Lets think for a moment what would happen if photographers “respected” victims of tragedy and never took photographs of any event where a life or property was lost. No one would know the extent of the damage, beyond what they could imagine from descriptions. The flood of support would be a tiny fraction of what it was. The importance of treating natural or artificial disasters with respect would be diminished. Beyond this, the huge benefits forensic photography for understanding and preventing disaster would be lost.

We are visual animals, and we need to see things to understand them. “I’ll believe it when I see it” is very true. Wars became less deadly and romanticised when people at home could see some of the horror in the newspapers and on television. Natural disasters become better understood and more easily managed from documentary photos. Victims receive more support when those who escaped the disaster connect with them emotionally. Many of the most important photos in history, which have changed the world, would not have been taken if your idea of “respect” was adhered to by all photographers.

I have made it very clear in this post that I intended to make no personal gain of any kind from my photography of Kinglake – except perhaps to satisfy my curiosity. If no one was allowed to take photos, imagine how many sightseers would be there now, satisfying theirs? I took every reasonable measure I could to eliminate any suffering I may cause others by doing so. I don’t think you could point to anything I did that directly caused pain to another person.

If seeing a photo of a place a loved one was lost causes pain, it is because of the loss, not because of the photo. However, if I were to see a sign on a property requesting no photography, I would respect that, as I said in the post – I saw none, however. I did learn the lesson that some residents are unhappy about photography, as you will see in the comments on the post on my blog. I’ve also learned that the people who object to my photos – at least the only ones so far – also are very angry and feel personally insulted by me, so much that they wish to return the favour with unfounded accusations and name-calling. I think it’s sad and unfortunate that their anger has been misdirected to me, but I will not argue with them about it, as it solves nothing.

I am very disappointed that you lowered yourself to insult me in the last line in your comment. I resent and reject your implication that I got some kind of enjoyment from others’ misery. You lend your argument no credibility by stooping to such a low level.

“Photographing a tragedy” happens every day – watch the news? Neil’s portrayal of the devastation is very modest by comparison to some of the coverage. As editorial photography, there is no requirement to remove the photos. If you would like to discuss, please get in touch: simon@digital-photography-school.com

With respect,
Sime

Great photos and article. I am a newspaper reporter/photog and end up at fires and such several times a year. You had good tips. I may share they w/ our newsroom. I also agree with the person who said talk to the victims. I have had people who dont’ want to talk to me, but others have given me great comments and made the story more human.

Thank you for writing an article that reminds photojournalists that they have a role in supporting the emotional well being of those affected by disaster. Your sensitivity and sincerity is very much apreciated.

Sime