Horrible way to break into Photography?

[jdepould]

There's a photographer named Joel Meyerowitz, a New Yorker, whom I heard speak at Otterbein College in Columbus this past winter. He is the only photographer to have documented the destruction that took place at the World Trade Center. His images and stories bring one to tears and laughter simultaneously, the contrasting human elements, strength, irony, sadness, it's very confusing, but very very powerful. He had to fight tooth and nail every day in order to get down there and shoot; he was kicked out countless times (usually more than once a day) but always went back in and kept working to document what is quite possibly the most important event of the past decade. None of his images or stories are morbid or self-indulgent, they simply tell an epic story. I can't really put into words the gratitude I feel towards him for fighting to tell this story the way he did, writing this puts me on the verge of tears to begin with.

If you have the opportunity to see the exhibition of the images, by all means do so. I believe they're on permanent display in New York City and Washington, D.C. as well as a collection that is going around the country.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but whenever something important happens, tragic or otherwise, the story needs to be told. It's sad that there has been a shift in the attitudes of the rule-makers and enforcers to curb the rights of those who tell the stories. There's nothing wrong with preserving moments that you feel are historically significant or important to the general public. If you feel compelled to go, then go.

[WooD]

I'm pretty sure I'd have shot it.

I could never nor will ever shoot anything that involves kids being hurt thou. I cant hardly stand to read about stuff like that in the papers, much less seeing it.

[ryan s]

If you have any doubts, then don't do it. Even if it might advance your career (or make you famous), you should not make yourself feel uncomortable with a situation.

Some people took pictures of the crying, hurt, and stunned people on 9/11. Would I have done it? No way...capturing human suffering like that does not light my fire, in any way.

Just a couple pennies for you...

[rdaw]

I definitely see the value of the documentary record as a historical tool - where I get queasy (as some others have mentioned) is the step over the line from documentation to sensationalism. I know that tv news and newspapers have lofty ideals of keeping the public informed, but in my opinion, their motives are first and foremost to improve their own bottom line. A photograph can be morbid, sensationalist, and in horribly poor taste, but if it's going to sell papers, it's going above the fold.
That said, pictures that are very difficult to look at can be the greatest motivators to action in the general public.
But now, I'm way away from the topic of whether I'd take the pictures or not. I guess I'd take what I thought was appropriate, not take what I thought was sensationalist or unnecessarily intrusive, and probably not have a job as a news photographer for very long...

[jiminyClickit]

Scik,

" . . . and most importantly, am I showing scruples or idiocy?"

The test for scruples is whether you'd risk appearing to be an idiot for doing the "right" thing, whatever it might be. Whether any amount of money you might be paid for shots of grieving friends and family (you wouldn't be photographing mining equipment) would ever be enough to make you forget the question in all of their eyes . . . "Why are you doing that?"

I believe nothing spoils a gathering of people who just want to enjoy each other's company faster, than for an eager beaver to record everyone and everything, instead of just relaxing. How much more intrusive, then, would I see a photographer at a scene where the best you can do is show lost faces, or grim-faced rescue workers? What if the last time someone broke your heart, a reporter followed you around taking shot after shot of every agonizing moment of your personal tragedy?

[prrs4me]

Very well put jiminy. Especially the last paragraph.

[Nicole]

Wonderfully put Jim.

[rediguana]

This is going to be an interesting reply coming from an emergency manager (we are the people that generally co-ordinate response to, and recovery from disasters).

1. Life safety of you and those around you come first if you are caught up in some sort of event. Not photography. I'd say take pictures if you can, but you better be helping people around you as your top priority. This is of course only an issue during the immediate events, and is hardly an issue when the main event is over, and you're dealing with recovery back to some sort of normal.

2. Cordons and security are usually put in place for good reasons - to protect people from what are often extremely hazardous environments. Especially things like hazardous materials from spilt fuel and chemicals. Don't sneak past security, you're likely putting your own life at risk.

3. Don't attempt to make money from the suffering of the event. It is not really the sensationalisation as others suggest that I have a problem with, after all, sensationalism is only used to produce revenue for media companies. Do not sell your photos for profit. Make them available for historical purposes at low/no cost, and for educating people in the future. All you should get is attribution for taking photos because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The value of the photos is not just for the historical record. We, as emergency managers, use photos as one tool during response and recovery to capture information about damage to infrastructure, buildings and the like. Photos can contain useful intelligence. Cameras are one of the prime tools of collecting information by disaster impact assessment teams.

Photos of dead/dying people don't contain much of value - they only feed sensationalistion and media profits.

If you have some good shots, let appropriate agencies use images for public preparedness, and for exercises and training. Yes, even if you have some gory pictures, these can be used to train rescue personnel for example by demonstrating the types of trauma that can occur as a result of say an earthquake. Studies have shown that response personnel that are exposed to photos and video of actual disaster victims can significantly reduce the likelihood of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the like (e.g. the exposure to pictures/video can make the real thing less traumatic when thay are first exposed for real).

Many disaster areas will not have infrastructure available (even water) for days or weeks. If you turn up unprepared you will add to the problem because now the agencies might have to look after your needs as well!

I'd suggest the following as some basic ethics for photography during/after a disaster.

1. Your life safety, and that of the people around you comes first. Not the camera, not the shot.

Let me repeat that.

1. Your life safety, and that of the people around you comes first. Not the camera, not the shot.

If you injure yourself, you have added to the problem. If you are helping people around you, you are working towards resolving the problem.

* Do not sneak through security or cordons - they are almost always in place to protect you from a hazardous and very unsafe environment.
* Do not travel to an affected area unless you have been invited/authorised, and you are self-sufficient in terms of food, water and shelter.
* Be considerate and sensitive when you take photos, only take a couple of shots of someone/something before moving onto a different subject.
* Avoid trying to turn disaster into art. It is not art. People died. Just document it.
* Do not dare attempt to make money from it. It is not ethical to profit from people dying. Cost of production and distribution for physical photos would be fine.
* Consider making your images available for use to museums, memorials and the like for no/low cost.
* Also make your images available for all agencies that with with disasters - Police, Fire, Ambulance, Emergency Management etc - for training and promotion purposes.
* Have an arrangement with the Local Emergency Management Agency to provide them with copies of all photos, and to capture information about the impacts so they have more complete information to manage the event. E.g. tell them that there was a power line down across 4th Street, and a burst water on 7th and Charlie. Take a note of information and pass it onto them.

I've tried to generalise these comments to all events - some of them are more appropriate for 'significant' events such as widespread floods, earthquakes or cyclones/hurricanes. Not all of these are necessarily relevant to small and localised events.

But I hope this gives a bit of perspective from an alternative viewfinder

Cheers Gavin

PS and before anyone asks, no I haven't done any actual disaster photography yet. Unfortunately, I'm sure I will get an opportunity someday. That's why I've thought about a few of these principles previously. This would like occur with me being a member of a disaster impact assessment team.

[thenimirra]

Originally Posted by windrider86

As a person who works in advertsiing as well as in the media, I think it is our obligation to capture these images for the rest of the world. yes it can be intrusive and yes it makes you feel really bad. But if no one took these pictures of these horrible disasters the world would never know what the images were really like. We need to remember and learn from them.

that's what I was trying to say, but windrider said it much better! I get all emotional and stuff...

[jdepould]

I can't agree with rediguana on every point. Obviously, staying out of the way makes sense, but providing images to xyz agency at no cost is something on which I don't agree. Profiteering is one thing, but when it is a person's job (much the same as the people DOING the rescuing), then they can't be expected to just give up photos because someone else has decided it's in the public interest; it's still their job. Even the photographer working for the emergency agency is getting paid to be there and document whatever event is happening, it's their job. This rash of "citizen journalism" where the news outlets say "send us your picture and we'll put it on the news!" doesn't make sense, because they're completely circumventing the entire established media network.