Ethics & Morality in Photography

[bricat]

I think morals are fine until they are applied to me. That is your morals not mine. Because we all have different experinces through life our own morals are formed and adjusted on a daily basis through personal interaction or even reading a thread such as this. Would you photograph animals having sex: some would say is it necessary to display this image? If the subject was about sex of certain animals perhaps yes but just to photograph because they were humping and then you having a laugh. And then again what's wrong with a laugh?

You live and die by your beliefs and morals and if you see a photograph that offends you then take what action you deem appropriate. Ignore it or complain; simple really....

[kiwi]

Let's not turn this interesting thread into another dead end beatup on post processing. I think most of us realise the go here re "normal processing norms", HDR etc

I dont see using tools to enhance (or ruin) a picture has much really to do with the topic at hand ?

[Xenedis]

I dont see using tools to enhance (or ruin) a picture has much really to do with the topic at hand ?

Those tools can be used for immoral/deceptive/unethical purposes.

[jim]

According to the posts here Ansel Adams was most 'dishonest' due to the level of DR manipulations

Is this an argument, or merely an appeal to higher authority? Don't imagine that Adams is beyond criticism, though my feeling is that the admittedly high level of manipulation in his images is defensible. In part because of the beauty achieved in his images, and in part because he was inspired by his subject matter and strove—with colossal technical mastery and attention to detail—to remain true to it. Even the fact that he worked in black and white might reasonably be held to legitimately allow him some extra leeway. Nevertheless other photographers, contemporary with Adams, eschewed some of his techniques and used a much lighter touch in manipulating their photos, producing images with subtler beauty that is harder to appreciate now, and that might be our loss, and even partly Adams' fault.

Anyhow the unease here is not really about manipulation as such. I think you may be missing some nuances on the "accurate reportage" side of the debate.

[kiwi]

Those tools can be used for immoral/deceptive/unethical purposes.

Agrees, which gies way beyond these purposes

[Dylan & Marianne]

I honestly hope that much of this discussion is for debate's sake because it seems people's viewpoints seem to be becoming more and more amplified with each passing post lol
Now we're talking Ansel Adams being immoral /unethical? I lol'd

Dead insect macro shots?
How about in the 'other half' of photography - the promotion / marketing / competitive side?
Voting excellent images down in competitions so they have a lesser chance of a win ?
Posting your website on other people's social media pages uninvited ? (get's an insta remove and ban if someone does that to our site)
'Thread bumping' on forums like here ? [excluding the uncommented images where people genuinely want CC]
Cut and paste comments on other poeple's images for sites like flickr ? [Great image! - <insert a link to own site here>]
Using music from artists you haven't obtained copyright from for videos? [guilty here]
Copying exact compositions of another photographer without giving credit?

[Scotty72]

Absolute truth.

Now that is a discussion in itself.

Perhaps in mathematics their is absolute truth - everything else is relative to our own opinion.

So, to criticize a photo because it doesn't show the 'absolute truth' is a form of elitism.

Photography is an art where we interpret scenes and present that to responders. Who has the right to say one interpretation is wrong/immoral when some might say it is more right/moral.

This is the first (admittedly small) step towards censorship / puratism.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

Dylan

So true - all advertising images are a form of misrepresentation in that they fail to highlight the negatives or exaggerate the positive.

Therefore, this thread is suggesting advertising is immoral (oopps for the AP sponsors LOL)

[Nikkie]

What about taking photos of people when they don't know that there photos have been taken for Candid photography whether you know the person/people or not

[jim]

I honestly hope that much of this discussion is for debate's sake because it seems people's viewpoints seem to be becoming more and more amplified with each passing post lol
Now we're talking Ansel Adams being immoral /unethical? I lol'd

Dead insect macro shots?
How about in the 'other half' of photography - the promotion / marketing / competitive side?
Voting excellent images down in competitions so they have a lesser chance of a win ?
Posting your website on other people's social media pages uninvited ? (get's an insta remove and ban if someone does that to our site)
'Thread bumping' on forums like here ? [excluding the uncommented images where people genuinely want CC]
Cut and paste comments on other poeple's images for sites like flickr ? [Great image! - <insert a link to own site here>]
Using music from artists you haven't obtained copyright from for videos? [guilty here]
Copying exact compositions of another photographer without giving credit?

Goodness me, who said that?

Anyway:

Dead insect macro shots? Again it depends on your intention. Insects have some beautiful forms that are extremely difficult to capture when they're hopping around, and can reasonably be photographed when the creature is dead. But both presenting a dead insect as a live one, and killing anything to photograph it strike me as very tacky.

Voting excellent images down in competitions so they have a lesser chance of a win ? Indefensible of course.

Posting your website on other people's social media pages uninvited ?
'Thread bumping' on forums like here ? Impolite more than unethical?

Cut and paste comments on other poeple's images for sites like flickr ? If I understand this it seems wrong.

Copying exact compositions of another photographer without giving credit? Have you ever tried to photograph Yosemite?

Just some off the cuff personal reactions. A thought: can we draw a clear line between etiquette and ethics?

[WhoDo]

Absolute truth.

Now that is a discussion in itself.

Perhaps in mathematics their is absolute truth - everything else is relative to our own opinion.

A tautology. ALL Truth is "absolute" or it wouldn't be Truth. The problem is there are very few absolutes in life, and thus very few truths as well. As you say, it is all a matter of perception and social source of reference.

[WhoDo]

Goodness me, who said that?

Kym.

A thought: can we draw a clear line between etiquette and ethics?

No more than between morals and ethics, Jim. What constitutes etiquette at its root anyway? Maybe the distinction lies in the intent?

[jim]

No more than between morals and ethics, Jim. What constitutes etiquette at its root anyway? Maybe the distinction lies in the intent?

I think your intent is certainly relevant. For example one behaviour that annoys me is posting your own photos on somebody else's picture thread uninvited. Rare here but common and unremarked on some other forums. When occasoinally someone does it here, I tend to grit my teeth and remind myself that it certainly comes from innocent enthusiasm not from intentional rudeness.

[WhoDo]

I'm intetested in a general discussion on morality & ethics in photography

You can start with any genre really

For example (as discussed in another thread) - is it ethical to use an iphone bird call application to call in birds in the wild

It is ethical to bait animals to get a shot ?

Is it ethical to photograph someone without their consent ?

Should you jump someone's farm fence to get a nice landscape shot ?

Any other "can of worms" ?

I think it is in the Hippocratic Oath that doctors are urged to "first do no harm"! My guess would be that is the profession most would look to as the pinnacle of ethical endeavour in human society. If we take that credo and apply it to photography, professional or otherwise, I think we'd probably arrive at a reasonable approach to the subject.

I'd say that in life, not just photography, we could ALL benefit from adopting that tenet for a mantra. It lies at the root of any decision over choosing the lesser of two evils as well. There are times when photographic reporting requires that there be some harm, but only if that harm is outweighed by the potential benefits could causing the harm be considered useful on balance.

We cannot all do GOOD, but we should all be prepared to do NO HARM. The former is dependent upon opportunity; the latter on our ethical choices. Just my humble thoughts on a very interesting subject.

[WhoDo]

I think your intent is certainly relevant. For example one behaviour that annoys me is posting your own photos on somebody else's picture thread uninvited. Rare here but common and unremarked on some other forums. When occasoinally someone does it here, I tend to grit my teeth and remind myself that it certainly comes from innocent enthusiasm not from intentional rudeness.

Ooops! I misread your reply and started arguing my case. Then I noticed that you had agreed with my point! Maybe I'm still tired but I should be able to read and comprehend better than that at 10:30am!

[kiwi]

What about taking photos of people when they don't know that there photos have been taken for Candid photography whether you know the person/people or not

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

[WhoDo]

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

Ok, but what about when they were ignorant of your actions until the results were posted in the press? How many celebrities have been caught in compromising positions IN THEIR OWN PROPERTY by paparazzi with telephoto lenses? Couldn't it be argued they were taken from public property and were the epitome of "Candid"? Just asking, not arguing per se. I think there's a clear distinction based on intent here. Taking a street photo of an interesting face is one thing; deliberately peering into someone's private domain is another entirely IMHO.

[Scotty72]

A tautology. ALL Truth is "absolute" or it wouldn't be Truth. The problem is there are very few absolutes in life, and thus very few truths as well. As you say, it is all a matter of perception and social source of reference.

If only the world was so simple...

Of course most truths are relative and are open to interpretation... otherwise, we would all agree everything, we wouldn't need courts or discussion forums.

Outside of maths/science etc... what is an eg absolute truth? Outside of the mathematical theories... what absolue truths are there in photography?

[WhoDo]

Outside of the mathematical theories... what absolue truths are there in photography?

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.

[Scotty72]

I think it is in the Hippocratic Oath that doctors are urged to "first do no harm"! My guess would be that is the profession most would look to as the pinnacle of ethical endeavour in human society. If we take that credo and apply it to photography, professional or otherwise, I think we'd probably arrive at a reasonable approach to the subject.

That is ptob the best eg of there being no absolute truths. It is true that physicians must do no harm but, what does that mean.

Is it more harmful to allow a patient in agony die or to keep them alive in agony? I believe that the doctor's ethics say the first is more harmful (though that may be changing)

The same applies to photography - that classic photo of the African girl and the vulture... Where is the truth/good in that? It's a moral minefield. Publishing the photo can be seen as disgusting / exploiting the girl's misery for profit OR it can be seen as alerting the world to the crisis and bringing enormous good to Africa. Very hard.

What about taking photos of people when they don't know that there photos have been taken for Candid photography whether you know the person/people or not

I tend to think, if you are in public or easily seen from a public space, then you have no right to privacy - it is completely stupid to walk in PUBLIC and expect PRIVACY.
There are security cameras taking your photo hundreds of times a day. I am sure that it would cause chaos if criminals knew that no photos could be taken of them without their permission.
Newspapers etc could not operate. Most people who make the news would love to be able to stop photos and video being taken of them as would our pollies. Massive censorship issues there.

Scotty