Blog
Chicky Bus
Bio
I'm a travel addict (solo/backpacker mostly) and an ESL professor who enjoys being off the beaten path...and in the moment. I've been to 5 continents...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Morals and Ethics of Travel Photography: When Shouldn't You Take That Photo?

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 13
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Ever find yourself in a situation where you want to snap a photo, but for some reason, you hesitate?

Perhaps something about the subject or the situation doesn't feel quite right and after quick consideration, you turn off your camera.

Or perhaps, despite feeling that it's wrong on some level, you go ahead and take the shot anyway.

Later, you wonder if you maybe you shouldn't have and feel the tiniest bit of regret... or perhaps you don't look back or give it another thought.

Crimes of Passion exhibition in Bristol
photo © 2009 Heather Cowper | more info(via: Wylio)

 

What would you do in these situations?

Below are several situations in which the ethics of travel photography are questionable, so let's talk about them and learn from each other.

Please read each of them and think about what you would do. Then let's talk about it in the comments section.

Take That Photo—Or Not?

Situation #1: A desperate moment that tells a story

You're passing through a poor area -- a shanty town of extreme desperation and squalor. It's perhaps the ultimate scene of poverty you've ever encountered.

Children, desperate and hungry, approach you, begging for a crumb of food or a spare penny. With the shanties in the background, it would make a great shot -- one that tells a story of the reality of the political situation or the income disparity in the 3rd world. It's an important story you think should be told or corroborated.

Is it right for you to do so? Do you reach for your camera and photograph these kids as they run in your direction? If so, do you give them food or money afterward?

Shanty Children
Two boys living in a shanty community outside of Jerusalem

 

Situation #2: Photo snapping or soul snatching?

You're in Chamula, an indigenous town in Mexico known for camera smashing and even jail time for those tourists who get caught taking photos of the people. The equivalent of modern-day Mayans, the people believe that you're taking a piece of their soul when you take their photo.

You happen to have a special curved lens that allows you to sneak shots without anyone's knowledge, but promise yourself that you won't use it. But then, you spot a pregnant woman in traditional clothes holding her baby...

Her eyes are intense...her face is slightly dirty...her hair is disheveled. It's a once-in-a-lifetime shot, something you'd see in National Geographic. Do you take it?

Chamula from a distance
Chamula, Mexico -- a town where cameras get taken and tourists get in trouble if they take people shots.

 

Situation #3: Private or public -- a fine line

You're somewhere in the Middle East and you spot a women taking a moment to pray. She looks at peace and in deep connection with her God -- and she is unaware of your presence. Also, she's outside of the mosque -- and not in it. Or perhaps she's in a castle and nowhere near a mosque.

It would make the perfect photo. Do you take it? Do you figure that while it is her private moment in one sense, in another, it's not since she made it public?

Muslim Woman
Woman resting or perhaps praying in one of Jordan's Eastern desert castles.

 

Situation #4: Documentation of a crime, tragedy or other breaking news

You're traveling through a country that's unstable. You're hours away from an actual war zone, but as you know, anything can happen anywhere and sometimes, it does.

In this case, two civilians -- a man and his son -- have just been shot by two soldiers in the middle of the street. Someone has called for help, but it's obvious they're about to die. Meanwhile, the soldiers are in a vehicle whose license plate is visible through your camera's 300 mm lens. If you take the photo, odds are that no one will notice.

And if you get the shot, you might be able to sell it to a major network and earn some cash, which would allow you to travel longer. You could also run it in your blog, which would result in major traffic spikes. Do you take that photo?

Nuclear War kills kids too
photo © 2009 Takver | more info (via: Wylio)

  • 13
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
chickybus 5 pts

Hi, Karen. I've done that, too. I totally understand. Once you realize it, you think--Oops... Accidents happen and they're a different story--definitely. Thanks for the reminder!

sassymonkey 6 pts moderator

I was in a museum where you were allowed to take photos, just without the flash. Then there was a separate room where there were no photos allowed at all, with or without flash. I just took a quick glimpse at the sign and though it was no flash photography, not no photography. Sometimes it really is an accident.

Contributing Editor Karen Ballum also blogs at Sassymonkey ( http://sassymonkey.ca ) and Sassymonkey Reads ( http://sassymonkeyreads.ca ).

chickybus 5 pts

Thanks for the response. I think it makes sense. Help, then document to show the reality...which could, in turn, result in additional help.

SeattleMoon 5 pts

I hope that would be what I've done. But I might still take the picture so that it would show the reality of the barren land and the hunger. It is a very powerful picture. It's hard to forget.

chickybus 5 pts

Thanks for weighing in and sharing that example. Sad to hear that the Haitians were being exploited by the people who were there to help them. Can you tell us how the surgeon responded when challenged by the psychologist? Did he/she say that the reason was to improve a certain treatment or procedure? Or was there no real answer given other than "needing it for a conference." Just wondering...

Regardless of why the photos were needed, I do think the bottom line was that the surgeon should have asked permission. To simply snap away in that particular situation, without asking, seems wrong.

chickybus 5 pts

Thanks for the positive feedback and for joining the discussion...I appreciate it! Good point re: the days of Polaroid photos. How nice it would be to just give someone their photo a moment after taking it!

I'm glad that you mentioned Kevin Carter, who won a Pulitzer for that highly controversial photo. I believe he had mixed feelings about the circumstances that surrounded the photo and then, because of ongoing major depression (and unresolved feelings about the horrific things he'd seen/photographed as a photojournalist), he took his life.

I think that in a situation like that, the one Kevin was in, I would have opted to give the child food/water and to help her get over to the food center versus taking her photo during that moment of desperation. Is that perhaps what you would have done?

chickybus 5 pts

Hi, Natalie. Thanks for responding to the question about situation #2. I felt exactly that way when I was in Chamula and so, I chose to respect the residents' wishes. I didn't even consider taking an individual's photo. And I hear you re: people shooting photos in museums when/where it's not allowed. Those rules are in place for a reason, namely that the light from the flash can destroy paintings, artifacts, etc. When I see people sneaking photos in museums, it irks me, too.

chickybus 5 pts

Thanks, Sara, for taking the time to share your perspective, opinion, experience, etc. Very interesting...

Nobody wants to be Ethel 5 pts

I was at a medical professional conference and a psychologist who went to Haiti for a non-profit that helps in disasters gave a talk on this very subject. Those poor people in Haiti were many times exploited by the very people who were there to help them. This psychologist challenged a surgeon who was taking pictures without asking permission of the patients because he had to present at a conference on his work when he returned. It is a sad state of our world that stuff like this ends up on You Tube and the dignity of people is lost on media glory.

The Patty Beat can be found at  http://pattyabr.wordpress.com where The Fearless Cook resides ready to take on your most feared items in the kitchen.

SeattleMoon 5 pts

I sometimes even feel uncomfortable going into praying places just as a tourist, especially if somebody is in there for a ritual (such as a mass) or just praying. That is because I would be annoyed if tourists came in gawking and talking amongst themselves when I am spending time with my God.
That said, if you respect the person’s privacy (as in situation #3, only taking a picture of the back of the lady), be quiet and take a picture, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it.
It would be great if we can straight forwardly ask if we can take a pictures. Some people wouldn’t mind. As the children in photo #1, some people might find it interesting. It was great in the old days when you could have just given a Polaroid photo there and then for their keep. If people didn’t want photos to be taken, then of course, we should accept their wishes.
Situation #4 reminds me of the Pulitzer winning photo taken by Kevin Carter in 1994 of a child dying during the Sudan famine. It was a controversial photo because there was a vulture sitting in the background as if waiting for the child to die. The photographer did not do anything of the situation and later ended up committing suicide. In any situation, if you are a witness and if you did not do anything to right whatever is wrong, you are considered accomplice. Taking a picture and using it to raise a voice would be good, but honestly, I would be scared to become involved.

This is a great topic! Thank you for writing about it.

SheBecomes 5 pts

Most of the traveling I have done has been for ministry purposes, so I guess my guideline may be a little stricter than that of a tourist (seeing as usually I work in the areas I am in and keeping mutual respect is important, I don't snap a picture and then not see them again)...If in doubt I usually don't take the picture. I think that twinge of doubt is our instinct kicking in, and it is usually right.

I use to just snap away, but now I am more cautious. I always ask, which means I miss out on a lot of good candid shots. Of course, I am not a photographer who is trying to make money off a shot, or a photo journalist, so maybe I can't be much help :)

NSane 5 pts

Situation 2 really resonates with me. I firmly believe that you should respect the rules and wishes of the place you are in, whether it be the customs of the village or the rules of the establishment. There are museums I've been in that don't allow pictures. I'm sad about that, but I will remember the experience either way. I make it my business to know whether I can take pictures whenever I go somewhere. It really really irks me when I see people taking pictures when they aren't supposed to (or worse, using flash when they aren't supposed to). I find it makes them look ignorant, disrespectful, and/or that they feel they know better than those who set the rules.

Natalie writes Almost Never Clever ( http://almostneverclever.wordpress.com ), a deviant scrapbooking blog that just might surprise you.

ModaMama 5 pts

I'm impressed with the sentiment you articulate in this post that there is a fine line between being a photojournalist and perhaps being just plain voyeuristic. The line of personal use, remembering a time and place, vs exploiting people is also ever distorted. Plus, growing affordable access to professional quality digital cameras just pushes a growing population aspiring photojournalists. $500 can often be enough to turn you into your own start-up business with a bit of talent and vision.

The difficulty is, the photographer often imposes their own skewed view on a situation. IE The two boy running towards you, if really Bedouins cannot be from any given nationality, they are given the freedom to roam without borders through the Middle East. They are nomadic so the concept of abject poverty is really relative. Your own deduction changes the very nature of the experience. It's like me as a foreigner coming to a European trailer park to report on the abject poverty of Roma (or gypsies) and later learning these are British tourists who vacation this way, out of trailers. I'm a visitor, not a pro.

For me I think this is the most significant difference between a travel photographer (no matter how professional) and an actual photo-journalist. I live in a city that is exploited on a daily basis in both national and international publications and it has made it difficult for me as a hobby travel photographer to not consider the impossibility of measuring others by our own value system.

www.SaraInAkko.blogspot.com ( http://www.SaraInAkko.blogspot.com )

Life in the Middle East, with craft and spice