To Shoot or Not To Shoot

I heard a revving engine. Then a screech. Then a crash. And then I saw a man get hit by a car. Just moments ago.

Actually, he wasn’t simply hit: I caught view of him milliseconds after he’d been struck by one car, while slammed momentarily between it and another car, this one parked. They were smashed–bumper to bumper–and as the two cars recoiled off one another, he crumpled to the ground.

I was the first on the scene along with Mikal and Kate from the studio. Mikal was on the line with 911 in seconds. The stricken man writhed on the ground grabbing his thigh, pelvis, shin. Groaning. A young driver emerged from the car, in shock, pale-faced, horrified. Hyperventilating.

The driver was the man’s 15 year old daughter.

He’d been helping her learn to parallel park. He’d gotten out of the car to direct her. She mistook the gas from the brake. And it went badly.

It was only after getting the man stable on his back, his head on a pillow with help on the way, that I was able to take a moment to think along a non-mission-critical path. I had my camera with me, as I always do. But I wasn’t about to take a photo. I couldn’t fathom it. For another brief moment, I felt dirty for even thinking about it. But some people can and some people do take photos in times like this. During war, during trama, during accidents, and sometimes these images are deeply important. Other times it’s cold and shallow to shoot. And a horrible invasion of privacy.

So how do we know when not to shoot?

—
—
[For the record, I wrote this yesterday intending to publish it immediately. Decided I needed to let it sit for a bit. This morning with some clarity, decided I’d love to hear from some others.]

—
Get my every move: Follow Chase Jarvis on Twitter
Get exclusive content: Become a Fan on Facebook

29 replies on:
To Shoot or Not To Shoot

  1. We are all have more to offer than our skill as 'photographers'. In this sort of situation we react instinctively, drawing upon whatever skill we have that seems most appropriate. Is it our medical training (however basic)? our power to document with the camera? a helping hand and a calming presence? I think following your gut was right – what could you have changed with a photo? what would you have wanted someone to do for you in that situation?

    The paradox of it being "more noble to photograph the more horrible moment" is a strange one. It seems to me, that in these 'horrific' situations it takes a very strong person to go against their instinct to help, and to instead stay behind their camera in the hope of capturing an image that can affect a more lasting change – as opposed to a temporary relief of one person's suffering. There's a reason that really good photo-journalists are such a rare breed; few of us can suppress that basic instinct to step in, and to distinguish between when we should help, and when something is sufficiently 'horrific' for there to be 'nobility' or a 'greater good' in our capture of it.

  2. With photojournalism (especially in the case of war and such) the pictures have a purpose that ostensibly benefits mankind somehow. Those who recommend making sure your prioritize the needs of the individuals in question are correct. But afterward, when you aren't needed for anything else, if it were myself, I would be asking what i am using the photos for, and does that purpose help or hurt the individual in question.

    Sometimes, the documentation of human misery for its own sake is exploitative, almost an affront to the individuals suffering. That I might want to profit from their misery feels wrong.

    But, if I am documenting human misery because it needs documenting (e.g. the ravages of war, when exposed, could help prevent such ravages by engendering empathy) or because by documenting i do something good, then that feels ethical to me.

    It would be interesting to me to have a discussion on the valid uses for pictures that document suffering, when is it unhelpful, and when is it beneficial.

  3. Its not part of you, if it was it wouldnt be a question.

    You have to consider your motives, my answer would be NO, but if I were a photojournalist then maybe that would be different.

    Would you real feel better having the images?

  4. Certainly would help first as much as I could, but nah I won't be comfortable photographing someone in misery like this. It would be different if my job was photojournalism, but not as someone walking around with a camera. Just not me.

Comments are closed.