Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Some stuff I know. On the dirt first responders, military, law enforcement always win. I wanted to be a war correspondent in Nam. God saved me from myself. The last two summers in my home town we have had hellish fires. Last summer in Jackson WY area fires. I have images from all that I have offer any until now. I believed it a matter of good taste. I just ran into the following.

National Geographic picture inspires action in Utah and Idaho


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25133416&nid=148&title=national-geographic-picture-inspires-action-in-utah-and-idaho&fm=home_page&s_cid=fe

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

sorry double post! A lot like being wrong place wrong time! HAHA

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

True, F Stop. I'm still on the job I also teach on the state level.

Blake

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Not trying to be mean or a smartA** but it seems like you are trying to get someone else to define your morals for you. For me personally I have no one filming or photographing me or my loved ones as dead people. Death is as much a part of life as birth. If you could make a dollar doing it then more power to you. I think that would be great. Were it me doing the photography it would depend greatly on the circumstance, with what and who were involved. Pain and grief are also a part of life and if they do not destroy us they make us stronger. If I were in that great pain of losing someone near to me I could give a hoot as to what anyone around me is doing. It simply would not matter. So as I said we each have our own moral values and we also have to live with what we see and do. The only thing I can say for sure is that if you were photographing the dead, they are not going to object.

stretch86025 Loc: Holbrook Az

My two cents on this I useally do pictures of this kinda sort but I do not and will not ever take a picture of a deceased person or grieving person.I think its not morally right but also I just dont have a heart to do that.I was once a volunteer firefighter for about 10 yrs off and on my sevice i seen alot and watched people die in front of me.One of which was my step dad died of a heart attack.as note here's a couple of pictures that i'am posting of this.--------------------NOTE--------------there was no one in the building was closed down and the brand new car that was crushed belonged to the owner of the next doors business if she used the parking lot instead of the alley her car would of been saved.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Most of the posts seem to be of taking photos in tragic circumstances I a local setting. I am wondering if photographers would feel differently were they far from home or on assignment. Just wondering if the lines separating good taste, ethics, morality or whatever label we choose gets a bit blurry if it was part of your job?
I was thinking of the well respected James Nachtway who has made a living by taking images surrounding war and the death and destruction that lies in it's aftermath including images of grieving parents and relatives, funerals, victims. His images are powerful reminders of human tragedy. How would we be reminded of these incidents if
not for photographers that in some cases put their own life at risk to capture those images? On one hand, the passion and commitment required can be viewed as admirable, on the other, it's just a job. In the end, it's all about the money. Perhaps the point I struggle with, is morality may be easier to set aside when you depend on those images for your living vs. photographing as a hobbyist volunteer?
Admit it or not, we are drawn to those images represented in magazines, TV, documentaries, etc.
I think we have a penchant for recording the best as well as the worst in human behavior and everything in between. I think there is little difference between recording the beginning of life or the end. Is the barrier only the circumstances surrounding each of them?
This had been a good discussion. I appreciate being a part of it.

Findoc Loc: Australia

I don't think there is a problem with asking others in your peer group what they think. This is how our society forms its norms

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Five pages involving a very sensitive issue. Differing opinions and no name calling, great thread.

riverlass Loc: northern California

I agree. It's been interesting.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I see your point but you are going inside their private personal territory where amateur photographers off the street don't belong. You would be violating people's personal space by shooting them while comforting them. That's kinda sick to think about actually. I also don't think it would be appropriate for anybody to take disgusting forensic-type photos with a long zoom of a guy bleeding to death with a broken skull.

But if someone photographs a rolled over car, ambulances, another car up a tree, etc. then sells or gives the shots to a local TV news or newspaper when there aren't TV or newspaper reporters on the scene, they have provided a public service of being at that location at the correct time to provide coverage of something the public would like to know about.

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

photographs or even recorded images, ie film, that are taken at a Motor Vechile Accident (MVA) or anyother type of tradgic event are prohihited when the victim can be identified according to the FCC and the news print assocations . However to show tired first responders or while they are working is ok. I also personally disagree with showing the distraught greiving family and friends. It is new when there is a wreck or fire or other events and should be covered but there is a limit.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Good points on photographing the dead. Maybe we can use the news media as a guide. I think most of us have seen video of tragic accidents, but bodies are normally covered. If not covered, they usually pixel identifying features out. Perhaps this could serve as a guideline in order to operate within the confines of he law and good taste. Good stuff to think about.