audience thinks, rightly or wrongly that it is "unethical".

All valid points Steve and a difficult dilemma which there is no simple answer but worth thinking about. The article stopped and made me think, review and assess. I certainly have removed fungi from the rainforest location and propped them up on a log or even a table to get a better POV and make the photography easier. You try to amke the subject look like it is in the natural environment and to some that would be unethical but for me it is more practical and shows the subject off better visually.

The eagle scenario is still a great picture, bird in flight, fish in tallons, high degree of difficulty but not telling the viewer about the general details when asked is "wilfully decieving the viewers". Presented in a pictorial manner without any supporting detail and letting the viewer form an opinion is probably not unethical from the photographer's perspective but some viewers may have a different opinion.

Sometimes I refer to a dictionary to better clarify the subject - one site suggests - "moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity. " But the challenging is determining what action is ethical/unethical and that is where it is very individual.

Another site has a bigger picture at http://www.ethics.org.au/about/what-is-ethics - How should I live?

"Ethical beliefs shape the way we live – what we do, what we make and the world we create through our choices. Ethical questions explore what Aristotle called 'a life well-lived'.

Ethics isn't just an exercise for philosophers or intellectuals. It is at the core of everyday life.

We ask ethical questions whenever we think about how we should act. Being ethical is a part of what defines us as human beings. We are rational, thinking, choosing creatures. We all have the capacity to make conscious choices – although we often act out of habit or in line with the views of the crowd. We could all make conscious and conscientious ethical choices if we wanted to."

All this reading has helped me assess what I personally consider is ethical in mt actions but it has come no closer to clarifying the ethical beliefs of others.

[John King]

Mark, the most succinct definition that I have come across of what ethics is would be "Ethics is the systematic study of what we ought to do".

[Steve Axford]

Mark, Ill just stick to ethics in photography as the wider subject can get a bit big for online conversation. In photography, as in life, you get a reputation for what you do. That reputation will depend on A- you, and B- the people you interact with (your audience). What repution do you want and what do your audience expect? Sometimes a photographer is just about producing beautiful pictures and there is no attempt to be "real". I have seen some photographers produce some stunning images like this. Usually there is no attempt to hide that the images are creations. Why would you?
Sometimes someone like Frank Hurley will make composite images where they could not find a way to take a "real" image. I don't have a problem with that either, as there was probably no other way and his photos carried a lot of meaning. i usually don't like it when people post photos that are assumed to be real and are not. I feel that I have been lied to, but that's just me.
I am currently on the Atherton Tableland at a place called Chambers Wildlife Lodge. It's a great spot that has night viewing of Sugar Gliders, etc. I have some good shots and I could post them with a variety of captions. Some would imply nothing other than it was a Sugar Glider (could be in a zoo), some might say wild Sugar Glider in Atherton rainforest (implying she was truly wild) and some could say Sugar Glider at Chambers Wildlife viewing platform. Which should I use? The Gliders are habituated to people and are fed with syrup. Does that matter? Probably not as few people would assume that you stumbled across a wild Glider in the forest who then sat around to have her photo taken. Many, even most, bird photos are of birds that are fed or at least live close to people. I know that it is much more difficult to photograph truly wild animals, but it probably doesn't matter too much as most people don't assume that photos are of truly wild animals anyway, just not captive ones.
If you sell photos that is different and the audience becomes much more important. In general it is wise not to try to deceive your audience, at least not in areas where they do not want to be deceived. That could cost you your business.

[Mark L]

Many, even most, bird photos are of birds that are fed or at least live close to people. I know that it is much more difficult to photograph truly wild animals, but it probably doesn't matter too much as most people don't assume that photos are of truly wild animals anyway, just not captive ones.

Don't count me in there.
I can hand feeds some king parrots, some red-rumps let me get close because of supplied food and it's just not a challenge to take photos of them.
I do enjoy their company over a cuppa though.

[Tannin]

Top post, Steve, I agree fully. All except for this bit ....

Many, even most, bird photos are of birds that are fed or at least live close to people.

... which is complete nonsense. Most bird photographers will, of course, pick up the easy money (so to speak) when a tame bird presents itself. But the vast majority of my bird photographs - and I'm willing to be real money, also the vast majority of the photographs presented by other serious bird photographers here and elsewhere - are wild creatures captured by our own hard work and skill. We all have our own views on what is "fair play" and what is not. For example, I do not use artificial call playback. I'm happy to attract a bird with sound, but only if I can make that sound myself, with my own skill. I don't use recordings or machines for it. On the other hand, there are doubtless other things I do from time to time that another bird photographer would not do. We each make our own judgments about what's ethical and (I hope) mostly stick to them. I defy anyone to accumulate pictures of .... oh I don't know .... maybe 400-odd species of Australian bird (I don't keep count, but that seems a reasonable estimate) just by frequenting campgrounds and feeding the backyard sparrows.

I know that it is much more difficult to photograph truly wild animals

Indeed it is. But it is also much more rewarding. That's why we do it.

Edit: Laughter! Steve's post has sat there unloved for days, and then, at the very same moment, Mark and I both reply to it. (I started writing my reply before Mark posted, but I type slowly, so a genuine cross-post.)

[J.davis]

I use two methods of bird photography,
wait and hope, and,
stroll and hope.
Some days are better than others.

[Steve Axford]

Sorry. I seemed to have stirred up a birds nest. Maybe with birds it is different, but for animals it is certainly true. There are very few photographs of truly wild gorillas. If you go to Rwanda or Uganda, you see habituated gorillas (habituated to people that is, and that doesn't mean fed by people). The wild ones would never let a person get close enough for a cute photo or any photo. I suspect that photographing truly wild eagles is just as difficult. Almost all are habituated to people and some rely on people for food, even if it is road kill. I think we kid ourselves that we photograph truly wild things when we probably don't. But I really don't know, so .... it probably doesn't matter.

[markdphotography]

Sorry. I seemed to have stirred up a birds nest.

They are a sensitive flock the birders are for sure and you know what they say "birds of a feathers stick together"

[Mark L]

They are a sensitive flock the birders are for sure and you know what they say "birds of a feathers stick together"

That's actually not true.
I know birders on AP that use mince meat to attract bird of prey and use calls on their phones to bring birds closer for photos. Where are they sticking together here Mark? They haven't commented regarding ethics??

[markdphotography]

That's actually not true.
I know birders on AP that use mince meat to attract bird of prey and use calls on their phones to bring birds closer for photos. Where are they sticking together here Mark? They haven't commented regarding ethics??

They are a different flock and are sticking toegether by not getting involved.

[ameerat42]

Birds getting unsolicited calls on mobiles, eh?!!!

Boy, that's a bit much If you ask me, they should complain to the
Telecommunications Ombirdsman

[Mark L]

They are a different flock and are sticking toegether by not getting involved.

And now for you comment on the ethics of this.

[markdphotography]

And now for your comment on the ethics of this.

John King stated earlier - Mark, the most succinct definition that I have come across of what ethics is would be "Ethics is the systematic study of what we ought to do".

As I said earlier I am not on a moral crusade here just discussing the subject. Although ethics is very personal it does have a group/global expectation. As birder, you are more qualifed to make comment on this .