About discrimination by non-inclusion.. hmm. I guess it would be if there weren't as many (more than the stereotypical 'normal' person) possible adverse reactions to take into account. It's a good example of a pretty perverse catch-22 isn't it.. I suppose a compromise would be a more proactive approach, where you could have this same discussion with every 'non-standard' subject. That way, you get the shot, no folk gonna say you ain't not discriminating noburdy, and you prevent all those why-you-little-son-of-a walking stick bruises and wheelchair tyre marks. Of course you'd prolly die a couple of years earlier due to dehydration from excessive saliva loss, but hey who wants to live forever anyway. :) Btw Frank, I enjoyed your insight on the issue.. can't say the same about the thread anymore though.
Cheers, Ryan From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:04 PM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph > First, let me say, that I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's making me > think about many issues, and confront things that I wouln't normally > confront. > > So, today, I was thinking about all of this when I was walking around with > my LX. I had the 19mm Vivitar on it, as I've not really used it to take > street photos much. It was, to say the least, interesting. It really makes > one interact with the subjects; they can't help but know you're there!! Of > course, you can also use that lens for "stealth" work, since you can > hyperfocus, and then not even look throught the viewfinder as you thrust the > camera at people and snap - well, that's not really "stealth", but almost > "guerrilla" photography. But, I digress. > > I took a few shots of street people, which I usually don't do. On both > occasions they asked me. I offered to give them some coins, which they said > they would accept, but that payment wasn't necessary for me to take photos. > So, I felt comfortable taking their photos on that basis (and yes, I did > give them a couple of bucks each, but that had nothing to do with the > photographs). I didn't take their photos because they were street people, > but because they looked interesting. One fellow was taking pennies that > he'd collected during the day, and was spelling out "Jesus loves you", or > words to that effect on the sidewalk. I thought that was interesting. I > had a nice chat with him while I took 3 or 4 photos of him and his > coin-words. I don't really care if the photos turn out, I really enjoyed > talking with this gentle stranger. I got a lot out of the situation. > > But, here's my point (yes I do have a point). I tend not to take photos of > street people unless I'm 100% certain that they consent. I feel I'm > exploiting them otherwise. Other non-vagrant interesting people I run into, > I'm not quite so concerned about consent, but I'll chat with them if I have > a chance. Of the photos I posted yesterday, I didn't talk with the Asian > girl, as she was whizzing by me in a dense crowd - I couldn't have talked to > her if I wanted to. > > The one of the man (I presume father) reading to the child, I don't think > they even knew I took the photo. Stop, snap and walk on. A one shot deal. > I really didn't want to disturb their tender moment together, so I didn't > chat with them. I wish I had, because I wonder if they'd have appreciated a > print of the photo, which I'd have offered to them had it turned out (which > I think it did - I'm actually quite proud of that one). > > The Boy Scout sellin apples, I felt bad I didn't talk with him. He seemed > so cute. I should have at least bought an apple from him (expect I already > bought one from another kid I didn't photograph). I guess I'm a bit > squeamish about chatting with kids, and of taking photos of them - I don't > want anyone to get the wrong idea, if you know what I mean. > > But, here's my point (again, there is one... <g>). I tend to take photos > of able-bodied people. I don't take photos of obese people, out of fear > that they'll be offended. Same thing with people in wheel chairs, or street > people who are in very rough shape, or clearly intoxicated, or who are in > some other way disabled or disadvantaged. But, since I take lots of photos > of normally-abled folks, am I not discriminating against "non-beautiful" > people? Not to take it to the extreme suggested by Marnie in an earlier > post, but I often wonder if by ~not~ taking photos of such people, I'm > actually discriminating against them in a certain way? > > Any thoughts on this dilemma? BTW, I have taken photos of wheelchair bound > people when invited to - they just haven't turned out... > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > > >From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > <snip>Maybe so. May I ask you why you think this lady is interesting? Is it > possibly just because she is abnormally fat?<snip> > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca > >
