The New York Post earlier this week carried a photo of a man who had been pushed onto the subway track seconds before a train hit and killed him.
A photographer for the Post later said in an interview, “I couldn’t have done anything.” So he took a gut-wrenching photo of the man seconds before his demise.
This has stirred up a debate about one’s duty as a photographer in cases of emergency.
To my mind, if one can actually do something to save a life or prevent injury, that should be one’s priority. If one cannot do those things, take the picture … there will be no second chance. But distributing that picture is a different matter. It’s not a matter of professional ethics, but of personal morality and consideration, not to mention taste.
I have personally put the camera down numerous times out of respect for the Amish’s religion-based desire not to be photographed. One occasion still galls me — a flock of Amish women and girls pedaling along a country road, bonnets and aprons flying. A wonderful shot, and I didn’t take it. Do I feel smug? Self-righteous? No. Deprived of a great photo op? Yes. Regretful? Slightly. Satisfied I did the right thing? You bet.
What do you think? To shoot or not to shoot, that is the question.
In the shot below, the boy turned into the frame just as I pressed the shutter. He can’t be identified, so I felt free to use the shot. What would you have done?
If readers have tips to offer, please let me know. Tips should deal with a single subject, be about 125 words or less, and have at least one photo that directly illustrates the point being made.
