When is it better NOT to take the photograph?
I’ve been musing around this a lot lately, particularly after attending the Photographing Atrocity Symposium in Leeds last month. Mike Johnson has just written a piece that is prompting appreciative commentary describing his own self restraint.
This is my first attempt at a list, since lists are definitely the new black in 2008. It’s by no means definitive…
1. When you know you can’t do the subject justice.
If you haven’t got the right lens on the camera, or the right film, or it’s too dark or the light’s too flat, or whatever, it’s a professional judgement call, and on balance, probably better to just leave it. There is an awful lot of photography around these days: everyone has a camera - there must come points when you know in all conscience it’s just not worth adding yet another. Do you actually want to produce a blurred photograph of the moon over the lake, just because you forgot to bring your tripod?
Exceptions might include a unique and/or compelling subject. Say Her Maj, with her jammies tucked into her green wellington boots wanders into the pool of moonlight by the Serpentine, leading Shergar by the nose: in that case you could probably still get a few quid for the photo even if it is a tad soft.
2. When there are hundreds and thousands of them already.
The London or the Gateshead Millennium Eye, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower: you know, postcard photographs. Even if you know you can make the best photograph of the Millennium Eye at blue hour with reflected traffic trails that anyone has ever seen, do we think there might already be enough of them?
Exceptions? I can’t think of any offhand, can you?
3. When someone you know doesn’t want you to take their picture.
That might seem pretty obvious, but you just don’t do it, do you? There’s a line that can be easy to cross, maybe if you’re tired, or they’re tired, or you think they’re joking, or you’re joking. But if you do fire off that shutter, it’s easy enough to delete, or not print the photograph if it’s film. Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?
4. When someone you don’t know doesn’t want you to take their picture.
There’s been lots of talk lately about photographers’ rights. These rights are important, and with the increased restrictions in all sorts of areas of civil liberty in recent years, it’s good to know what these rights are. Taking your camera to the Xmas lights switch-on in your local High Street, or the football match in the local park isn’t against the law. But what if you see people turning away from your camera, hiding their faces or holding up their hand? What if they refuse to make eye contact with you, what if they say no? What do you do? Are your ‘rights’ as a photographer more important than their wish not to be photographed?
Good candid photography relies on tacit consent. That’s when your subject sees your camera, and you can see that they see your camera, and you know that they know that the photograph is being taken. It is unspoken, explicit consent. Tom Stoddart’s magnificent Sarajevo photographs were all taken at close range, with tacit consent. His work was done often after spending many days researching his subjects, coming to know them.
My feeling is that if you don’t get explicit tacit consent, then ask for it out loud. And know how to take no for an answer.
Exceptions here might be Her Maj again, with or without Shergar, Madonna the pop star or the Virgin incarnate, or any minor TV actor who has courted celebrity. I wouldn’t photograph them either, mind you.
5. When it would cause or add to someone’s discomfort or distress to take the photograph
I’m thinking here of all those long lens photographs of homeless people huddled in doorways, or of very large people from behind. Unfortunate or humorous fashion faux pas also come into this category, especially if the intent of the photograph is cruelty or mockery.
Exceptions here would be if you are doing a photojournalistic piece, and for that, the explicit tacit or stated consent rule would also apply.
There are of course extreme circumstances when it is going to be impossible to gain consent. The example I gave in my comment to Mike’s post of the young suicide, and Kevin Carter’s tragic story are such. Death or near-death photography is always disturbing and controversial. Although there are no easy answers, the balance would lie somewhere towards achieving a greater good, where not taking the photograph, just walking away, would do more harm. Photojournalists in war zones and documenting natural or unnatural disasters each have this decision to make and their own moral lines to draw, but over all there is a duty to do their job. It is news.
Dancing around on the pavement with your camera in front of elderly people in a shopping street, or anywhere else, is intimidating and dangerous. Often people are quite happy to have their photograph taken, but if you can’t find willing subjects amongst members of the public, use models: that’s what they are for. Poking fun at an anonymous size 20 woman would be offlimits in any case, even if you’re on an assignment for a healthy eating feature.
6. When 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in any combinations apply.
Don’t take the photograph. Don’t use your camera as a weapon to intimidate or cause fear. Don’t be the person who brings photography into disrepute, or gives photographers in your town a bad name. Don’t publish badly composed, poorly exposed photographs of people who appear not to want to be in your pictures, particularly if the people are poor, or old, or unfortunate in some way, but even if they’re not poor or unfortunate, it’s callous. If you find you’ve done it out of naivite, or inexperience, or unfamiliarity with your camera or the profession, or you’ve annoyed a whole community, please destroy the photograph(s), and if you can, take steps to apologise.
Don’t put your ‘rights’ above the responsibility we all have as human beings to treat each other with dignity and respect. Take up watercolour painting or speleology instead.
Popularity: 16% [?]
comments
16 Responses to “When is it better NOT to take the photograph?”
Leave a Reply
Similar Posts
1. When you know you can’t do the subject justice.
But what about those times when you’ve proved yourself wrong or just been plain surprised? It seems a shame to miss out on those. I think the knack is to be prudent and/or ruthless in use of the delete button.
2. When there are hundreds and thousands of them already.
Well yeah but then again is emulating something not a valid way to learn?
3. When someone you know doesn’t want you to take their picture.
On the face of it I won’t disagree. There are times though when reluctance may be grounded in something that’s just not doing the subject any favors that a great shot could do something to help overcome. I think treading lightly with empathy can be the key sometimes to making a positive contribution with your camera. I suppose you really have to know that someone.
4. When someone you don’t know doesn’t want you to take their picture.
Yep I’m with you on this one but what about that video you posted of the guy taping the police or Mr Hawks unmerciful documentation of tight arsed security types?
5. When it would cause or add to someone’s discomfort or distress to take the photograph.
With you again though will fess up to having done this one on a few occasions for no good reason. Me bad.
6. When 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in any combinations apply.
Like any good guidance it’s all worth considering then making a personal judgement, owning the decision and accepting responsibility. I sound like a conservative don’t I? It must be my upbringing. I blame my parents ;)
Great post B. I love a list.
Balls. It’s the tag after “know” someone… Should have been a and I did a . Can you edit it? Sorry. Where’s the bloody preview your comment option? :)
OK I’m making it worse now. Sorry again. Delete! delete! ;)
Yes, I can edit it, no problem. Preview pane, yes that would definitely be a good idea.
Alex, you wrote: “I think the knack is to be prudent and/or ruthless in use of the delete button. “
Definitely. I tend to think in film terms, but yes if there’s a delete button, we need to go ahead and use it.
I think Darren’s filming is a whole other issue, and causes no end of controversy. On the whole, I like his approach: I think the police in this country have moved from an attitude of public service to one of punitive approbation of individuals wherever they can get away with it. I had a mouthful of attitude from one of the when asking directions the other day. We need to watch them, as a matter of civic responsibility.
Thomas Hawk does all sorts of things I disagree with. His altercations with security staff are frequently unpleasant and needlessly derogatory. Even if I might agree with his position in theory, he’s a comfortably off professional hobbyist attacking low paid working people. But at least he doesn’t post their photograph on the internet.
All of these make perfect common sense, Brenda and i agree with them, but with number 2 i think a distinction might be made between taking the photo and posting the photo. I’ve taken a photo of the Washington monument that i like and keep to myself and i’m glad i did. I’m also glad i didn’t post it!
Thanks for your thought-stimulating words. And, good to see you again!
Yes, I ponder about #2 also. Thing is, the pictures I took 30+ years ago of stuff I thought were mundane, everyday, stuff that other people must have taken hundreds of similar images … well, where are they? Turns out that everything is tagged somehow with the time and moment the image was taken. Yes, it may be the Washington Memorial, but check out how people looked in 1968!
So when taking a picture, consider how it will look in 30 years. Hmmm. Maybe I should grab my camera and take another picture of the Golden Gate Bridge!!! It may not be there in 2038!
That guy looks half asleep! Te-he :)
Zen, Richard: yes I take both of your points. If anyone can think of a new take on the Washington Memorial or the Golden Gate bridge, please do go ahead! Yes, you’re right, it’s harmless, apart from eco/waste type factors. My other points are much more serious.
On your point Richard about old photos: they are rare(er). The fact that you still have them after 30, 40 years makes them intrinsically valuable for historical reasons, as well as for their artistic merit.
Given how ubiquitous photography is today, I doubt there will be a shortage of photos of popular tourist scenes in 40 years time. Although digital files simply do not have the archival life of film negatives or transparencies, so perhaps I’m wrong about this whole thing. Maybe we film users /should/ photograph Durham cathedral and the Millennium Eye in case it hasn’t been done enough in 5×4?
I’m really not being facetious there. The Golden Gate might or might not be there in 2038, but I’d take bets that Thomas Hawk’s vast digital archive of images of it won’t.
Zen: good to see you too. I’ve been here all along. Do come again!
Sam: poor man. Not enough coffee, clearly. I’d better buy him another one sometime soon.
A read worthy of any budding photographers eyes, and a few semi pros and pros alike. Guilty as charged yeronna.
which is why I’m slowing things down a notch or seven with this.
Like the Chris rock joke, it’s about gun control, it’s about bullet control.
that 4×5 stuff is pricey ;)
should read…”it’s NOT about gun control”…oopsies
Feel free tp post the link onwards, PM. And good to see you here, and pushing things onwards. I did the same: a Sinar which has yet to make its debut. 5×4 is quite, quite different in so many ways. I have a feeling you’ll love it.
Very different indeed, just scratching the surface at the mo’…..I have a feeling i’ll love it too!
Of course the kit junkie in me wants a better lens or a new camera all together, but that will wait ’till the fall. After shooting with Carl Zeiss and Co. I have an appreciation for good glass ;)
Lots still to learn with the other stuff so trying not to get ahead of myself….
Lots of boxes of type 55 on their way to my house as we speak. mmmm…luv it!
I very much admire your enthusiasm and the effort you put in, PM. Your results are astonishing, too. Can I interview you sometime, for a piece here?
aww thanks B…i’d be honored! I think you have my email addy, if not…i’ll f-mail it to you :))
[...] Be sure to click through to read the links contained in that article as well - especially When is it better not to take the photograph. [...]