However, if you're abusing children with the intention to take a picture that would get you an extra vote in a local "sorrow" contest - that's a totally different story..
Well said Nikolai, maybe the crux of the matter is, is the person taking the photograph also the person responsible for providing the comfort to the distressed child.
I can see a justification for taking an image of an upset child that it being comforted by someone, but when the person taking the photograph is also the person responsible for comforting the child and puts their own desire to capture an image before providing that comfort, that's indefensible.
Futhermore, as I've posted elsewhere, since when did the word 'Sorrow' equate to crying children, sorrow is sadness at loss or bereavement, how can a closely cropped image of a child emote this? How do we know the child is feeling sorrow, they may have just scuffed their knee or been told off, where's the sorrow, where's the context?
I can see a justification for taking an image of an upset child that it being comforted by someone, but when the person taking the photograph is also the person responsible for comforting the child and puts their own desire to capture an image before providing that comfort, that's indefensible.
Then there are a lot of photographers acting in an "indefensible" way out there... the easiest to point to, are the photo journalists.
I had started a post about a similar topic a while back, where the photographer captured photos of a drowning woman. It never occurred to him she would really drown.
I think of all that national geographic type photos... the starving children, the mamed, the injured. Is it the photographer's "job" to comfort or document? If every photographer stopped to first provide comfort, assist, provide relief or a kind word, BEFORE taking the photo, there'd be a lot less moving photos in the world.
I'd also suggest that allowing a toddler to cry for an additional minute or two is not doing them any significant harm. Isn't there a whole child-rearing method based on the concept of teaching children to self-comfort?
Amy Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
Then there are a lot of photographers acting in an "indefensible" way out there... the easiest to point to, are the photo journalists.
I had started a post about a similar topic a while back, where the photographer captured photos of a drowning woman. It never occurred to him she would really drown.
I think of all that national geographic type photos... the starving children, the mamed, the injured. Is it the photographer's "job" to comfort or document? If every photographer stopped to first provide comfort, assist, provide relief or a kind word, BEFORE taking the photo, there'd be a lot less moving photos in the world.
I'd also suggest that allowing a toddler to cry for an additional minute or two is not doing them any significant harm. Isn't there a whole child-rearing method based on the concept of teaching children to self-comfort?
And you need to go back and read my initial example about a father who took a picture of his kid crying.
The parent, or caretaker, or anyone responsible for the child, who takes a photo prior to comforting is not, IMO, abusing the child or acting in an "indefensible" way. That's a pretty broad judgement call to make, especially without knowing everything about a given circumstance.
Life just isn't that black & white.
Amy Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
And you need to go back and read my initial example about a father who took a picture of his kid crying.
The parent, or caretaker, or anyone responsible for the child, who takes a photo prior to comforting is not, IMO, abusing the child or acting in an "indefensible" way. That's a pretty broad judgement call to make, especially without knowing everything about a given circumstance.
Life just isn't that black & white.
You're welcome to your opinion, it's wrong, but you're welcome to it.
Not every crying child either needs or wants comfort. My 3-year-old regularly gets frustrated to the point of tears trying to do something. If I go over to help, his response is a rather emphatic "No. Go away. I do it myself." The road to indepenence is rocky and full of tears and in some situations that arise parental comfort is neither wanted nor warranted.
That really does it. If that’s not child abuse – where do you draw the line?
I totally agree with you about Jill, but not about the woman you're talking about. She is one of my best friends and I know that her child does not lack love or comfort. Taking a few photos to document a normal situation like getting a needle stick doesn't take hours and hours and leave the child wanting for love. But deliberately provoking a child to create this type of reaction is wrong in my book.
While I see where you're coming from, I think you're completely wrong in this case. I see nothing wrong in what she did.
Then there are a lot of photographers acting in an "indefensible" way out there... the easiest to point to, are the photo journalists.
I had started a post about a similar topic a while back, where the photographer captured photos of a drowning woman. It never occurred to him she would really drown.
I think of all that national geographic type photos... the starving children, the mamed, the injured. Is it the photographer's "job" to comfort or document? If every photographer stopped to first provide comfort, assist, provide relief or a kind word, BEFORE taking the photo, there'd be a lot less moving photos in the world.
I'd also suggest that allowing a toddler to cry for an additional minute or two is not doing them any significant harm. Isn't there a whole child-rearing method based on the concept of teaching children to self-comfort?
There are certainly "bad" photojournalists, just as there are bad parents, bad cops, and bad presidents. But I think you are certainly making a gross overgeneralization here - I cannot think of a photojournalist I know who would let someone drown.
Personally, as a photojournalist (only rarely now) in a beach community with bad rip currents I've taken photos of drowning people - a whole lot of them - parents, children, rescuers, friends, the grieving parents on the beach, the hard-bitten cops and firefighters visibly distraught - dead bodies on the beach, on the pavement, and in burning cars. I have also acted as a spotter to surf rescuers pointing out swimmers in trouble, helped launch Sea-Doos for the surf rescue team and even made the initial calls to 911 about swimmers in trouble. I've comforted family members. I co-wrote with the fire chief a eulogy for a firefighter, a friend of mine, who drowned last year in the line of duty. We both cried over it. He was a friend to me but like a son to the chief. And through all this I also took pictures. It didn't make me a monster. I was often thanked for it, probably because I approached it like a human being. I'll admit, I didn't always enjoy it but I thought it was important until I couldn't do it anymore.
A mentor of mine was a legendary photojournalist with flair in Seattle who died the day before the firefighter I just mentioned. He was also colorblind. "On what turned out to be his final day of work he wore one red and one yellow tennis shoe, set off by a fuchsia corduroy jacket," the newspaper wrote. Phil Weber, who covered Seattle for 50 years, was so well respected by firefighters and police that when the call came in that he was dying in his home, ten paramedics and two patrol cars responded.
My point is, many photojournalists are human beings too, especially the "national geographic types." In the midst of tragedy there is often little comfort to be given but it is still given. In some cases, these photographers spend weeks or months getting to know their "subjects" and become friends for life. There have been many great posts in this thread (and it's nice to see this depth of discussion here - I've been avoiding it) about the importance of documentary photography. Some of the greats have been mentioned.
"Truth" is hard to find. I believe the still photograph can often capture truth better than the spoken word or video. Truth isn't always pretty but it is important. Look if you dare.
"Truth" is hard to find. I believe the still photograph can often capture truth better than the spoken word or video. Truth isn't always pretty but it is important. Look if you dare.
Amen and I do dare always!! Nicely Put!!
You're only as good as your next photo....
One day, I started writing, not knowing that I had chained myself for life to a noble but merciless master. When God hands you a gift, he also hands you a whip; and the whip is intended solely for self-flagellation...I'm here alone in my dark madness, all by myself with my deck of cards --- and, of course, the whip God gave me." Truman Capote
There are certainly "bad" photojournalists, just as there are bad parents, bad cops, and bad presidents. But I think you are certainly making a gross overgeneralization here - I cannot think of a photojournalist I know who would let someone drown.
...
"Truth" is hard to find. I believe the still photograph can often capture truth better than the spoken word or video. Truth isn't always pretty but it is important. Look if you dare.
With some execeptions (most notably in the hollywood circuit) I do belive most PJs are honorable and responsible in what they do. Personally I have learned to have quite a bit of respect for how the law covers photography. The issue of exploitation comes up not when you take the photograph but in how you use it. The challenge PJs face today, I think, is that much of the work they do is WMFH which means they don't control how their photographs get used. Not every journalistic enterprise is acts as responsibly as the photographers that work for them. While photographs to have a great potential for truth, their meaning can also be significantly manipulated even by journalitically acceptable methods such as cropping, captioning and context. I think the recent trend in the journalism industry is toward shock and drama often at the expense of truth. I think one of the most difficult ethical questions in photojournalisim is how much responsibility does the photographer have for how his employer uses his photographs.
Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer had an interesting post on the power of captions a while back.
Coincidentally, if you follow down through the results of that search there are a number of entries that are relevant to the discussion in this thread including discussions of photo forgeries and Jill Greenberg.
There are certainly "bad" photojournalists, just as there are bad parents, bad cops, and bad presidents. But I think you are certainly making a gross overgeneralization here - I cannot think of a photojournalist I know who would let someone drown.
If I remeber right, I think the situation was a flood, and a girl was trapped in the water. Her head was above the water but her legs were pinned. People tried to help her but no one could move the debris. The photo I saw was of the girl looking into the camera, her hands pruned up and white, her eyes icy but peircing. It was a powerful photo. She died of exposure. And that photo will stay with me for a long time.
I found some references:
Omayra Sanchez, a 13-year-old girl whom rescue workers had been trying for 60 hours to dislodge from a neck-deep pool of cold, muddy water, died of exposure this morning. Red Cross rescue workers here had repeatedly appealed to the Government for a pump to lower the water level
Omayra Sánchez was a 13-year old victim of the Nevado del Ruizvolcano which erupted on November 14, 1985 in Armero, Colombia, causing massive lahars which killed nearly 25,000. She was trapped for 3 days in water, concrete, and other debris before she died.
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
With some execeptions (most notably in the hollywood circuit) I do belive most PJs are honorable and responsible in what they do ....
All excellent points and I cannot disagree, although I differentiate between segments of media - TV news can be pure shock value. I had the privilege, and the burden, of making the calls on whether to publish an image myself since I also edited and published a small newspaper. My rule was always take the shot (which I didn't/couldn't always follow) and decide on the use later. My "best" images, i.e. the most powerful, were never published because they were too intrusive or otherwise against our policy. Other news outlets would often cover the same story and come back with similar photos. We didn’t always agree on what was acceptable – sometimes I was more conservative, sometimes it was the reverse – but I did sometimes discuss the decision after the fact with the “competition.” You would be surprised how much newspaper newsrooms discuss, debate and even agonize over what to use or not use, both in stories and photos.
I did publish the following (link below). The context/use is important - i.e. this beach is dangerous and people need to know it, be reminded of it, and protect themselves and their family but publishing was still a tough call. It was taken at Copalis Beach, WA on June 26, 2005, exactly two years ago today (that's really weird cause I didn't notice it until I looked at the exif). While it's not the most powerful photo and the sorrow is subtle, it did make a strong point. To add to the poignancy here, some years before the police officer in the photo below was on his first surf rescue when a fellow senior officer next to him drowned.
But I suppose all of this is a bit off topic. I don't believe pictures of sorrow necessarily equal exploitation - it's all about situation, intent, use and context. Sorrow is just as real as joy and in photos arguably more powerful. Personally I couldn’t imagine intentionally causing sorrow for the sake of a photograph but I don’t see what’s wrong with capturing such a powerful universal facet of the human condition.
I totally agree with you about Jill, but not about the woman you're talking about. She is one of my best friends and I know that her child does not lack love or comfort. Taking a few photos to document a normal situation like getting a needle stick doesn't take hours and hours and leave the child wanting for love. But deliberately provoking a child to create this type of reaction is wrong in my book.
While I see where you're coming from, I think you're completely wrong in this case. I see nothing wrong in what she did.
I never accused your friend of child abuse. I just believe that she acted selfishly and put her hobby before her child in this case. I only meant to use her as an example of making the wrong judgement call and wanted to point out in general that we should not get carried away on the ‘sorrow’ theme, but should examine our true intentions when taking photographs.
The whole thing went completely out of proportion, because some people choose to through in comments without actually reading what they are commenting on or put words in your mouth just for controversy sake. Neither is very helpful in a serious debate.
I totally agree with you about Jill, but not about the woman you're talking about. She is one of my best friends and I know that her child does not lack love or comfort. Taking a few photos to document a normal situation like getting a needle stick doesn't take hours and hours and leave the child wanting for love. But deliberately provoking a child to create this type of reaction is wrong in my book.
While I see where you're coming from, I think you're completely wrong in this case. I see nothing wrong in what she did.
I agree with regards to this case since I also know her personally... Robert, I get the point you are trying to make... I just disagree with that example since I know her so well....
Interesting thread. Just about every day the local papers have sorrow on their front cover. I don't think I would not take pictures of a sorrowful event, but fortunately haven't been put in a position to have to make that call. Just this week leaving a graduation I took pictures at, there were 4 shootings (w/ gun, not camera) in my neighborhood and I was driving on the street that it happened on as the police were driving to the scene. I saw the images on the news the next day and asked myself, could I have parked, got out the car and took pictures of the same thing. I'm a photographer, not emergency services. And pictures are a service in terms of a way to get the word out. I would also try and stay out the way in case more bullets flew.
Lyrics from a song written after Hurricane Katrina:
"Wouldn't you loot
if you didn't have no loot
baby needed food
and you stuck on the roof
And the helicopters swooped down just to get a scoop through his telescopic lens but he didn't scoop you
the next 5 days no help ensued
they called you a refugee because you seek refuge
the commander in chief just flew by
stop and though he had a couple seats, just brewed
Jet Blue he is not
jet blew by the spot
but if he ran out of jet fuel and just dropped
that'd been something to watch helicopters doing fly-by's to take a couple shots couple portraits then ignored him
he'd be just another bush surrounded by a couple orchids
poor kids
just cuz they was poor kids
left them on the porches
same ol story in New Orleans"
Horrible situation. But I think the images of the aftermath are the only reason anything got done at all. Can you fault them for not picking people up in News Chopper 4?
My current opinion is take the picture. You don't always have time to think in order to get "the shot".
But you do have time to make a moral decision while developing it.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
New here but I'd lice to put my 2 cents in on this.
I was recently at an event in Seattle where the homeless and/or beggars were quite common. I did take a few pics of them but also left them something for the priveledge. I don't have a problem with that or think that I was exploiting.
When I was a teen in the early '60s the local paper published a picture of a woman at the moment she arrives on the scene of her husband and son having been killed by an exploding tire at a gas station. Their clothes had been completely blown off and the scene was not pretty. I can still see the look of horror on that woman's face. This was exploitation to the nth degree in my book. The pic was only there to sell the story.
Comments
Well said Nikolai, maybe the crux of the matter is, is the person taking the photograph also the person responsible for providing the comfort to the distressed child.
I can see a justification for taking an image of an upset child that it being comforted by someone, but when the person taking the photograph is also the person responsible for comforting the child and puts their own desire to capture an image before providing that comfort, that's indefensible.
Futhermore, as I've posted elsewhere, since when did the word 'Sorrow' equate to crying children, sorrow is sadness at loss or bereavement, how can a closely cropped image of a child emote this? How do we know the child is feeling sorrow, they may have just scuffed their knee or been told off, where's the sorrow, where's the context?
Charlie
I had started a post about a similar topic a while back, where the photographer captured photos of a drowning woman. It never occurred to him she would really drown.
I think of all that national geographic type photos... the starving children, the mamed, the injured. Is it the photographer's "job" to comfort or document? If every photographer stopped to first provide comfort, assist, provide relief or a kind word, BEFORE taking the photo, there'd be a lot less moving photos in the world.
I'd also suggest that allowing a toddler to cry for an additional minute or two is not doing them any significant harm. Isn't there a whole child-rearing method based on the concept of teaching children to self-comfort?
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook
Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
You need to go back and read my post properly.
Charlie
-G-
Unsharp at any Speed
And you need to go back and read my initial example about a father who took a picture of his kid crying.
The parent, or caretaker, or anyone responsible for the child, who takes a photo prior to comforting is not, IMO, abusing the child or acting in an "indefensible" way. That's a pretty broad judgement call to make, especially without knowing everything about a given circumstance.
Life just isn't that black & white.
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook
Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
You're welcome to your opinion, it's wrong, but you're welcome to it.
Charlie
I totally agree with you about Jill, but not about the woman you're talking about. She is one of my best friends and I know that her child does not lack love or comfort. Taking a few photos to document a normal situation like getting a needle stick doesn't take hours and hours and leave the child wanting for love. But deliberately provoking a child to create this type of reaction is wrong in my book.
While I see where you're coming from, I think you're completely wrong in this case. I see nothing wrong in what she did.
www.tippiepics.com
There are certainly "bad" photojournalists, just as there are bad parents, bad cops, and bad presidents. But I think you are certainly making a gross overgeneralization here - I cannot think of a photojournalist I know who would let someone drown.
Personally, as a photojournalist (only rarely now) in a beach community with bad rip currents I've taken photos of drowning people - a whole lot of them - parents, children, rescuers, friends, the grieving parents on the beach, the hard-bitten cops and firefighters visibly distraught - dead bodies on the beach, on the pavement, and in burning cars. I have also acted as a spotter to surf rescuers pointing out swimmers in trouble, helped launch Sea-Doos for the surf rescue team and even made the initial calls to 911 about swimmers in trouble. I've comforted family members. I co-wrote with the fire chief a eulogy for a firefighter, a friend of mine, who drowned last year in the line of duty. We both cried over it. He was a friend to me but like a son to the chief. And through all this I also took pictures. It didn't make me a monster. I was often thanked for it, probably because I approached it like a human being. I'll admit, I didn't always enjoy it but I thought it was important until I couldn't do it anymore.
A mentor of mine was a legendary photojournalist with flair in Seattle who died the day before the firefighter I just mentioned. He was also colorblind. "On what turned out to be his final day of work he wore one red and one yellow tennis shoe, set off by a fuchsia corduroy jacket," the newspaper wrote. Phil Weber, who covered Seattle for 50 years, was so well respected by firefighters and police that when the call came in that he was dying in his home, ten paramedics and two patrol cars responded.
My point is, many photojournalists are human beings too, especially the "national geographic types." In the midst of tragedy there is often little comfort to be given but it is still given. In some cases, these photographers spend weeks or months getting to know their "subjects" and become friends for life. There have been many great posts in this thread (and it's nice to see this depth of discussion here - I've been avoiding it) about the importance of documentary photography. Some of the greats have been mentioned.
"Truth" is hard to find. I believe the still photograph can often capture truth better than the spoken word or video. Truth isn't always pretty but it is important. Look if you dare.
Amen and I do dare always!! Nicely Put!!
With some execeptions (most notably in the hollywood circuit) I do belive most PJs are honorable and responsible in what they do. Personally I have learned to have quite a bit of respect for how the law covers photography. The issue of exploitation comes up not when you take the photograph but in how you use it. The challenge PJs face today, I think, is that much of the work they do is WMFH which means they don't control how their photographs get used. Not every journalistic enterprise is acts as responsibly as the photographers that work for them. While photographs to have a great potential for truth, their meaning can also be significantly manipulated even by journalitically acceptable methods such as cropping, captioning and context. I think the recent trend in the journalism industry is toward shock and drama often at the expense of truth. I think one of the most difficult ethical questions in photojournalisim is how much responsibility does the photographer have for how his employer uses his photographs.
Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer had an interesting post on the power of captions a while back.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/search?q=caption
Coincidentally, if you follow down through the results of that search there are a number of entries that are relevant to the discussion in this thread including discussions of photo forgeries and Jill Greenberg.
If I remeber right, I think the situation was a flood, and a girl was trapped in the water. Her head was above the water but her legs were pinned. People tried to help her but no one could move the debris. The photo I saw was of the girl looking into the camera, her hands pruned up and white, her eyes icy but peircing. It was a powerful photo. She died of exposure. And that photo will stay with me for a long time.
I found some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_Sanchez
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
All excellent points and I cannot disagree, although I differentiate between segments of media - TV news can be pure shock value. I had the privilege, and the burden, of making the calls on whether to publish an image myself since I also edited and published a small newspaper. My rule was always take the shot (which I didn't/couldn't always follow) and decide on the use later. My "best" images, i.e. the most powerful, were never published because they were too intrusive or otherwise against our policy. Other news outlets would often cover the same story and come back with similar photos. We didn’t always agree on what was acceptable – sometimes I was more conservative, sometimes it was the reverse – but I did sometimes discuss the decision after the fact with the “competition.” You would be surprised how much newspaper newsrooms discuss, debate and even agonize over what to use or not use, both in stories and photos.
I did publish the following (link below). The context/use is important - i.e. this beach is dangerous and people need to know it, be reminded of it, and protect themselves and their family but publishing was still a tough call. It was taken at Copalis Beach, WA on June 26, 2005, exactly two years ago today (that's really weird cause I didn't notice it until I looked at the exif). While it's not the most powerful photo and the sorrow is subtle, it did make a strong point. To add to the poignancy here, some years before the police officer in the photo below was on his first surf rescue when a fellow senior officer next to him drowned.
WARNING: SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND THIS PHOTO DISTURBING.
http://hydeimages.smugmug.com/gallery/2542203/3/167103150
But I suppose all of this is a bit off topic. I don't believe pictures of sorrow necessarily equal exploitation - it's all about situation, intent, use and context. Sorrow is just as real as joy and in photos arguably more powerful. Personally I couldn’t imagine intentionally causing sorrow for the sake of a photograph but I don’t see what’s wrong with capturing such a powerful universal facet of the human condition.
I never accused your friend of child abuse. I just believe that she acted selfishly and put her hobby before her child in this case. I only meant to use her as an example of making the wrong judgement call and wanted to point out in general that we should not get carried away on the ‘sorrow’ theme, but should examine our true intentions when taking photographs.
The whole thing went completely out of proportion, because some people choose to through in comments without actually reading what they are commenting on or put words in your mouth just for controversy sake. Neither is very helpful in a serious debate.
I agree with regards to this case since I also know her personally... Robert, I get the point you are trying to make... I just disagree with that example since I know her so well....
Lyrics from a song written after Hurricane Katrina:
"Wouldn't you loot
if you didn't have no loot
baby needed food
and you stuck on the roof
And the helicopters swooped down just to get a scoop
through his telescopic lens but he didn't scoop you
the next 5 days no help ensued
they called you a refugee because you seek refuge
the commander in chief just flew by
stop and though he had a couple seats, just brewed
Jet Blue he is not
jet blew by the spot
but if he ran out of jet fuel and just dropped
that'd been something to watch
helicopters doing fly-by's to take a couple shots
couple portraits then ignored him
he'd be just another bush surrounded by a couple orchids
poor kids
just cuz they was poor kids
left them on the porches
same ol story in New Orleans"
Horrible situation. But I think the images of the aftermath are the only reason anything got done at all. Can you fault them for not picking people up in News Chopper 4?
My current opinion is take the picture. You don't always have time to think in order to get "the shot".
But you do have time to make a moral decision while developing it.
dak.smugmug.com
I was recently at an event in Seattle where the homeless and/or beggars were quite common. I did take a few pics of them but also left them something for the priveledge. I don't have a problem with that or think that I was exploiting.
When I was a teen in the early '60s the local paper published a picture of a woman at the moment she arrives on the scene of her husband and son having been killed by an exploding tire at a gas station. Their clothes had been completely blown off and the scene was not pretty. I can still see the look of horror on that woman's face. This was exploitation to the nth degree in my book. The pic was only there to sell the story.