The fine line

[jaimesommers]

Hi Rachael,

That's great, thanks very much!

Cheers

Jaime

[frank231160]

I do studio sittings at my home it isn't specifically children but that is were most of the work comes from, and I am paranoid about protecting myself against false accusations, and I NEVER make any physical contact with the child I let their parents move them as necessary. Most of my jobs are through word of mouth and I have a web site which people visit to see my standard of work and make their choice as to wether they want me to work for them. Quite an amusing thing happened just recently when a girl I work with asked me would I do some pictures of her son after seeing my web site, she went on to tell me that her boyfriend was concerned that I wasn't some sort of perv (her words) and she assured him I wasn't, (How nice of her). The irony of this conversation is that she is 22 and her boyfriend is nearly 50, I just didn't have the heart or the cheek to say "tell your boyfriend not to judge me by his standards". Now to get to the heart of this thread I will not under any circumstances take images of a child without clothes regardless of age or at the parents request. In this day and age there is no such thing as innocent.

[Kas]

I think I agree to a point with everyone, and that is the problem.
The line I believe must be set by you and not be one imposed by society or institutions. I think the line moves depending upon the situation and the reason/nature of your evolvement, surly the war/conflict photographer has a responsibility to all to show all facets of the situation both good and bad.

I believe in certain circumstances, as in the image above, reducing the chances of positive identification of the subject would be better. For in today’s world images can be transmitted and in the media before NOK are aware and that should surely play a part in you process.

In the end it is down to the individual photographer as to where the line is and whether he or she are prepared to sacrifice their personal standards of taste and morality for the commercial value of an image, i.e. the money.

A ongoing discussion no doubt, both here and photography in general. Interesting none the less and I look forward to reading other peoples take on it.

[ether]

Originally Posted by BenBirchall

The world needs artists to cross lines and boundaries, otherwise all we'd see hanging on our walls or opening our newspapers and magazines are shots of bees on flowers!

Ben

Whilst I agree whether to take a picture is for the photographer to decide the decision to publish is made by others, who may be driven by avarice which is not one of human kinds better traits and certainly it is not a comfortable bedfellow with good moral taste and high social standards.
There is growing evidence (mostly anecdotal I agree) that exposure to extreme images is desensitising a whole generation and this must surely be a worry to all right minded people.

And lets hear it for the bees and flowers you would not want the alternative on your kitchen calendar


Ed

Originally Posted by littlethunder

Photography has a fine line and some people are willing to take chances in crossing it. I think of Will McBride for example. Great photographer no questions about it. However, he is one who crossed the line when he published the book "Show Me." Which later was deemed "kiddie porn."

Every person who picks up a camera, both young and old has to determine where he or she will draw the line, Is it art or junk?

Because of books like McBrides parents can no longer take certain candid shots and get the film developed. For if they do they could get arrested. Thus in some cases society draws even the line of what is acceptable. Thus it is no wonder why digital photography evolved as it did; it redrew the line back into the hands of the one holding the camera.

So, where does your line stop or start or do you shoot but never show the shot?

Maybe I'm wrong. But it sure seems right.

The question of whether a photo is art or junk is surely determined by each individual viewer's perception; to what they are looking at, the context in which it is presented, and the consequencial ongoing thought of model, photographer and audience. And picking up upon the term "kiddie porn"; I firmly believe that children have Rights and I would never wish to take or publish questionable pictures that infringed upon or violated the privacy of vulnerable beings. As for digital photography redrawing the line, I do not believe this is the long term situation and 'model release forms' should be a standard utilised for all parties concerned.

I agree there may be times when the photographer feels the need to photograph situations that may be of an unkind nature and does so towards improving the situation of those in need, as too also inform with honesty upon what is going on in the world.

Flowers and bees are for me too, simply as such pictures can be mentally healing and I love pleasant surroundings.

Andy

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by Kas

The line I believe must be set by you and not be one imposed by society or institutions.

A good point. It's a shame the Home Office don't see it the same way under the anti-terrorism laws. The latest guidelines to the Police are that the person taking the photo has to have a "reasonable excuse". Surely thats guilty until proven innocent .

Originally Posted by chris-p

A good point. It's a shame the Home Office don't see it the same way under the anti-terrorism laws. The latest guidelines to the Police are that the person taking the photo has to have a "reasonable excuse". Surely thats guilty until proven innocent .

Surely Goverments have a duty to protect? And accordingly there has to be an acceptable balance between privacy and public aspects in all of what photographers can or cannot do.

Andy

[chris-p]

You'd think so wouldn't you! I didn't know anything about the guidelines until I saw something in the Rights Watch section of AP magazine.

The "I''m a Photograper, not a Terrorist" campaign is picking up a lot of speed now with all these accounts of people being stopped, searched and asked to format memory cards or destroy film.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by chris-p

You'd think so wouldn't you! I didn't know anything about the guidelines until I saw something in the Rights Watch section of AP magazine.

The "I''m a Photograper, not a Terrorist" campaign is picking up a lot of speed now with all these accounts of people being stopped, searched and asked to format memory cards or destroy film.

They can't search you without reasonable cause and can't make you reformat a card or destroy film. If they do then tell them you will sue.

[chris-p]

Thats true. There is lots of advice on the Photographer not a Terrorist site.