[RGlasel]

I think there are much bigger problems like the millions that drive drunk everyday

The Internet is a wonderful thing, I now know what Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is.

Here is a photo taken in 1936

I quoted Dorothea Lange's justification for publicizing this photo earlier in this thread. Even under those circumstances, Lange recognized that it wasn't a black and white issue (figuratively speaking, of course). She found a single mother having to rely on gleaning frozen vegetables and birds that her kids killed in order to feed themselves, and Lange approached this woman before taking pictures to at least get implicit consent.

[Winder]

A few years ago I was coming back from a workshop in the Smoky Mountains. I stopped by an old country store where two elderly men were sitting on the front porch. The scene had a very Normal Rockwell feel to it. I grabbed my Contax 645 and shot a couple of frames. The two old men were absorbed in conversation, and never noticed my presence. Would you have a problem taking that picture? Why? Do the ethics of the situation change if those two men are homeless? Why? For all I know they could have been homeless, but their financial status was not relevant to the image.

I shoot a lot of public events and concerts. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in crowds and at events that I have taken pictures of with no knowledge of their financial status and never asking permission. I shutter to think of all the harm I have caused.

You can either take pictures of the public or you can't.

How much money does a person have to have before its acceptable to take their picture in public? Maybe some of the moral elitists on the forums can chime in with an answer. If their credit score is over 400 is it acceptable? I don't shoot "street" photography or the homeless as a genre, but it would be nice to have a morally acceptable guide to go by. If its under 400 we just pity them, pretend they are invisible, ignore them and walk on. Maybe be throw them a dollar to show our social awareness. That seems to be the morally acceptable thing to do on this board. Heaven forbid you treat them just like another person walking down the street.

[RGlasel]

it would be nice to have a morally acceptable guide to go by

Try this: If you are taking portraits of strangers, ask for permission. If your picture isn't portraying individuals and you aren't trespassing, go ahead without getting permission of people who happen to be in the scene. Just because there isn't a legal obligation to get someone to agree to let you single them out in your photographs, doesn't mean you can't do it out of decency and courtesy. You are right, it shouldn't matter how much money someone has, everyone deserves to be treated with decency.

As for the last four sentences in the post above, those are fictitious counter-arguments that haven't appeared in this thread and the fact that you are resorting to making stuff up suggests you realize your viewpoint is unsupportable.

[clackers]

Just because there isn't a legal obligation to get someone to agree to let you single them out in your photographs, doesn't mean you can't do it out of decency and courtesy. You are right, it shouldn't matter how much money someone has, everyone deserves to be treated with decency.

+1 to that, Rglasel.

Here in Australia there is no general legal protection from being photographed.

I would own the flash picture I take of you unannounced from 80cm away. But I'd also be an @hole.

[Winder]

Try this: If you are taking portraits of strangers, ask for permission. If your picture isn't portraying individuals and you aren't trespassing, go ahead without getting permission of people who happen to be in the scene. Just because there isn't a legal obligation to get someone to agree to let you single them out in your photographs, doesn't mean you can't do it out of decency and courtesy. You are right, it shouldn't matter how much money someone has, everyone deserves to be treated with decency.

I'm not talking about portraits. I cover events. Many of them public events like races. Take the Boston Marathon as an example. Do you realize how impractical it is to ask permission of the thousands of people you will be photographing that day? The candid shots, the group shots. The runners? Do you think the people who were at the Boston Marathon bombing signed releases? Did the photographers run out on the street and ask the wounded if they minded having their picture taken? Was it immoral to show the images of the pain and suffering? The fear? To show people at their worst? Is it OK because they had higher credit ratings? We can throw a label on group "A" and say that their pain and suffering is news worthy? Then we throw a label in group "B" and say we can't show their pain and suffering. They aren't news worthy.

Is it only immoral to show suffering of certain income classes? Why is acceptable to photograph joy but not sadness? Prosperity but not poverty? Fortune but not misfortune?

I guess as long as you follow Dorothea Lange's lead and explain that you were conflicted about it you get a free pass from the morality police. Because if you're conflicted about taking the picture then these fictitious rules apparently don't apply. How convenient.

it shouldn't matter how much money someone has, everyone deserves to be treated with decency.

When you saw the pictures of Bernie Madoff being lead out of the courtroom in handcuffs were you angry that they took advantage of the man and showed him in such an embarrassing position? I'm sure you were bothered by the degradation the man experienced. They should have asked permission, right? Or do you have different standards for different people based on the label you have assigned them?

[wildman]

If we are going to go down the black hole of photo ethics consider the grandaddy photo ethics issue of them all...

Kevin Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Oldbayrunner]

Food for thought........ This thread is akin to discussing religion, inherently subjective accordingly to one's beliefs. As such the opinionative argumentation could go on endlessly without resolution..

[wildman]

the opinionative argumentation could go on endlessly

Which is perfectly understandable and reasonable. This thread raises questions for the heart not the mind.

[Oldbayrunner]

Which is perfectly understandable and reasonable. This thread raises questions for the heart not the mind.

even so, again it is strictly dependent on how one's hearts perceives it also.

Take your photo example;

It could tug ones heart that it is a horrible crass photo and shouldn't have been taken.
or
It could tug one's heart as depicting a strong visual message that help is needed before it is too late

neither is wrong, each has their own rightful moral interpretation and which is more right can be argued to the point of futility.

[wildman]

neither is wrong, each has their own rightful moral interpretation

Exactly so.
Ultimately there are no "answers" only choices.
But futile? No.
Understanding others choices may help clarify my own.

[Oldbayrunner]

Ah but that is the question, are you really trying to understand others choices or reiterate your own? If it is the latter then someone with conviction will continue to reiterate theirs, there in lies the futility...Just as this banter is becoming...LoL

[arnold]

If we are going to go down the black hole of photo ethics consider the grandaddy photo ethics issue of them all...

A very upsetting photo indeed. Seeing too much of this in the world, drove the photographer to suicide eventually. Thing is, do we turn a blind eye to all this unpleasantness or face the reality. I think it is important to document even the most awful aspects of life, if we are to have any means of addressing them. The attitude of the photographer is a major consideration, and can range from unsympathetic sensationalism to heart-rending concern.

---------- Post added 22-05-14 at 15:17 ----------

This thread raises questions for the heart not the mind.

If the answer is to be reasonable, the mind has to be involved.