DSLRUsers.com

Are these photographers for real??? Show me a photo of the gutless barsted who shot her, if you have the courage.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011 ... o-ethical/

disturbing, absolutely. the crime is the disturbing part, not the photographers.

I reckon thats a pretty loaded article and the picture of all the togs there and the implication that there is a lack of care is merely a stunt to gain outrage.

i recommend listening to a recent interview with Michael Ware, a CNN journo, it gives some really good insights into the ethics and difficults of being a conflict/disaster tog

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/07/24/3552185.htm?site=conversations

There is a fine line between the ethical nature of it. But yes, killing someone for looting is pretty extreme and disturbing.

"The worst thing is to feel that as a photographer I am benefiting from someone else's tragedy. This idea haunts me. It's something I have to reckon with every day because I know that if I ever allowed genuine compassion to be overtaken by personal ambition, I will have sold my soul. The only way I can justify my role is to have respect for the other person's predicament. The extent to which I do that is the extent to which I become accepted by the other; and to that extent, I can accept myself."

James Nachtwey, War Photographer.

https://prisonphotography.wordpress.com ... -cherisma/

This article was linked in the comments - gives an account from one of the photographers.

If I was the only photographer there then I would record the event aa a record of a miserable act. The world should see it and accept some of the blame. But when I see a whole bevy of photographers surrounding the subject....that is an entirely different matter. It's a feeding frenzy. You have to know when to walk away.

Matt. K wrote:If I was the only photographer there then I would record the event aa a record of a miserable act. The world should see it and accept some of the blame. But when I see a whole bevy of photographers surrounding the subject....that is an entirely different matter. It's a feeding frenzy. You have to know when to walk away.

Matt, I don't understand. If photog from AP arrives first, then the photog from Getty or somewhere else arrives, should they stand back ethically despite their professional responsibilities? What if photog A screws the image?

It is a slippery slope, balancing the need to see this and the need to avoid exploitation.

The job of a photog in these circumstances is both interesting and loaded with challenge.
Quite a large percentage die along the way for various reasons.
My most overriding concern with this particular event is the suggestion that a photog may have 'adjusted' the scene to get a 'better' image... that's just wrong on every level.
Regardless, these guys do a job that I have never and probably could never do... I'll not judge tooo harshly therefore.

I highly recommend a movie that covers this subject. It's called "The Bang Bang Club"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM_3-WG3XOg

Matt. K wrote:If I was the only photographer there then I would record the event aa a record of a miserable act. The world should see it and accept some of the blame. But when I see a whole bevy of photographers surrounding the subject....that is an entirely different matter. It's a feeding frenzy. You have to know when to walk away.

so then what happens when there's more than one of them ? do they draw straws on who takes the image ?

In these things you go your own way.