Author Topic: Ethics of Photographing Strangers (Read 29392 times)

dpimborough · « **Reply #50 on:** January 04, 2017, 16:15 »

Quote from: ravens on January 04, 2017, 04:17

This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

Go have a look at this site and see the reasons for this kind of photography

http://www.poyi.org/73/R04/index.php

Pauws99 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 04, 2017, 16:26 »

Quote from: ravens on January 04, 2017, 04:17

This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

If only Poverty and Misery were old and dated. Perhaps some people need that kind of photography to open their eyes

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #52 on:** January 04, 2017, 16:37 »

Quote from: ravens on January 04, 2017, 04:17

This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

It's because it's easier to shoot down than it is to shoot up. There's less friction in the image making transaction when the power lies with the photographer, through wealth, skin colour, privilege. I'm guilty of this myself, so I try to shoot sideways at least some of the time. These pictures do serve an important purpose once they're in public though - many people simply do not realise what life is like for the majority of people. In the long term lives are improved by the sharing of these images because people will demand change.

ostap · « **Reply #53 on:** March 04, 2017, 04:27 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on January 04, 2017, 16:37

Quote from: ravens on January 04, 2017, 04:17
This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

It's because it's easier to shoot down than it is to shoot up. There's less friction in the image making transaction when the power lies with the photographer, through wealth, skin colour, privilege. I'm guilty of this myself, so I try to shoot sideways at least some of the time. These pictures do serve an important purpose once they're in public though - many people simply do not realise what life is like for the majority of people. In the long term lives are improved by the sharing of these images because people will demand change.

This. Shooting poor and struggling places can actually have a positive impact by bringing attention to the problem that would be otherwise unknown. Just think of the little shepherd boy, whose goat got hit by a car. After the photo was published in Nat Geo, people started sending money and the family got couple new animals. Photography is a medium, a tool, and can be used well, or badly.

memakephoto · « **Reply #54 on:** March 05, 2017, 14:35 »

In the majority of cases the people who wander around photographing strangers and poor people are not doing it for the education and betterment of mankind they are doing it for the money. Especially in stock. They are too lazy or lacking in imagination to do anything else and they upload as editorial to get around the need for model releases. If they were really doing it for the altruistic reasons stated they would give the shots away for free to raise awareness. But they don't because their real reason is the .25 cents per dl. Everyone makes money off the shots except the subject. All they get is exposed.

douglas · « **Reply #55 on:** March 19, 2017, 11:08 »

Certainly not about poverty and misery, Dougie Wallace's Harrodsburg project:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04vzx3m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04w6cy1

TheDrift- · « **Reply #56 on:** March 21, 2017, 11:12 »

Quote from: ravens on May 20, 2015, 08:43

Basically, I agree with you; I like your post!

I wouldn't go as far as forbidding street photography but people should use common sense with it. If someone is sick, drunk, poor, injured, mourning, I think it is pretty sick and questionable to go take a photo of them.

I am not so sure, I think we have to take intentions into account, if the intent is to make mockery out of them, then I'd agree...but what about this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/iconic-images/famine-in-sudan-by-tom-stoddart-iconic-photograph-19922

This image spurred many into action and probably saved thousands of lives....?

TBH the whole thing is less than straight forward which is why there are so many different opinions.

dpimborough · « **Reply #57 on:** March 22, 2017, 09:24 »

Quote from: memakephoto on March 05, 2017, 14:35

In the majority of cases the people who wander around photographing strangers and poor people are not doing it for the education and betterment of mankind they are doing it for the money. Especially in stock. They are too lazy or lacking in imagination to do anything else and they upload as editorial to get around the need for model releases. If they were really doing it for the altruistic reasons stated they would give the shots away for free to raise awareness. But they don't because their real reason is the .25 cents per dl. Everyone makes money off the shots except the subject. All they get is exposed.

What rubbish

ShadySue · « **Reply #58 on:** March 22, 2017, 09:41 »

Quote from: memakephoto on March 05, 2017, 14:35

In the majority of cases the people who wander around photographing strangers and poor people are not doing it for the education and betterment of mankind they are doing it for the money. Especially in stock. They are too lazy or lacking in imagination to do anything else and they upload as editorial to get around the need for model releases. If they were really doing it for the altruistic reasons stated they would give the shots away for free to raise awareness. But they don't because their real reason is the .25 cents per dl. Everyone makes money off the shots except the subject. All they get is exposed.

That's a lazy post: far too sweeping a condemnation.

Which is more important: showing people what's going on in the real world or making photos of 'perfected' people pretending to do stuff? Which is more ethical, given that in both cases, with stock photography, the togs have little control over how the image is ultimately used (the documentary photo could be used editorially but with biassed captioning and the 'fake' scenario could be used to promote just about anything whether good, useless or harmful (an interesting essay or debating topic, for sure).

I'd argue that it's unethical to do as I've read some micro-shooters say, that they pay the subject (in a remote third-world area) an amount of money to get them to sign/thumbprint a release - even when the people have no way of understanding the language of the release or the ways that their image can be doctored (in many cases, they won't know anything about image editing, or computers, or magazines etc) when used non-editorially.

memakephoto · « **Reply #59 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:31 »

I don't usually return to threads I've commented on but I did today and have to say I was tickled at the responses to my comment. To be clear, I wasn't referring to photo journalists or to "artists" so much, I was referring directly to what this very site is dedicated to: microstock.

IF you are the sort of person that would take someone's pic without their knowledge or consent, upload it as editorial to conveniently bypass the need for a model release and sell it, again without consent just so you can benefit financially from some person you see on the street then I certainly understand the hostility toward me for calling you out and believe me, it's mutual. I have very very little regard for you. You rank somewhere around the used car salesman or the guy that sells knockoff watches out of the back of a van. Or you know, any * parasite that takes advantage of the unsuspecting for profit.

No judgement though, after all, who else would the paparazzi look down on?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #60 on:** March 22, 2017, 16:39 »

Quote from: memakephoto on March 22, 2017, 15:31

I don't usually return to threads I've commented on but I did today and have to say I was tickled at the responses to my comment. To be clear, I wasn't referring to photo journalists or to "artists" so much, I was referring directly to what this very site is dedicated to: microstock.

IF you are the sort of person that would take someone's pic without their knowledge or consent, upload it as editorial to conveniently bypass the need for a model release and sell it, again without consent just so you can benefit financially from some person you see on the street then I certainly understand the hostility toward me for calling you out and believe me, it's mutual. I have very very little regard for you. You rank somewhere around the used car salesman or the guy that sells knockoff watches out of the back of a van. Or you know, any * parasite that takes advantage of the unsuspecting for profit.

No judgement though, after all, who else would the paparazzi look down on?

What makes someone a "photojournalist" though

dpimborough · « **Reply #61 on:** March 24, 2017, 13:58 »

Quote from: memakephoto on March 22, 2017, 15:31

I don't usually return to threads I've commented on but I did today and have to say I was tickled at the responses to my comment. To be clear, I wasn't referring to photo journalists or to "artists" so much, I was referring directly to what this very site is dedicated to: microstock.

IF you are the sort of person that would take someone's pic without their knowledge or consent, upload it as editorial to conveniently bypass the need for a model release and sell it, again without consent just so you can benefit financially from some person you see on the street then I certainly understand the hostility toward me for calling you out and believe me, it's mutual. I have very very little regard for you. You rank somewhere around the used car salesman or the guy that sells knockoff watches out of the back of a van. Or you know, any * parasite that takes advantage of the unsuspecting for profit.

No judgement though, after all, who else would the paparazzi look down on?

Richard is that you?

No?

I must be confused it must have been some other Dick I was thinking of

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Ethics of Photographing Strangers (Read 29392 times)

dpimborough

Pauws99

fotoVoyager

ostap

memakephoto

douglas

TheDrift-

dpimborough

ShadySue

memakephoto

Pauws99

dpimborough

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors