Wednesday, 15 November 2017

Candid Photography & Ethics



Since I moved to Tasmania a couple of months ago, around the time I started this blog, I have developed a routine. Every day, around three PM, I take my dog and my camera down to the beach for a walk and some photography. We spend one to two hours down there, I get some great shots and some great practice, Gypsy the Dog gets some exercise and we go home refreshed and relaxed.

 (Gypsy the Dog - Only photo I have relevant to the topic)
For the last week or so, though, I’ve slowly found myself changing the pattern. Specifically, I have stopped taking my camera with me. Why don’t I take my camera anymore? Because the beach is becoming more and more populated with teens in bikinis and families with small children. I found myself spending most of my time with my camera at my side, lens down, enduring the glares of pimply boyfriends and the pointed, suspicious stares of parents. And as summer fast approaches down under, the situation is only going to get more complex.
I was thinking about this the other day and found myself thinking about the ethics of candid photography (I prefer ‘candid photography’ to ‘street photography’ because ‘street’ conjures a limited sphere of consideration, i.e. the street. ‘Candid’ speaks more to the topic, photography capturing the moment as it occurs). Now, I can’t speak to the street photographer’s code of conduct because I don’t know if one exists, so I certainly don’t know what, if anything, it contains. And I do not claim to be right, nor do I claim that my views are any more valid than anyone else’s. The following is simply my personal honest opinion, given in the hope of opening a dialogue, getting a discussion going.
The first rule I gave myself when I started photography was that I would not take a photo of any person under 18 years of age, or that I perceive to be under 18 (and don’t more people look like kids as you get older?!), without the informed consent and presence of a parent or legal guardian. And my reasoning for this rule was justified quite recently.
I was walking on the beach with Gypsy, the camera in my hand pointed at the ground and my eyes turned seaward and skyward in the hope of seeing a bird in flight that I could practice my tracking on. Suddenly a woman came striding toward me insisting that there would be dire consequences should she discover I had taken photos of her children. My first response, upon glancing around myself, was to ask, “What children?” to which she responded with a pointed finger indicating 2 forms a not-inconsiderable distance away that, with effort, resolved themselves into moving objects which may well have been children (I marvel at the eyes of a mother, to be able to see a camera at a distance from which I struggled to see a person!). I assured the woman that I had no interest in photographing her children. Somewhat mollified, and with one last thinly veiled threat, she trudged back to her children.
I’m going to give you a moment to let your imagination run wild. Imagine what would have happened if I had indeed taken a photo of this irate woman’s children. I can easily see the police being called in, the attention of every beach goer fixed on myself and the woman cursing at me as a predator and a pervert.
So, no pictures of children for me. Personal choice.
I also won’t take a photo of a woman in a swimsuit of any kind without said woman’s expressed permission. And if given such permission I would make damn sure she had all my contact details and I had all of hers so that everything was seen to be above board. This second rule comes from my own sense of respect for others. In a global culture dominated by physical ideals that are beyond the reach of most of us mere mortals it is, in my opinion, important to respect the fact that a woman in a swimsuit may feel self-conscious or vulnerable. If I were to approach a woman for a photograph I would first give her ‘no’ as an acceptable and welcome option (“I kinda like the sound of ‘no’ so feel free to say it if you want!”), then, if she consented, I would work with her to get the very best image I could, which I would be sure to get processed and out to her as soon as I got home.
This one seems like commonsense to me, but I thought I’d chuck it in. If I take a picture and someone has a reasonable objection to the image (they are in the image and don’t want to be) I will happily delete it in front of them so that they know it is done. It just makes sense, doesn’t it? It’s not costing me anything and it’s making them more comfortable, so why not?
Finally, if a person doesn’t want their photo taken, don’t take their photo! Honestly, I did not think this would need to be said. It struck me as a given. But then I read this article in Australian Photography (http://www.australianphotography.com/news/behind-the-lens-shoot-from-the-hip) and I thought again.
In this article photographer Darran Leal describes two different methods he and his son used to capture images of people in Morrocco despite the fact that they knew said people did not want to be photographed. Now, I have no problem with the second method Leal describes in the article.
Using this method the photographer composes an image and then waits for a person to enter the frame before snapping the picture. This makes it obvious to the potential subject that the photographer has taken a picture and affords them the opportunity to raise any objections they might have. So long as the photographer is willing to delete the image if they are asked, I have no issue with the technique described.
The first method described in the article, when considering the particular situation Leal and his son were in, is unethical in my personal honest opinion. In this method they would shoot from the hip, concealing their intention to take a photo of a subject they know does not want to be photographed. I do not believe that we as photographers have the right to subvert the wishes of our subjects simply because we want an image. Any subject of a candid photo must be afforded the opportunity to express their wishes, and we as photographers must respect those wishes.
Everything I have written here is my opinion, informed by my own beliefs, developed out of my own experiences. I happily accept that others have different opinions and beliefs based of different experiences. I welcome the fact!
Hopefully this gets that dialogue I mentioned earlier going; I would really value the thoughts of others, particularly street photographers. Because let’s face it, I am a nature photographer. I shoot landscapes, wildlife, macro and dogs (‘cos’ who doesn’t love dogs?) so what do I know about street photography? I’m only writing this piece because, whilst in pursuit of wildlife, I was accosted by a protective mother.
And that’s the thing to keep in mind. It doesn’t matter what you want to shoot, if there are other people around you have to be aware of your rights and your obligations (Here’s a handy link for the Aussie photographer who wants to get informed! https://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/ ). Ultimately, I think it comes down to commonsense. Engage your brain before you engage your shutter and consider not just what the scene looks like, but what the scene might imply for yourself and those within it.

I hope you enjoyed the read!
Please check out my portfolio at:
You can also find me at:
And I am @BobCartPhoto on Twitter

No comments:

Post a Comment

Should I frame 1:1?

Hey! ‘Sup, gang? So, any of you who follow me on Facebook or Google+ know that I’ve been experimenting with a square format for my pho...