Where is the limit for a photo/ photographer?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:42 +0100, "gsum" wrote:

So you think you're better than the rest of us because
you're afflicted by a primitive superstition that has caused
more trouble than any other single factor in history?

Graham

Why the chip?
Nothing in his post even hinted at a sense of superiority.


"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:2trCc.829970$Pk3.741253@pd7tw1no...


I am FIRST a human being, and in my personal case a
Christian.

Way down the list I take pictures.

Ken






Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I don't recall ever thinking of religious issues around a photo. But
if I had a chance to make a photo that really damaged religion, I
certainly would.

But could you resist the opportunity to take a photo that
incontrovertibly supported it? I mean, if Gozur the Destroyer was
comin' down the street you'd surely want to squeeze off a few shots just
in case you survived. This would definitely be an occasion for RAW, by
the way. Perhaps even a little bracketing.

Roger Stone writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I don't recall ever thinking of religious issues around a photo. But
if I had a chance to make a photo that really damaged religion, I
certainly would.

But could you resist the opportunity to take a photo that
incontrovertibly supported it? I mean, if Gozur the Destroyer was
comin' down the street you'd surely want to squeeze off a few shots
just in case you survived. This would definitely be an occasion for
RAW, by the way. Perhaps even a little bracketing.

Sure; it'd be especially important to document that I wasn't
halucinating. Besides, I wouldn't *recognize* Gozur off the cuff; I'd
need the photos later to go through the Audbon Field Guide to Gods and
figure out Who I'd seen.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:01:05 -0700, Roger Stone
wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I don't recall ever thinking of religious issues around a photo. But
if I had a chance to make a photo that really damaged religion, I
certainly would.

But could you resist the opportunity to take a photo that
incontrovertibly supported it? I mean, if Gozur the Destroyer was
comin' down the street you'd surely want to squeeze off a few shots just
in case you survived. This would definitely be an occasion for RAW, by
the way. Perhaps even a little bracketing.

Or the Stay Puft man.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill writes:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:01:05 -0700, Roger Stone
wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I don't recall ever thinking of religious issues around a photo. But
if I had a chance to make a photo that really damaged religion, I
certainly would.

But could you resist the opportunity to take a photo that
incontrovertibly supported it? I mean, if Gozur the Destroyer was
comin' down the street you'd surely want to squeeze off a few shots just
in case you survived. This would definitely be an occasion for RAW, by
the way. Perhaps even a little bracketing.

Or the Stay Puft man.

Him I think I'd recognize.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"gsum" wrote in message
...

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:2trCc.829970$Pk3.741253@pd7tw1no...


I am FIRST a human being, and in my personal case a
Christian.

So you think you're better than the rest of us because
you're afflicted by a primitive superstition that has caused
more trouble than any other single factor in history?

Graham

The original question was absurd. A true atheist and rational materialist
could say

"Humans are merely animals, no more, no less and what you call morality is
simply a set of evolved behaviours selected out because they somehow at one
time or another promoted the survival of the human species or, at very
least, did not encourage humanity's destruction. The rules of so-called
morality thus have no absolute meaning for the intelligent individual and
the truly evolved person will use the intellect to transcend morality's
constraints to his or her own personal advantage. So, if you can enrich
yourself and thus enhance your ability to attract a mate and pass your genes
to another generation by taking and selling the picture of some human
tragedy,then you'd be foolish not to, even if it's the circumstance of a
drowning man whose life you might have saved. Self-propagaton is the name
of the game."


On the other hand, religionists will say

"Our God or Gods demand that we put aside self-interest and come to the aid
of others in distress! It is our moral duty as Children of God(s)."

Modern science has pretty much decided upon the rational materialist
approach, but popular culture generally promotes the religionist's point of
view. Then there's a number of nervous "Spirit of Humanity" types in the
middle who think that with a bit of vague, philosophical hand-waving the two
opposing views can be reconciled somehow. They're wrong, of course, but I
suppose those Humanists are able to sleep at night without having to get up
early on a "holy day" to go to a church or temple to perform meaningless,
self-hypnotic rituals designed to relieve the existential angst arising out
of the recognition that life is truly without point or purpose and that when
a person's dead, he or she is transformed into an assemblage of relatively
worthless chemicals whose only value is as fertilizer. We may be stardust,
but we ain't golden.

So good luck with all the philosophical quibbling about a photographer's
moral/ethical limitations. You'll need it in this age.

"PhAnTOmaS" wrote in message
...
Can't be more specific.

What do you NEVER do for a pic?
Is religion taboo for you?
Sexuality?
Will let somebody who can't swim in a river minwhile you are taking the
best
photos of your life?
Will let somebody crossing the street minwhile cars is aproxing behind
him?
Will let you car goin' down a climb minwhile you're waiting crash to take
a
"explosive'" photo?

.....

Where is your limit as photographer?


A bit like this old email?

---------

Please give an honest answer

A Real Moral Dilemma

Here's a dilemma for you....

With all your honour and dignity what would you do?

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.



Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving
an
honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.


The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you
will have to make a decision one way or the other.



Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.



Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important for
the test to work accurately.



You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact... There is great chaos going
on
around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses
of water all around you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the
middle of this great disaster.


The situation is nearly hopeless.


You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people
floating around you, disappearing into the water.


Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away
with it.


Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying
not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer.


Somehow the man looks familiar.


Suddenly you know who it is - it's George W. Bush!


At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him
away, forever.


You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of
your life.


So you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer
prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the
world's most powerful men.


And here's the question (please give an honest
answer):


Would you select colour film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic
black and white?