When do you not push the shutter button?

While I see photography primarily as a form of documentary, I pick and choose what I want to document. If it doesn't feel right, I don't press the shutter, or delete if I feel the image doesn't do anything positive.

And, I think that's the bottom line - the judgement has to made in each particular case and sometimes it can be a hard call. The "skill" is in deciding where the line is and whether you choose to cross it or not. I was in Auschwitz shooting photos a few years ago and grabbed images of some pretty horrific things there which seemed a good idea at the time, but when I got back and started work on the PP for my website the full impact of what I'd seen there hit me and I decided to dilute it down from my original intention. Everyone knows what went on there, it's well enough documented without people like myself adding to it. It's hard to describe but it felt like I was sensationalising it a bit too much, which I simply wasn't comfortable with.

Ironcally I'm going back there again sometime in 2014 and also to Oradour sur Glane (Google it).

D
 
And, I think that's the bottom line - the judgement has to made in each particular case and sometimes it can be a hard call. The "skill" is in deciding where the line is and whether you choose to cross it or not. I was in Auschwitz shooting photos a few years ago and grabbed images of some pretty horrific things there which seemed a good idea at the time, but when I got back and started work on the PP for my website the full impact of what I'd seen there hit me and I decided to dilute it down from my original intention. Everyone knows what went on there, it's well enough documented without people like myself adding to it. It's hard to describe but it felt like I was sensationalising it a bit too much, which I simply wasn't comfortable with.

Ironcally I'm going back there again sometime in 2014 and also to Oradour sur Glane (Google it).

D

I cannot think for the life of me who it was...or which forum. But, someone did photograph a concentration camp. The shots were absolutely compelling, so different to what you would normally see. I (and a number of others) were moved to comment as such. If I can find....will link here.

Oradour sur Glane is on my list for the next couple of years. I will try to make it with my son.
 
I think war is an example of where records, e.g., images, are critically important. We need to see what goes on so we can make good decisions about military action. One criterion might be whether your photos show value or veiled tragedy to an unknowing viewer. Again, I'm just thinking aloud. I'm no where near secure enough in these beliefs to start making judgments.
 
And, I think that's the bottom line - the judgement has to made in each particular case and sometimes it can be a hard call. The "skill" is in deciding where the line is and whether you choose to cross it or not. I was in Auschwitz shooting photos a few years ago and grabbed images of some pretty horrific things there which seemed a good idea at the time, but when I got back and started work on the PP for my website the full impact of what I'd seen there hit me and I decided to dilute it down from my original intention. Everyone knows what went on there, it's well enough documented without people like myself adding to it. It's hard to describe but it felt like I was sensationalising it a bit too much, which I simply wasn't comfortable with.

Ironcally I'm going back there again sometime in 2014 and also to Oradour sur Glane (Google it).

D

Indeed. The thing about shooting to your own brief as opposed to being paid to shoot to someone else's is that you are your own editor and don't have to do anything that you don't feel comfortable about. For example, when I visited Tuol Sleng in Phnom Penh, Cambodia back in 2007 (the school turned interrogation chamber by the Khmer Rouge) I didn't take a single image because I didn't feel right about doing so. Plenty of others have of course and that's fine because that's their choice. I'm not a journalist so I can filter my own content.
 
I always shoot first and regret at leisure (mostly while editing). Capturing a moment is instinctual, I get no time to think.

Sorry but I will politely disagree with that. You see an event , you make a conscious decision to photograph it. This means you do get time to think.
Pushing the shutter button, wether or not the camera is at your eye is a thought process and nothing to do with instinct.
 
Sorry but I will politely disagree with that. You see an event , you make a conscious decision to photograph it. This means you do get time to think.
Pushing the shutter button, wether or not the camera is at your eye is a thought process and nothing to do with instinct.

It could also be a decision in advance. "I will always shoot first and make the decision to keep or not keep later". There is a difference between a quick decision and a thoughtful one. The warrior instinct is to hit first and "think" later. This is appropriate for a soldier, but also caries into any snap decision process.
 
If I was in a war zone, I'll be photographing everything including the worst of it.

If I were in a war zone, I suspect I would keep my head down -- and probably pee my pants out of fear.

As for what or what not to photograph of human tragedy, I'm not sure a rule before the fact can be applied. So much depends on the discretion and sensibility of the photogrpaher -- and of the viewer. I find the work of Diane Arbus cruel, but, oddly, not that of Weegee or Nan Golden, both of whom can be very disturbing.

Personally, I probably would not photograph a scene unfolding where someone had died or killed themselves. A slide I processed years ago, when I was working in photo labs, taken by the state medical examiner of a suicide in the Sandia mountains, haunts me to this day -- for the sheer, lonely despair of the fact documented.

I don't believe any part of the human condition is absolutely off limits to photography, though the more difficult or intimate aspects are harder to document successfully without sensationalism or prurience.
 
Sorry but I will politely disagree with that. You see an event , you make a conscious decision to photograph it. This means you do get time to think.
Pushing the shutter button, wether or not the camera is at your eye is a thought process and nothing to do with instinct.

I live in India. There's a fair bit of drama on the streets. I don't think I'd be ok with photographing an accident, but there are times when I've chosen to take pictures crouched down with someone less fortunate than me (while toting a camera and wearing designer denims) just because they are in the "right kind of light" or "it'll make an interesting image", etc. Of course one tends to get pretty desensitized to extreme poverty or there just isn't any way one can cope on a daily basis. So I stand by what I said, in that I pretty much decide later, whether the picture is sympathetic to the subject and how comfortable I am with sharing the image.

Also, I'm not sure with how it is with everyone else, but when I set out to with the explicit purpose of making pictures, it becomes a bit of an obsession. I'll probably taking pictures every few seconds, looking at each opportunity through multiple angles, and this could go on for hours at a stretch. At that time, I'm not really thinking of anything beyond the frame in my camera. I'm probably not as mindful as I'd like to be at times like these.
 
Rajiv, I don't think anyone would object to your style of shooting. It boils down, I think, to what you choose to publish. If you have the dignity of man as your guide, I don't think you can go far wrong.

Ron, I think you've summed it up much better than I did. To be mindful of "the dignity of man" is a good way to put it. I think if a difficult subject is approached with empathy and understanding, it goes a long way in telling a more compelling story.
 
Back
Top