View Full Version : Ethics & Morality in Photography
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" ?
Is it ethical to use an iphone bird call application to call in birds in the wild
- Yes
It is ethical to bait animals to get a shot ?
- Yes, with limits (eg. food pellets at Cleland wildlife park, but not when it would do damage to the animal or its environment)
Is it ethical to photograph someone without their consent ?
- Yes, with limits, i.e. in public is ok; but not through their bathroom/bedroom window
Should you jump someone's farm fence to get a nice landscape shot ?
- No if it becomes tresspass
If it's legal its ok, just don't break the law. Plus apply some common sense sensitivity.
Tannin
21-07-2011, 11:49am
Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?
To see this graphically, watch any random TV series (yes, moving pictures, but the point still holds). The people in that series are, on average, a lot younger, slimmer, better-dressed and better looking than real people, their homes are better furnished, their cars are cars that most people can't afford. Result: most ordinary people think that they are too fat, too poor, too ugly, and well behind the eight-ball of the average. This is why people burn themselves out working two jobs and going on stupid diets and having pointless cosmetic surgery and all the rest of it. Simply, because our communicators (photographers and others) lie to us all the time.
Similarly, we photographers constantly strive to add more "pop" to our landscapes with too much saturation, clever multi-exposures, and a whole host of Photoshop tricks. We lie about what stuff looks like because it's an easy way to get our pictures noticed, and, over time, the cumulative effect of all our little lies is that the people who see our work (if they pay attention to it at all) wind up with an untrue picture of some fantasy world and, when they see the real world with their own eyes, it is pale and unattractive. Worse, they then feel impelled to "improve" it, and nearly everything you can do to a block of good, natural land to make it look more "photogenic" destroys a part of it. Nature is messy! But photographers like us pretend it isn't, and in consequence people don't understand it, and so they destroy it in a misguided attempt to "improve" it.
There is a fine line between presenting an attractive view of your subject, showing it in its best light on the one hand, and telling lies about it on the other hand. The ethical photographer thinks hard about this line quite often, and does his best to stay on the right side of it.
If it's legal its ok...
A hideously defective philosophy.
Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?
http://www.withoutfx.com/wow-madonna-before-after-photoshop.htm :lol:
A hideously defective philosophy.
try not quoting out of context...
I said... "If it's legal its ok, just don't break the law. Plus apply some common sense sensitivity. "
Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?
To see this graphically, watch any random TV series (yes, moving pictures, but the point still holds). The people in that series are, on average, a lot younger, slimmer, better-dressed and better looking than real people, their homes are better furnished, their cars are cars that most people can't afford. Result: most ordinary people think that they are too fat, too poor, too ugly, and well behind the eight-ball of the average. This is why people burn themselves out working two jobs and going on stupid diets and having pointless cosmetic surgery and all the rest of it. Simply, because our communicators (photographers and others) lie to us all the time.
Similarly, we photographers constantly strive to add more "pop" to our landscapes with too much saturation, clever multi-exposures, and a whole host of Photoshop tricks. We lie about what stuff looks like because it's an easy way to get our pictures noticed, and, over time, the cumulative effect of all our little lies is that the people who see our work (if they pay attention to it at all) wind up with an untrue picture of some fantasy world and, when they see the real world with their own eyes, it is pale and unattractive. Worse, they then feel impelled to "improve" it, and nearly everything you can do to a block of good, natural land to make it look more "photogenic" destroys a part of it. Nature is messy! But photographers like us pretend it isn't, and in consequence people don't understand it, and so they destroy it in a misguided attempt to "improve" it.
There is a fine line between presenting an attractive view of your subject, showing it in its best light on the one hand, and telling lies about it on the other hand. The ethical photographer thinks hard about this line quite often, and does his best to stay on the right side of it.
Using this same principle, is it morally right to post process photos of models/celebrities to a point where they look nothing as they would in real life? Which most of such media is directed at adolescents dipicting what the 'normal figure' should look like and creates an expectation out of kids who are going through an important bodily process?
Models don't look like real life even in real life do I don't think it's an issue
What about taking pictures during nesting ?
What about pulling some flowers out of the ground because they ruin the shot ?
What about taking on a wedding when you've got no clue ?
Tannin
21-07-2011, 12:33pm
is it morally right to post process photos of models/celebrities to a point where they look nothing as they would in real life? Which most of such media is directed at adolescents dipicting what the 'normal figure' should look like and creates an expectation out of kids who are going through an important bodily process?
No!
I don't generally approve of one-word posts, but honestly, for this question I cannot improve on a simple, blank "no".
What about pulling some flowers out of the ground because they ruin the shot ?
What about taking on a wedding when you've got no clue ?
There's absolutely no reason why someone should pull flowers (or any other flora in that case) because it ruins THEIR scene. Any person with common sense who frequently shoots such subjects would know to carry a bit of string and tie back said "intruding" flora to the branch, take shot and untie.
Weddings - IMO It's morally wrong if you don't tell them you're oblivious to weddings. They approached you with expectations so it's only right to clarify what the couple should expect if they go ahead and choose you as their photographer. The better thing to do would be to decline the job altogether - is a few hundred dollars (presuming that's how much you'll charge as you don't have the skills/experience to do weddings) worth the potential reputation/face you lose if the shoot goes belly up?
Tannin
21-07-2011, 12:40pm
What about taking pictures during nesting ?
Same as using a recorded call. Generally not acceptable, but it is OK to make occasional exceptions where you are quite certain that you are not going to do any harm. If you find yourself having to break either rule regularly to get a shot, then you need to develop some basic competence at your craft. Ask for help, there are plenty of people here who are more than willing to assist. Don't expect it to be easy - it isn't. If you want easy, go to a zoo.
ah gee all these are taking the fun out of photography :p
Xebadir
21-07-2011, 1:07pm
Ooh. I've got one. While stormchasing it is inevitable that you come across peoples lives being destroyed by one phenomena or another. Classic case is the tornado damage path.
Is it moral or ethical just to drive by and continue chasing the storm?
Is it moral or ethical to take pictures of someones life scattered across a half mile of forest?
Is it any more moral or ethical if you show up and ask permission to take the same pictures?
Is it any more moral or ethical if you volunteer to assist these people with rebuilding their lives and then ask permission to take the pictures?
I will post an answer on my view later and what I have done in the past, but I would be very interested to see peoples reactions. Added information *the house or area has significant damage to it.
Interesting questions, John. (Err .... John X.) (Err John X the Nikon user.) (Err ... or do you both shoot Nikon?)
Did you go there just to see the storm? If so, then you would not have been there anyway otherwise, so it seems to me OK to drive on. Otherwise you could not do your job. But it depends on the circumstances too - if it was a case of life and death, well, of course you are duty-bound to help (if you are even remotely human). What about pictures of people's lives scattered everywhere? I have no opinion on that. I would not do it, but not for any moral reason, simply because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nothing to do with morals at all, just ... well ... hard to explain. I'd just feel too worried about what they would be thinking of me and how I should explain myself and generally very, very uncomfortable, like going to school and discovering you forgot to put your trousers on. ..... Strange, isn't it! If I am after a particular bird, I don't give a damn what people think; so far as possible I don't even register that they are there; they are as irrelevant to my task as they are to my mindset. I just do it. So call me Mr Inconsistent. :eek:
i vaguely remember something in the news that said it would become illegal to stand by and watch a crime take place without doing something... i cant find the article but its relevant.
Dylan & Marianne
21-07-2011, 1:43pm
.Should you jump someone's farm fence to get a nice landscape shot ?
.?
It would be illegal and trespassing. Does that make it immoral or unethical ?
How about bringing your camera along uninvited to a funeral to capture those moments of sadness and emotion.
As for the photo manipulation question : I don't think morality or ethics plays a part in how I choose to present an image. For the same reasons a painter presents images to the viewer in whatever interpretation he or she wishes. I doubt any fine-art landscape photographer has ever claimed that they are attempting to bring 100% pure truth to the eyes of the viewer.
The answer generically depends on your viewpoint from which you define what is considered moral and ethical.
How about a new can of worms : Is morality as we have defined it with all of our western wisdom just an invented concept to help justify our particular brand of existence?
try not quoting out of context...
I said... "If it's legal its ok, just don't break the law. Plus apply some common sense sensitivity. "
What context does that rather generic get-out clause provide to the first, quite despicably amoral part?
Rattus79
21-07-2011, 2:28pm
I'm more then happy to jump a fence... BUT, before I do, I will:
a) make sure there is no bull in the paddock!
b) make sure there is no other way to get the composition I'm looking for
c) look for the owner to ask permission
d) there are no no tresspassing signs
If the answer to all of the above is no, then Jump away.
and you could still find yourself in trouble greg....
dont froget to watch out for electric fences
Rattus79
21-07-2011, 2:37pm
and you could still find yourself in trouble greg....
dont froget to watch out for electric fences
e) pee on fence --- penis still attached?? No, Jump away.
Dylan & Marianne
21-07-2011, 2:38pm
I still have trouble with the legal= moral concept
mostly yes, often not and vice versa
What about charging more as you'd client arrives in a new mercedes ?
How about taking a picture of princess diana in the car ?
Xenedis
21-07-2011, 3:53pm
A very interesting discussion, and one that highlights the fact that the issue of ethics in photography contains many shades of grey (un-processed, un-over-saturated grey).
Yes, "un-over-saturated" isn't a word, but for the point of this post, I declare it to be a word.
My view on the subject of depicting reality in images is that, the context of why and how those images are being used is the primary guideline as to what's right and what's wrong.
For example, in reportage, documentary or real estate photography, I do not believe it is fair to alter the perceived reality of what was captured, after the fact.
If there are ugly power lines outside that wonderful mansion, cloning them out is deceptive and plain wrong.
However, it's not always quite so simple. I wouldn't have an issue, in the context of real estate photography, with the cloning out of a bin or piece of rubbish which would not ordinarily be there, and otherwise has no bearing on the depiction of the subject which should be presented in a truthful manner.
Arguably in such a scenario it would have been more sensible to remove those elements from the scene first, but I'm using this example to illustrate my point.
Ethics is a very broad field, but to address Kiwi's questions:
is it ethical to use an iphone bird call application to call in birds in the wild
I don't see an issue with that.
It is ethical to bait animals to get a shot ?
As long as there is no cruelty or deprivation of the animal's liberties, I see no issue with that.
The exception would be nature-themed photographic competitions which have stringent rules on the subject being in its natural environment without human interference.
Is it ethical to photograph someone without their consent ?
My viewpoint mirrors Kym's on this one.
Should you jump someone's farm fence to get a nice landscape shot ?
That would constitute trespass unless permission was granted.
Any other "can of worms" ?
Photography of people being injured, killed or already dead would come to mind.
The problem of recorded bird callers is in fact a big issue amongst people who have an understanding of avian biology and conservation. Birds, by and large, are unable to tell the difference between a recorded call and a the real thing. Most birds are highly social creatures, and know exactly who all their neighbours are. They have usually struggled and worked for years to establish a patch of their own where they can breed and raise a family. They know exactly who the others are around them. Then you march in with a completely strange call, often much louder than the real thing. Wild birds don't just turn up right in the middle of a territory and start shouting abuse either, they approach from the edges. Imagine sitting in your lounge room and suddenly having a couple of 9 foot tall Hell's Angels walk straight through the walls and break in there shouting at you and waving their knives around in your face. That's what you are doing when you play a recorded call - you are creating shock, horror, and trauma. Quite often, the trauma is sufficiently severe to cause nasty effects, including nest desertion and the consequent slow starvation of the nestlings.
This isn't just guesswork; there are well-documented consequences from recorded bird calls. A few of the once common but now rare and endangered Eastern Bristlebird, for example, were known to be living in a New South Wales National Park. Ill-educated birdwatchers and photographers played recorded calls at them to entice them out of the shrubbery and, over time, drove them crazy with frustration. Now the birds no longer call at all. Recorded call playback has wrecked their ability to breed. Before too long, the species will probably be extinct at that location, and there are only a handful of other locations left now.
If you can't get close enough to the bird using your own skill, you should accept that you need more skill, not just cheat.
Xenedis
21-07-2011, 4:25pm
The problem of recorded bird callers is in fact a big issue amongst people who have an understanding of avian biology and conservation.
Thanks for that explanation.
Not knowing much about birds, your post was quite an eye-opener.
Given the use of bird calls can have damaging effects, I've changed my position.
Thanks for that explanation.
Not knowing much about birds, your post was quite an eye-opener.
Given the use of bird calls can have damaging effects, I've changed my position.
The same
Scotty72
21-07-2011, 4:30pm
I am really troubled by the concept of what is moral.
Ethics are easier - as these are generally codified within a profession, group, religion so, if you don't want to accept the standards = don't join.
However, morals are usually not codified and are simply value judgements: what I believe is right Vs what you believe is right.
Context is also important: what is appropriate is one circumstance may not be in another.
So, how can one person possibly impose their moral judgement on someone else especially without knowledge of context.
For example.
A vegetarian may think eating a hamburger is immoral as an animal has been killed (and as 4 Corners showed us - it may have suffered terribly). Does this make it immoral?
What about judging someone who traps a bird by putting glue on a branch? You might judge that an immoral act. But, what if there was a very good reason?
Society is far too quick to judge others on moral grounds... which is unfair.
Belonging to an profession, club etc., you join up on condition you abide by ethics (where applicable).
As members of the public, our morals should not attempt to limit the behaviour of others - ONLY laws should do that.
Scotty
Cheers John. I shouldn't suggest that they always do unacceptable damage, only that, as with nest photography, you need to think long and hard before using a caller. As a general rule, using a caller is an admission of incompetence or that you don't have the sticktoitiveness to be a nature photographer, but I don't think there is anything too wrong with careful, strictly limited use. If you are doing it more than a few times a year, you need to have a good, hard look at yourself and your ethics.
Xenedis
21-07-2011, 4:34pm
Thanks T.
I guess it comes down to the environment and situation as to whether the use of some tactic or another is unethical, immoral or otherwise damaging.
I can certainly understand that good bird photography is a difficult art.
As members of the public, our morals should not attempt to limit the behaviour of others - ONLY laws should do that.
What you are suggesting is the complete abolition of society. Formal laws are a very small factor in our daily lives and in the many moral decisions we all make every day. All human societies are based on a shared set of ethical beliefs. That's what a society is! - a set of people with some shared values and beliefs and customs. It is not just OK to share your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong with other people, it is your civic duty. (As with all such things, moderation is recommended.)
What you are suggesting is the complete abolition of society. Formal laws are a very small factor in our daily lives and in the many moral decisions we all make every day. All human societies are based on a shared set of ethical beliefs. That's what a society is! - a set of people with some shared values and beliefs and customs. It is not just OK to share your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong with other people, it is your civic duty. (As with all such things, moderation is recommended.)
Quite.
Is it illegal to cheat ?
Scotty72
21-07-2011, 4:59pm
What you are suggesting is the complete abolition of society. Formal laws are a very small factor in our daily lives and in the many moral decisions we all make every day. All human societies are based on a shared set of ethical beliefs. That's what a society is! - a set of people with some shared values and beliefs and customs. It is not just OK to share your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong with other people, it is your civic duty. (As with all such things, moderation is recommended.)
No, not an abolition of society at all.
I have a moral code I follow (and alter). I will not trap or interfere with a bird for example - even one in distress as I think it is immoral to interfere with nature's great plan. However, if you chose to not follow my code, what right do I have to tell you must do as I say?
However, societal 'norms' that are so widely shared are often adopted as law. We don't steal because most of us have a shared belief that it is wrong AND will do significant harm to society. Homosexuality is a case in point. It is no longer a crime despite the fact that it is FAR from the norm. Relatively few people practise it or would even consider it (often suggested at about 5-10% - but, who knows). Plenty of people want it banned but, it is not (IMO correctly) because even those (most of us) who will never do it recognise that it does NO HARM.
So, why should someone's morality stop people from having a relationship?
By allowing it, I don't believe society has ceased to exist. Has it?:lol::lol:
Art Vandelay
21-07-2011, 5:20pm
Interesting discussion.
My soft spot is birds in flight. If I find a bird peacefully sitting on a branch, I throw rocks at it to make it fly. I'm guessing that's wrong ?
Stop ! Don't shoot. I don't do that at all. :D
Interesting comments on the bird calls, Thanks Tony. - Never used them anyway. Have sometimes used a soft whistle, or click of the fingers to turn a birds head in my direction.
Also guilty of putting out stale bread crumbs or bird seed on a fence post out the back yard to feed my backyard mates & create a photo opportunity.
....
Is it moral or ethical to take pictures of someones life scattered across a half mile of forest?
Is it any more moral or ethical if you show up and ask permission to take the same pictures?
Is it any more moral or ethical if you volunteer to assist these people with rebuilding their lives and then ask permission to take the pictures?....
The week after the Black Saturday fires in Victoria my wife went down to run one of the biggest logistics units happening. She had the opportunity to take many images of peoples lives devastated, she didn't take many of those opportunities because she thought it ethically wrong to take photographs just for her to remember what she'd seen.
Part of her job is community safety, and so in the end she felt obliged to take some photos to demonstrate to others some of the things you can and can't do to protect property (to also demonstrate to some that it doesn't matter what you do, you sometimes cant protect it).
So on one hand she felt ethically obliged not to photograph, and on the other hand she felt obliged to photograph because she saw some use for greater good (what ever that is).
And that doesn't even touch on the social documentary aspect that some used to photograph everything they saw!
What's ethical and /or moral? Might be a personal/end use type of thing thing.
But before you take a position you should possibly make yourself aware of the consequents to others of your position.(see Tannins post on bird calls)
bricat
23-07-2011, 10:11am
Is it ethical for duck shooters to call in birds? Is it ethical to access someone's voicemail? Is it ethical to photograph someone in an emotioally upset state? Is it ethical for drug dealers to shoot and kill each other?
It is not trespass until you are told to leave by the owner or police.(anti logging campaigners are warned by police over a megaphone and then if they don't leave are arrested and not before yet they are still trespassing)
Are these things illegal? Well innocent until proven guilty and many people get off on technicalities. And many many people are not bound by ethics or/and the law. (thieves,robbers,burglars and speeding motorists)
Is it ethical to use a speed camera? Whoops now thats' done it I'm outa here:eek:
Scotty72
23-07-2011, 11:53am
Is it ethical for duck shooters to call in birds? Is it ethical to access someone's voicemail? Is it ethical to photograph someone in an emotioally upset state? Is it ethical for drug dealers to shoot and kill each other?
It is not trespass until you are told to leave by the owner or police.(anti logging campaigners are warned by police over a megaphone and then if they don't leave are arrested and not before yet they are still trespassing)
Are these things illegal? Well innocent until proven guilty and many people get off on technicalities. And many many people are not bound by ethics or/and the law. (thieves,robbers,burglars and speeding motorists)
Is it ethical to use a speed camera? Whoops now thats' done it I'm outa here:eek:
It probably is ethical for duck hunters to call ducks to their deaths - but, (IMHO) very immoral (in most circumstances). I assume that a duck hunter has a licence to shoot ducks and as part of that licence, they would have to agree to a set of rules etc. If these rules allow it, then, I guess it is ethical.
Journo's accesses voicemail's I am sure that the journo's code of ethics would say something about this. If a private citizen does it, then there is likely no breach of ethics but, almost certainly a breach of law.
Photographing an upset person. Well, if they are pros, then, if they are members of unions, associations etc then, these groups decide the ethics. If it is a private person then, they prob have no code to follow.
And drug dealers... well I doubt they have codified rules.
Ethics are defined by groups. Morals are personal values. They should never be confused.
I would find it morally wrong to photograph a person whose mother had just been shot - but it is probably perfectly ethical to do so.
And the thieves, motorists etc are not bound by ethics. They are bound by their own moral codes (most of us see no moral danger in speeding / risking lives) but, above that, we are bound by a set of laws in case we loosen our morals.
Scotty
Scotty72
23-07-2011, 11:55am
Is it ethical to use a speed camera? Whoops now thats' done it I'm outa here:eek:
Is it ethical to NOT use speed cameras?
If the govt knows most people speed every-day (endangering lives), is it ethical for them to allow the dangerous circumstances to continue?
Tannin
23-07-2011, 12:12pm
Ethics are defined by groups. Morals are personal values. They should never be confused.
^ Absolute, complete nonsense.
According to the Shorter Oxford, "Ethic" has three senses, (1) "relating to morals", (2) "treating of moral questions", and (3) "characterised by 'ethos' - which is defined as "the prevalent tone or sentiment of a people or community". It has, in other words, three meanings, all of them essentially the same as 'moral".
"Ethics" (plural) has further definitions, but we don't need to explore them here, they are similar and we have already blown this phoney distinction between "ethics" and "morals" completely out of the water.
James T
23-07-2011, 12:58pm
Semantics bore me.
As for photography, if you cause no harm, or the good outweighs the harm, then go ahead. That is provided you aren't fabricating images and presenting them as truthful documentary.
So far I've never found myself photographing in a situation where I've felt I shouldn't be. That doesn't necessarily mean other people at the time didn't disagree.
Semantics are important to how you organise your knowledge of the world.
Witness Scotty using a dubious semantic distinction to make a dodgy moral point.
James T
23-07-2011, 2:08pm
Semantics are important to how you organise your knowledge of the world.
Witness Scotty using a dubious semantic distinction to make a dodgy moral point.
I don't think semantics are very important here.
I'd guess that everyone knew what Kiwi intended from this thread, and that this (and a discussion about semantics) wasn't it. ;)
I agree, James. In Scotty's defence, however, he was at least trying to tease out a cruical distinction which is vitally relevant to this whole discussion. As I understand his point, he was trying to distinguish between:
Legal requirements regulating correct and incorrect behaviour
Shared social beliefs about correct and incorrect behaviour
Individual beliefs about correct and incorrect behaviour
Scotty was (incorrectly) using the term "morals" to indicate the third one, and the term "ethics" to indicate the second one. Most people would do the reverse. In fact, however, consulting a dictionary soon demonstrated (rather to my surprise) that the two terms are pretty much interchangable (outside of a discussion where precise particular meanings for these terms have been agreed in advance, of course).
With all that said, in general, it is normal to use "morals" to indicate social beliefs about behaviour ("it is a sin to eat pork") and "ethics" to indicate individual beliefs about behaviour ("I don't believe in eating meat"). Given that Scotty has now muddied the waters thoroughly by reversing these commonly accepted meanings, I don't think it is going to be easy to get this part of the discussion back on track from here.
Scotty72
23-07-2011, 2:24pm
^ Absolute, complete nonsense.
According to the Shorter Oxford, "Ethic" has three senses, (1) "relating to morals", (2) "treating of moral questions", and (3) "characterised by 'ethos' - which is defined as "the prevalent tone or sentiment of a people or community". It has, in other words, three meanings, all of them essentially the same as 'moral".
"Ethics" (plural) has further definitions, but we don't need to explore them here, they are similar and we have already blown this phoney distinction between "ethics" and "morals" completely out of the water.
I feel like singing...
'Mary, Mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow?'
You are referring to popular definitions. Often, many people just use incorrect assumptions (incl word meanings) without questioning it. The classic was about 90% of people believed the new millennium began on 1/Jan/2000 (another story).
Their is a distinct difference between the two words - which are not interchangeable.
Ethics are NOT not morals!
Morals are your personal beliefs that may be shared
Ethics are a system of beliefs that are developed for a profession, club, etc. based of guiding principals that, generally, are enforced.
EG. School teachers have a set of ethics that we MUST follow. The are no 'Teacher morals'
Doctors are required to follow the ethics of their profession - they are not supposed to follow their morals (even when they conflict)
In most jobs, if you act immorally (but, break no ethical standards) then, nothing will happen to you. Eg. passionately tongue kiss your cousin during your lunch hour and your boss may think you are seriously weird but, that would hardly be grounds for dismissal. However, kiss your new client then, your boss may well give you the boot (as dating clients is often a breach of ethics).
Their are many, many egs of where ethics and morals are totally different.
A uni lecture dating a 24 year old student is hardly immoral. 2 consenting adults = good luck. However, I would suggest it IS unethical.
Having an extra marital affair may well be immoral - but it is not unethical as it is noone else's business (outside of the 2 families)
They are clearly distinct
Ethics are codified - Hence code of ethics
Morals are personal (and easily altered to suit circumstances - especially when you get caught).
Scotty72
23-07-2011, 2:33pm
Anyway,
Back to the point.
Many photographers may have to moral objection to photoshopping the hell out of a photo to make it saleable even if it no longer portrays the truth.
But, I imagine it may not be ethical.
EG. There are a few online photo touch up services that allow you to submit a photo of your ugly, zitt-riddled child then, they will touch it up to make them look like Prince Charming.
Is that ethical? Well, I suppose if there is no code of practise about it, it is.
Is it moral? No, I find it sickening! However, a lot of people will argue.
See, Ethics are absolutes (or close) that we can all agree upon / accept in order to gain acceptance --- morals are these relative notions that are held only in our conscious / heart.
Scotty
You are referring to popular definitions. Often, many people just use incorrect assumptions ....
Nonsense. I have cited an authoritative reference - indeed, the most authoritative source there is on the meanings of words in the English language.
You, on the other hand, are claiming the authority of a rather more charming but much less authoritative reference :
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Much as I love Alice Through the Looking Glass, we should not pretend that the Rev Dodgson's Humpty Dumpty has authority superior to that of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Stay on Topic!
For the purpose of this discussion, and due to the definitions in the OED, Ethics = Morals
Hmmm ... I hear you Kym, but we need to be aware that we cannot have a sensible discussion on any topic unless we have agreed on the relevant terms.
arthurking83
23-07-2011, 3:03pm
..... is it ethical to use an iphone bird call application to call in birds in the wild
.....
How does the caller know the birds phone number?
Does the app have a listing of bird's numbers which you then select based on geographic proximity?
How does the bird answer their iPhone.
I would have thought that after only so many pecks at the screen with their pointy sharp and durable beaks, the glass would eventually scratch to the point of obscurity (at the least).
Is this also some kind of obscure, twisted dating service?
(is it legal?)
I dunno! .... it all sounds a bit strange to me.
arthurking83
23-07-2011, 3:19pm
Apologies for raising the issue again, but I think this(following) particular statement completely reinforces Tannin's objective.
......
In most jobs, if you act immorally (but, break no ethical standards) then, nothing will happen to you. Eg. passionately tongue kiss your cousin during your lunch hour and your boss may think you are seriously weird but, that would hardly be grounds for dismissal. However, kiss your new client then, your boss may well give you the boot (as dating clients is often a breach of ethics).
.....
if morals are based on a personal level, how can one act in an immoral manner?
All they are really doing is simply going against a previous belief they had. Are people not entitled to change their beliefs?(or is this now unethical :p).
If morality is purely a personal level, then you simply only need to change your previous point of view(or belief) and any action to the contrary of what you previously believed is no longer an immoral act!
You won't be going against any else's beliefs or ethics .. because the morality of the issue is only defined on a personal level.
I think unless you are an idiot and maintain one set of beliefs and yet act in another manner, immorality can no exist in the real world(it is therefore some kind of hypothetical situation for philosophers to ponder).
On the other hand, morality as a concept would exist in the wild, as everyone would have a set of morals.
The simple act of changing your mind is still a legal entitlement.
I'm intetested in a general discussion on morality & ethics in photography
I like the last two words of the quote :)
Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?
To see this graphically, watch any random TV series (yes, moving pictures, but the point still holds). The people in that series are, on average, a lot younger, slimmer, better-dressed and better looking than real people, their homes are better furnished, their cars are cars that most people can't afford. Result: most ordinary people think that they are too fat, too poor, too ugly, and well behind the eight-ball of the average. This is why people burn themselves out working two jobs and going on stupid diets and having pointless cosmetic surgery and all the rest of it. Simply, because our communicators (photographers and others) lie to us all the time.
Similarly, we photographers constantly strive to add more "pop" to our landscapes with too much saturation, clever multi-exposures, and a whole host of Photoshop tricks. We lie about what stuff looks like because it's an easy way to get our pictures noticed, and, over time, the cumulative effect of all our little lies is that the people who see our work (if they pay attention to it at all) wind up with an untrue picture of some fantasy world and, when they see the real world with their own eyes, it is pale and unattractive. Worse, they then feel impelled to "improve" it, and nearly everything you can do to a block of good, natural land to make it look more "photogenic" destroys a part of it. Nature is messy! But photographers like us pretend it isn't, and in consequence people don't understand it, and so they destroy it in a misguided attempt to "improve" it.
There is a fine line between presenting an attractive view of your subject, showing it in its best light on the one hand, and telling lies about it on the other hand. The ethical photographer thinks hard about this line quite often, and does his best to stay on the right side of it.
In my view, some of this is rubbish. a good landscape photographer will show you what they want you to see, via carefully selected and weighed composition. there may be a dirty great big coal mine just over the other side of the beautiful mountain and waterfall. in choosing to leave it out, are they lying to you? i think not. nothing unethical there, the mountain and waterfall are beautiful.
as for saying that over processing of landscapes (this in itself only an opinion) are unethical/immoral, I can only laugh...
photography is and can quickly become "art" or a personal interpretation of your experience in a landscape. Is there a code of ethics in art that says everything must be based solely and objectively on reality, and the artist should stay detached emotionally from the scene in front of them? I think not.
of course a caveat to this may be that the artist is claiming it to be "real" when it is not.
What about photoshopping out a stray foot in a sport shot ?
What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ?
What about photoshopping in some additional hair for shane warne for a hair treatment commercial ?
mrDooba
23-07-2011, 7:31pm
What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ?
I thought PJs had their own rules to follow. I'm not sure what they are though....
Zollo, with photography there is a special duty of care, over and above the duty of care that applies to (say) a written statement, or a sound recording, or a drawing. People generally believe that photographs have particular veracity - "seeing is believing" goes the saying. People trust photographs more than pretty much any other medium. That means that you, as the photographer, are in a position of special trust. Because of the enhanced ability you have to lie (i.e., because of your position of trust) it is especially important that you try your best to tell the truth.
-------------------------
Good questions, Kiwi!
What about photoshopping out a stray foot in a sport shot ? No intention to deceive, indeed, you are communicating the truth of what happened more clearly by altering the negative. Of course, there may be editorial rules preventing this, but they exist only to prevent abuse. The theory of your alteration is good.
What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ? Depends on your intent. Are you presenting a false picture of the reality? Or simply presenting the facts more clearly? Depends on circumstances.
What about photoshopping in some additional hair for shane warne for a hair treatment commercial ? Lie. No excuses.
I wouldn't crop a foot for editorial use, everything else is fine
#2 scenario is based in quite a famous example couple of years ago where such a manipulated photo of Haiti post earthquake won a world press award then caused a huge controversy
#3 I agree
Remember the jumping fox nature shot last year ?
This is another example of something that is troubling ethically
Warning, graphic photo is linked
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/03/29/debate-over-fabienne-cherisma-photo-rekindled-after-award-given/
peterb666
23-07-2011, 8:27pm
You may have noted with a recent UK event (and no doubt it has been happening here too), that there are no morals in press photography or in the press itself. It is all about making money, power, influence and manipulation. If you want to understand the lack of morals, just dig deeper in what you think may be the "truth".
This is another example of something that is troubling ethically
Warning, graphic photo is linked
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/03/29/debate-over-fabienne-cherisma-photo-rekindled-after-award-given/
Tommo1965
23-07-2011, 8:31pm
What about photoshopping out a stray foot in a sport shot ?
What about dodging and burning and colour adjustments in a photo for a newspaper about famine ?
What about photoshopping in some additional hair for shane warne for a hair treatment commercial ?
i think a photographer should use any tool at their disposal to get a image to where they want it to be.. personally I dont take photos to reflect real life....I want to add something of my own to the image..
but if its for a news paper or historical reference..then no to altering the taken shot IMO... particularly if its to the detriment of a individual
Dylan & Marianne
23-07-2011, 8:32pm
Zollo, with photography there is a special duty of care, over and above the duty of care that applies to (say) a written statement, or a sound recording, or a drawing. People generally believe that photographs have particular veracity - "seeing is believing" goes the saying. People trust photographs more than pretty much any other medium. That means that you, as the photographer, are in a position of special trust. Because of the enhanced ability you have to lie (i.e., because of your position of trust) it is especially important that you try your best to tell the truth.
Once again with regard to landscapes - that's your particular point of view and I respect that. And I agree with Zollo full heartedly on this point. I don't think any fine art landscape photographer has ever claimed they are bringing you unadultered truth in a scene. Another aspect to consider (again in landscapes) is that viewing an image relies entirely on one sense alone - vision. By doing things such as long exposure and manipulation of images, you can sometimes make an attempt to bring the person there to feel a scene whether it be real or imaginery. In the scene below, the 'feel' of the scene was painful whipping of sand blowing past me - take a simple unmanipulated snap and you get absolutely no sense of it. I tried (not very successfully I might add) to get a sense of that motion with a longer exposure and bring out the moving tendrils of dust. As for the rest of the scene - yes it was taken in Iceland - do I claim this is how it looked like? No- but it's what I would like people to imagine being in another planet which was how I felt while standing there. I personally don't feel I've done anything remotely unethical or immoral (I respect that you might, but I thought I'd at least make an explanation as to why I don't agree)
http://www.everlookphotography.com/Iceland/Iceland-2010/Iceland-Emstrur-4856/1197203327_T2vUN-M.jpg
Dylan, you are getting very close to my own view when you start talking about manipulation. I have absolutely no problem with manipulation of a photograph! It is all in the intent. Where, as with your own work, there is no intent to present the result as anything but what it is - fiction with some relationship to the underlying realities (just as a novel typically bears some relationship to the real world of people) - then the question really doesn't arise. Where the manipulation is designed to communicate more clearly (for example, by removing that accidental foot in the frame of the sport shot, which only distracts the viewer from the reality of the moment), I fully support it (subject to judgment on individual circumstances, of course). The problem arises where the photograph is presented as reality, rather than as fiction.
Does this mean that all images not clearly marked as "fiction" must be drab, plain pictures that make Socialist Realism look like Laugh-In?
No!
Look at the example of Claude Monet, who went to a lot of trouble to paint pictures that, on one level, were significant distortion of reality. Nevertheless, Monet is regarded as one of the true greats of all time because his paintings tell a larger truth - Monet was prepared to sacrifice anything else in order to shout out the truth about the thing he loved and understood best - light.
Summary: it's not what you do, it is why you do it.
Dylan & Marianne
23-07-2011, 9:12pm
thanks for the explanation tony :)
Scotty72
23-07-2011, 9:21pm
Dylan, you are getting very close to my own view when you start talking about manipulation. I have absolutely no problem with manipulation of a photograph! It is all in the intent. Where, as with your own work, there is no intent to present the result as anything but what it is - fiction with some relationship to the underlying realities (just as a novel typically bears some relationship to the real world of people) - then the question really doesn't arise. Where the manipulation is designed to communicate more clearly (for example, by removing that accidental foot in the frame of the sport shot, which only distracts the viewer from the reality of the moment), I fully support it (subject to judgment on individual circumstances, of course). The problem arises where the photograph is presented as reality, rather than as fiction.
Does this mean that all images not clearly marked as "fiction" must be drab, plain pictures that make Socialist Realism look like Laugh-In?
No!
Look at the example of Claude Monet, who went to a lot of trouble to paint pictures that, on one level, were significant distortion of reality. Nevertheless, Monet is regarded as one of the true greats of all time because his paintings tell a larger truth - Monet was prepared to sacrifice anything else in order to shout out the truth about the thing he loved and understood best - light.
Summary: it's not what you do, it is why you do it.
Is a girl who puts on make up to cover skin blemishes guilty of distorting reality - should she be labelled as a work of art / fiction?
colinbm
23-07-2011, 9:25pm
Ethics & Morality in Photography ??
" It is only illegal if you get caught " :eek: :confused013
Col
Is a girl who puts on make up to cover skin blemishes guilty of distorting reality - should she be labelled as a work of art / fiction?
Too right! Hell, when I was doing my teacher training, I once overheard a couple of students discussing something of no particular interest to me - who was going to supervise them during their spare period, or some such.
"Yeah, it's Miss Hudson"
"Who?"
"You know - the one with the plastic face"
"Oh her. Right"
I nearly had the sort of accident in my trousers I hadn't experienced since I was at kindergarten! I managed to keep on staring out the window and keep a poker face somehow. I was only a student doing teaching rounds so I was wasn't familiar with the names of more than a half-dozen staff members, but the moment that Year 8 kid said "the plastic face" I knew exactly who they meant. :(
So far as I know, she had a perfectly normal complexion; apparently she just didn't feel dressed with less than half a pound of assorted powder, lipstick, blusher, eyeliner, foundation, eyeshadow, and for all I know pre-stressed concrete on her face.
Pity I don't have her address, I could send her some appropriately over-processed landscape photographs. I'm sure she would love them. :)
Zollo, with photography there is a special duty of care, over and above the duty of care that applies to (say) a written statement, or a sound recording, or a drawing. People generally believe that photographs have particular veracity - "seeing is believing" goes the saying. People trust photographs more than pretty much any other medium. That means that you, as the photographer, are in a position of special trust. Because of the enhanced ability you have to lie (i.e., because of your position of trust) it is especially important that you try your best to tell the truth.
While I completely approve the sentiment, is this really true any more? I think it was shaky in 1981 when people assumed Galen Rowell's Potala Palace photo http://www.mountainsoftravelphotos.com/ReferenceImagesF/My%20Tibet%20Galen%20Rowell%20Potala%20Palace%20Rainbow.jpg was made with a rainbow filter. Now that nearly everybodies first reaction to getting a copy of Photoshop is—well you know what it is before people learn some restraint—is it not a lost cause? Perhaps we have now reached a point where nobody places any trust in photographs any more.
Good point Jim, I expect most when looking at a great or unusual photo will suspect digital manipulation first and skill and art second
Scotty72
23-07-2011, 10:11pm
Too right! Hell, when I was doing my teacher training, I once overheard a couple of students discussing something of no particular interest to me - who was going to supervise them during their spare period, or some such.
"Yeah, it's Miss Hudson"
"Who?"
"You know - the one with the plastic face"
"Oh her. Right"
I nearly had the sort of accident in my trousers I hadn't experienced since I was at kindergarten! I managed to keep on staring out the window and keep a poker face somehow. I was only a student doing teaching rounds so I was wasn't familiar with the names of more than a half-dozen staff members, but the moment that Year 8 kid said "the plastic face" I knew exactly who they meant. :(
So far as I know, she had a perfectly normal complexion; apparently she just didn't feel dressed with less than half a pound of assorted powder, lipstick, blusher, eyeliner, foundation, eyeshadow, and for all I know pre-stressed concrete on her face.
Pity I don't have her address, I could send her some appropriately over-processed landscape photographs. I'm sure she would love them. :)
Hmmm!
What about the photographer who asks a brother and sister who can't stand each other to smile in the family photo, this is presenting something that is unnatural / not real? To portray this family as happy would be a total fabrication.
Or should he take the photo of them swapping raging insults / punches?
Hmmm!
What about the photographer who asks a brother and sister who can't stand each other to smile in the family photo, this is presenting something that is unnatural / not real? To portray this family as happy would be a total fabrication.
Or should he take the photo of them swapping raging insults / punches?
In what context Scotty? Credit people with some sophistication (we've forced it on them after all) If it's a formal portrait nobody will draw any conclusions. If it appears in National Geographic then maybe the unnatural smiles would count as misrepresentation.
Or maybe the photographer slipped on a banana and they both smile and click.
Move on, nothing to see with this example
Tannin
23-07-2011, 10:40pm
^ Bananas don't click, they squish. :eek:
Tommo1965
24-07-2011, 12:23am
one issue I have is people perception that my images have been photo-shopped..a term that they use because the image looks better than their point and shoot...LOL
my wife will always comment that it been "shopped" and as I've manipulated it within the PC..so it doesn't count..BAH...I say
the other day I was taking a shot of the early morning sunrise..bright orange cloud etc..I choose to expose for the bright part of the image knowing later I could reclaim the foreground in PP...once highlight detail is lost..its never coming back ...so with out a ND grad..I made a decsion to sacrifice a part of the image to later push in CC.
is there anything wrong in that ?
I normally add some pop to my images... some dont need it..others do...its what we do is it not?
is pushing a image is PP cheating..or are we just doing what Photographers have been doing for ages in the darkroom....dodge and burn are not a Photoshop invention are they ?
Scotty72
24-07-2011, 12:28am
In what context Scotty? Credit people with some sophistication (we've forced it on them after all) If it's a formal portrait nobody will draw any conclusions. If it appears in National Geographic then maybe the unnatural smiles would count as misrepresentation.
What about all those 'happy couple' portraits of Charles and Diana that were certainly used to misrepresent history and for commercial purposes to sell all sorts of memorabilia.
Now, those are photographers that ought to be sued then, shot! :eek::lol:
Tannin
24-07-2011, 12:43am
the other day I was taking a shot of the early morning sunrise..bright orange cloud etc. ..... is pushing a image is PP cheating..or are we just doing what Photographers have been doing for ages in the darkroom....dodge and burn are not a Photoshop invention are they ?
I think you are missing the point at issue. The techniques you use are irrelevant to the final result (or so I maintain), exactly as whether you decide to use a brush or a palate knife with oil paint on canvas is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you get there. The important question is was your final result honest?
You might compare two common techniques of photographic manipulation.
In the first case you shoot a landscape and decide, for whatever reason, that it would look better in black and white. So you render it as a monochrome image (I'm going to ignore the many subsequent manipulations it is possible to make to a black and white picture). Is this dishonest? It's not, because nobody, not even a five year old will think you're photographing a truly black and white world. Everybody will understand that a black and white image is either an inevitable artefact of the photographic process, or an attempt to concentrate the viewers attention on some pictorial information (tones and subject matter) by excluding other information (colour). Your five year old may not put it exactly that way, but they will understand it, exactly that way.
In the second case you photograph the very same landscape, and decide that it looks weak and would benefit from darkening the sky one and a half stops in Photoshop. Is this dishonest? I submit that while your intentions may be good in this one instance, in the aggregate when everyone's doing it, it becomes flagrantly dishonest and harmful. On the one hand, the more photographers pump up the saturation and contrast in their images (So that they'll "pop". Lord I hate that word.) the more people lose the ability to appreciate the huge depth and subtlty of real light, the great and intricately nuanced complexity of the real world. You get to the point where any photo that hasn't been turned into a page from a comic book looks dull.
On the other hand, you will be contributing (in a bad way) to the now enormous sophistication of your viewers. While they now expect an image to jump out and grab them by the throat, they no longer place any trust in photographs to accurately reflect reality. So when somebody does produce an honest picture of something awesome, nobody reacts with awe, they react with "nice photoshop". That's a loss for everybody, though I'm afraid the chickens have well and truly flown the coop on that one.
On the third hand (I'm a Science Fiction aficionado) you will annoy Tannin, who seems to be extremely sensitive to any departure from accuracy in the depiction of light and colour. I do believe it actually hurts his eyes. Myself I'm less perceptive and more tolerant. :)
Tommo1965
24-07-2011, 7:10am
Jim
my camera doesn't have the DR that my eyes have...so pushing a image in PP is quite often getting it to where we saw it in the first instance.... quite often a image looks washed out..or lacks contrast due to the camera metering the shot to its 18% grey....for me thats not good enough..so manipulating a image in PP to get better saturation/contrast { Pop :D} is acceptable Id say.
According to the posts here Ansel Adams was most 'dishonest' due to the level of DR manipulations :confused013
Xenedis
24-07-2011, 7:23am
i think a photographer should use any tool at their disposal to get a image to where they want it to be.. personally I dont take photos to reflect real life....I want to add something of my own to the image..
Most of the photography in which I engage does not require the depiction of absolute truth.
If we want to get really picky, every single digital image out there, even if it came straight from the camera, is a distortion of reality. JPG files (8-bit) can only represent 256 levels of brightness, and only around 16.7 million colours. The reality is that the human eye is far more powerful than that.
Cameras simply cannot tell the absolute truth about what they capture, because there are technical limitations.
As for my own photography, I process my images. I clone out undesirable elements. I selectively darken, lighten, (de)saturate, increase contrast/detail and sharpen.
I process my images the way I like, and what's great about it is that nobody is owed an explanation.
Xenedis
24-07-2011, 7:27am
According to the posts here Ansel Adams was most 'dishonest' due to the level of DR manipulations :confused013
I had Ansel Adams in mind when reading this discussion.
It strikes me as a curious situation where people these days are inclined to accuse others of digital manipulation, when they are completely ignorant of the fact that people have been manipulating images since the early days of photography, and that just because it came from a film camera and was processed in a wet darkroom, doesn't mean it's any more 'pure' than whatever came from a digital camera and was processed in an Adobe 'darkroom'.
Image manipulation in itself is not a bad thing. The context is critical to whether the manipulation is good or bad.
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....
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
24-07-2011, 7:41am
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.
According to the posts here Ansel Adams was most 'dishonest' due to the level of DR manipulations :confused013
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.
Those tools can be used for immoral/deceptive/unethical purposes.
Agrees, which gies way beyond these purposes
Dylan & Marianne
24-07-2011, 8:37am
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
24-07-2011, 8:37am
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
24-07-2011, 8:41am
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)
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 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?
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. :confused013
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? :confused013
No more than between morals and ethics, Jim. What constitutes etiquette at its root anyway? Maybe the distinction lies in the intent? :confused013
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.
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.
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!:o
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
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
24-07-2011, 9:42am
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. :confused013
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? :D
Outside of the mathematical theories... what absolue truths are there in photography? :D
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
24-07-2011, 9:58am
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. :scrtch:
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
Scotty72
24-07-2011, 10:00am
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. ;)
Why is it that sometimes you see a scene, take a picture of it then only after looking at the picture, you notice things about that scene?
Maybe our eyes aren't so good after all.:lol:
Yes !!! 100 posts
Thread closed, target achieved.
Scotty72
24-07-2011, 10:04am
An ulterior motive for starting a thread... what about the morality of that? :lol:
Dylan & Marianne
24-07-2011, 10:06am
the ulterior motive is revealed!
Lol, I think 100 is a good kpi for a worthwhile thread don't you ?
Is it ethical to present your audience with a glossed-up, unrealistic view of the world so that you can sell your pictures, and ignore the fact that you are distorting their view of reality and making them frustrated, unappreciative, and unhappy?
To see this graphically, watch any random TV series (yes, moving pictures, but the point still holds). The people in that series are, on average, a lot younger, slimmer, better-dressed and better looking than real people, their homes are better furnished, their cars are cars that most people can't afford. Result: most ordinary people think that they are too fat, too poor, too ugly, and well behind the eight-ball of the average. This is why people burn themselves out working two jobs and going on stupid diets and having pointless cosmetic surgery and all the rest of it. Simply, because our communicators (photographers and others) lie to us all the time.
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.
Scotty72
24-07-2011, 10:32am
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.
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.
Nikkie
24-07-2011, 11:18am
Taking a street photo of an interesting face is one thing; deliberately peering into someone's private domain is another entirely IMHO. 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 said
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 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 trespassing
enVision
24-07-2011, 12:24pm
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.
This is another example of something that is troubling ethically
Warning, graphic photo is linked
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/03/29/debate-over-fabienne-cherisma-photo-rekindled-after-award-given/
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.
Scotty72
24-07-2011, 3:38pm
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.
That's what I was trying to say (but got deleted :cool:). Ethics is rules, morality is feelings... and are very different but essential considerations. Perhaps you expressed it better :th3:
Ethics are clear boundaries - morals are, would I like that if you did that to my mother...
Scotty72
24-07-2011, 4:17pm
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/transcripts/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.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.