Canon 7D : Canon EF 70-200mm f:2.8 L IS II USM - Canon EF 24-105 f:4 L IS USM - Canon EF 50mm f:1.8 - Canon EF-s 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6
Sigma APO 150-500mm f:5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Sigma 10-20mm f:3.5 EX DC HSM
Speedlite 580 EX II - Nissin Di866 II - Yongnuo 460-II x2 - Kenko extension tube set - Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
Manfroto monopod - SILK 700DX Pro tripod - Remote release - Cokin Z-Pro filter box + Various filters
Current Social Experiment: CAPRIL - Wearing a cape for the month of April to support Beyond Blue
Visit me on Flickr
Yes !!! 100 posts
Thread closed, target achieved.
Darren
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
An ulterior motive for starting a thread... what about the morality of that?
the ulterior motive is revealed!
Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
Canon EOS R5, : 16-35mm F4 L, 70-200F4 canon L, 24-70mm 2.8IIcanon L, Sirui tripod + K20D ballhead + RRS ballhead. |Sony A7r2 + Laowa 12mm F2.8, Nisi 15mm F4
Various NiSi systems : Currently using switch filter and predominantly 6 stop ND, 10 stop ND, 3 stop medium GND
Post : Adobe lightroom classic CC : Photoshop CC. Various actions for processing and web export
Lol, I think 100 is a good kpi for a worthwhile thread don't you ?
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.
Panasonic GH2 --- Pana 7-14mm --- Pana 100-300mm --- Pana f1.7/20mm --- Panaleica f2.8/45mm macro --- Pana 14-45mm
Canon G10 when I want to pocket it.
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
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.
Successful People Make Adjustments - Evander Holyfield
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 saidTaking a street photo of an interesting face is one thing; deliberately peering into someone's private domain is another entirely IMHO.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 trespassingAbsolutely 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
All experts were once beginners
Nikon D3100 18 55 kit lens Nikon 35 mm Nikon 70 300mm optex tripod
MWAH! Sandy
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.
Flickr
Call me Chris
Gear: Canon 6D | Canon EF 24-105mm f4/L IS USM | Canon 430EX II Speedlite | Hoya Pro1 CPL | Velbon Tripod
Canon EOS 500D | Canon 18-55mm IS (Kit Lens) | Canon 50-250mm IS (Kit Lens) | Marumi Super DHG CPL
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.