Health, Safety and Ethical Issues in Photography

kittex

Hi all

I teach in Oz where Photography is a High School subject in it's own right. I'm lumbered guiding some students through a Photography exam but I am not a photographer at all (don't ask!).

One of the section is on health, safety and ethical issues. The section is brand new so there are no past papers and it's not covered in the textbook. We're also 16 hours drive from the nearest city so I can't get any advice from specialists or guest speakers.
So I'd appreciate some pointers from people who know what they're on about. We are entirely digital (thank God), so there are no chemical issues to consider as there are in wet photography.

So far I have some core issues to consider:


H&S

Lights - wattage etc can the grid take it?
Make model aware of fire exits
Cables - taped down
Heat from lights - ensure breaks etc
Carrying equipment safely
Ensuring appropriate screen height and taking screen breaks when digital editing


Ethical

Ages issues
Contracts
Level of altering in PShop, skin retouching etc
Logos on clothing, background etc



I've missed loads I'd say!

Covey

Legal is a very large subject on it's own, with a lot of country specific issues. It's not mentioned in your heading and I'm wondering have you maybe stumbled outside the brief?

kittex

Fixed now.

Fenster

I really don't see any kind of ethical issue with retouching images, unless you are dealing with somebody who has a lolita fetish. The tools are there and the information is out there. Makes more sense to sit them down, talk them through the process, let them get a feel for it and try to steer them away from extremes.

kittex

Fenster wrote: »

I really don't see any kind of ethical issue with retouching images, unless you are dealing with somebody who has a lolita fetish. The tools are there and the information is out there. Makes more sense to sit them down, talk them through the process, let them get a feel for it and try to steer them away from extremes.

I guess many feel differently as a number of photography organisations have felt the need to create a code of ethics for using digital manipulation. The issues range from portraying the truth of events to the moral question around retouching models.

bernard0368

In regards to the health and safety. The school should have some documentation in place that would give you pointers. Not knowing Austrailian laws, I am sure they would also have a risk assessment done as well.
The R/A is where I would start, take a common sense approach as to what the risks involved are and work up your statement from there. Trips, falls overloading sockets etc. "If it can hurt well how do I prevent it"

Fenster

kittex wrote: »

I guess many feel differently as a number of photography organisations have felt the need to create a code of ethics for using digital manipulation. The issues range from portraying the truth of events to the moral question around retouching models.

Thankfully I am not a member of any of those organizations.

To understand why retouching is so controversial, you need to understand it. Saying "it's wrong, don't ask about it!" don't really pass muster because the skills involves really are valuable in many areas.

Covey

Fenster wrote: »

I really don't see any kind of ethical issue with retouching images

Well there are huge ethical issues in retouching especially in fashion and photojournalism.

Some of the French magazines such as Marie Claire and Elle are now posting only non retouched photographs, some German magazines too. There is a move to draft a law to such effect in France at the moment.

In Photojournalism Reuters were recently forced to remove a photo of the Iceland volcano from it's database due to retouching and that was a landscape!

The Ukraine winner of a World Press Photo prize also had it revoked due to manipulation for instance. That was a reportage shot.



A very hot theme at the moment in certain genres of photography.

Covey

On the legal front Street Photography is a very hot theme in the "Developed" world at the moment with some countries coming rather close to banning it altogether.

Here is an overview on Australia I saved in the hope someday to have use for it.

Ghost Train

maybe privacy would be an ethics issue?

edit: i see covey posted some info just there

Covey

Ghost Train wrote: »

maybe privacy would be an ethics issue?

edit: i see covey posted some info just there

Interesting comment as privacy is quite often not defined in law, or defined in very limited circumstances (Ireland and Australia for instance) .

Ethics then is a personal thing and how you apply that in a general way is the question.

melekalikimaka

Covey wrote: »

Interesting comment as privacy is quite often not defined in law, or defined in very limited circumstances (Ireland and Australia for instance) .

Ethics then is a personal thing and how you apply that in a general way is the question.

i had a class last year called media law and ethics... i could never understand why they were put together... made no sense

Xiney

As I understand it this is for the course curiculum, not what you are being concerned about for your students. Food for thought for them, probably to have a discussion and maybe write a short essay or article, in other words.


I imagine photo retouching will be immensely popular as an issue because of it's exposure in the media.

In terms of ethical - is it ethical to post photos on the internet of someone without their permission? What about if you can't identify them? What about if they're your friend but you haven't asked? Things like Facebook spring to mind.

There are also business ethics, ie, not holding a person's images hostage, disclosing your prices before commencing the shoot etc.

In terms of health & safety, lights on stands can fall on someone, lots of bright flashes can trigger photosensitive epilepsy (although there are cool running continuous lighting systems available now), not having the proper camera strap can cause harm to your back (if you have a very heavy camera and your strap has no give it's worse than if your strap has a bit of inbuilt suspension - neoprene)

Covey

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i had a class last year called media law and ethics... i could never understand why they were put together... made no sense

I suppose Law and Ethics does get often lumped in together. There is a connection though as quite often ethics are not left to the individual entirely and representative organisations draw up guidlines. We see it in various industries all the time and depending on the effectivness of the umberella body the more effective the adherance to ethics guidlines are.

If you're talking about photography specifically of course these would only be applicable to "professionals" (if at all in place ) and not the ordinary Joe Soap. Of course different societies do impose ethical restrictions on individuals, though not written down.

melekalikimaka

Covey wrote: »

Of course different societies do impose ethical restrictions on individuals, though not written down.

Basically what the NUJ say, we get taught. I discovered I have very little ethics during the course... my moral compass is borked :rolleyes:

Fenster

Covey wrote: »

Well there are huge ethical issues in retouching especially in fashion and photojournalism.

Some of the French magazines such as Marie Claire and Elle are now posting only non retouched photographs, some German magazines too. There is a move to draft a law to such effect in France at the moment.

In Photojournalism Reuters were recently forced to remove a photo of the Iceland volcano from it's database due to retouching and that was a landscape!

The Ukraine winner of a World Press Photo prize also had it revoked due to manipulation for instance. That was a reportage shot.



A very hot theme at the moment in certain genres of photography.

Once again, I am not a member of any of those organization, nor as a rule have I any intention of joining them. I completely fail to see the point of refusing to use my full toolset in the processing of a photograph simply because somebody is trying to tell me not to.

I understand the greater ethical concerns involved in both journalistic and fashion photography and approve of calls for restrictions - but I am neither a journalist nor a fashion photographer. I am a landscape and architectural photographer, primarily, and I will use every single tool I have in the finishing of a photograph. I likewise encourage every other photographer to fully learn and understand the entire range of capabilities of editing tools so they can truly appreciate and understand the underlying concerns and pitfalls.

Simply saying "don't" is just that - simple.

PCPhoto

Fenster wrote: »

Once again, I am not a member of any of those organization, nor as a rule have I any intention of joining them. I completely fail to see the point of refusing to use my full toolset in the processing of a photograph simply because somebody is trying to tell me not to.

I understand the greater ethical concerns involved in both journalistic and fashion photography and approve of calls for restrictions - but I am neither a journalist nor a fashion photographer. I am a landscape and architectural photographer, primarily, and I will use every single tool I have in the finishing of a photograph. I likewise encourage every other photographer to fully learn and understand the entire range of capabilities of editing tools so they can truly appreciate and understand the underlying concerns and pitfalls.

Simply saying "don't" is just that - simple.

I am a photojournalist and would agree with Fenster - every person who intends taking photographs should learn the basics/fundamentals of image manipulation, similar to the way when printing from film you use masks to dodge/burn areas to create a "manipulated" image.

In my case - very little (basic) manipulation is acceptable (ie. Levels, Sharpen, etc -) ...but knowledge of how to do more is a great asset, lets face it I may not always be a photojournalist, so might need to turn my hand to other styles and might need to learn how to compete with industry standards.

melekalikimaka

PCPhoto wrote: »

I am a photojournalist and would agree with Fenster - every person who intends taking photographs should learn the basics/fundamentals of image manipulation, similar to the way when printing from film you use masks to dodge/burn areas to create a "manipulated" image.

In my case - very little (basic) manipulation is acceptable (ie. Levels, Sharpen, etc -) ...but knowledge of how to do more is a great asset, lets face it I may not always be a photojournalist, so might need to turn my hand to other styles and might need to learn how to compete with industry standards.

it all depends on your definition of 'editing', dodge/burn, lil clone... a tiny bit, imo is ok, lightroom presets etc... for photogrournalism, major no no imo

Covey

Fenster wrote: »

Once again, I am not a member of any of those organization, nor as a rule have I any intention of joining them. I completely fail to see the point of refusing to use my full toolset in the processing of a photograph simply because somebody is trying to tell me not to.

I understand the greater ethical concerns involved in both journalistic and fashion photography and approve of calls for restrictions - but I am neither a journalist nor a fashion photographer. I am a landscape and architectural photographer, primarily, and I will use every single tool I have in the finishing of a photograph. I likewise encourage every other photographer to fully learn and understand the entire range of capabilities of editing tools so they can truly appreciate and understand the underlying concerns and pitfalls.

Simply saying "don't" is just that - simple.

Fenster, you should really read the post before you answer something thats not there.

I was only responding to the original discussion by outlining a few recent discussions on the matter thats all.

I didn't even state my personal view on any of that. I'll hold that to myself in case you twist that as well.

Feel free to post process as much as you want, who cares?

mloc

I think in most cases global alterations (that is, changes that effect the total image, sharpen, contrast adjust) are acceptable, but local alterations (that is, changes that affect only certain parts of the image, cloning, etc) are more questionable, particularly in reportage or photojournalism.

In the world of fine art, portraiture and landscape photography, I think it is very much up to each practitioner to decide for themselves which tools they want to use.

Fenster

Covey wrote: »

Fenster, you should really read the post before you answer something thats not there.

I was only responding to the original discussion by outlining a few recent discussions on the matter thats all.

I didn't even state my personal view on any of that. I'll hold that to myself in case you twist that as well.

Feel free to post process as much as you want, who cares?

A whole lot of people care. I was outlining my own viewpoint that they should be allowed to learn about the ethical pitfalls by getting hands-on with the tools. Sit them down, show them sample before/after photos.

kittex

First of all, thanks to all of those who've posted more and thanks Covey for the links.
All that information is really useful, as are the discussions!

Fenster wrote: »

A whole lot of people care. I was outlining my own viewpoint that they should be allowed to learn about the ethical pitfalls by getting hands-on with the tools. Sit them down, show them sample before/after photos.

As covey said, you're assuming something that wasn't said. You're assuming they're not taught photoshop, you're assuming we're saying don't. These are students who at this stage engage in all the debates and wider issues so that they can make their own judgements should they pursue photography as a career.
I respect what you're saying about your particular genre of photography, but I'm asking about the wider issues and debates. I do know Photoshop and teach my students to alter images, use effects plug ins, stitch panoramas, put things into pictures that were never there etc etc In retouching the skin of their friends for example, they're seeing the impact of it and learning a line that they're comfortable with - "That doesn't look like my friend any more, I'll go some steps backward."

Covey

It's a interesting topic though and of course there is no static answer as ethics tends to re-invent itself every 20-25 years in any event.

democrates

I retouch portraits a lot of the time and I've no intention of stopping. If someone is unlucky enough to have a pimple on the day of a shoot, gone. If side lighting exaggerates little bumps, flattened. If I'm asked outright to "airbrush" the shots (happens frequently), done. Close-ups can show more imperfections than the unaided eye so retouching can bring these back to normal human perception.

Photography is one step in this kind of artistic portrayal process, retouching another, then printing, framing, hanging, and optionally lighting.

In photojournalism the choice of compositions can give a very subjective account, just being unaltered after doesn't guarantee objectivity.

melekalikimaka

democrates wrote: »

I retouch portraits a lot of the time and I've no intention of stopping. If someone is unlucky enough to have a pimple on the day of a shoot, gone. If side lighting exaggerates little bumps, flattened. If I'm asked outright to "airbrush" the shots (happens frequently), done. Close-ups can show more imperfections than the unaided eye so retouching can bring these back to normal human perception.

Photography is one step in this kind of artistic portrayal process, retouching another, then printing, framing, hanging, and optionally lighting.

In photojournalism the choice of compositions can give a very subjective account, just being unaltered after doesn't guarantee objectivity.

i think people are talking bout to broad an issue, i think ethical for case of argument is photojournalism, modelling/fashion/landscape are not the same. You say

democrates wrote: »

In photojournalism the choice of compositions can give a very subjective account, just being unaltered after doesn't guarantee objectivity.

no it does not, never has an never will, but do you think thats an excuse to alter an image? it goes for an accurate account, to a fabricated account ... and thats unacceptable ethically. It goes from a subjective account that is physically accurate to a subjective view thats physically inaccurate... kinda losing the point of photojournalism

democrates

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i think people are talking bout to broad an issue, i think ethical for case of argument is photojournalism, modelling/fashion/landscape are not the same.

Exactly, it would be an interesting teaching exercise to list ethical issues and then discuss each in relation to each genre of photography.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

no it does not, never has an never will, but do you think thats an excuse to alter an image? it goes for an accurate account, to a fabricated account ... and thats unacceptable ethically. It goes from a subjective account that is physically accurate to a subjective view thats physically inaccurate... kinda losing the point of photojournalism

I was just raising another dimension to consider for the teacher there. When it comes to serious photojournalism (fine tuning here) I agree fully, lack of perfection in compositional objectivity doesn't justify subjectifying an image through alteration any more than a hole in a dam justifies blowing it up

But I suppose the arts/social end of photojournalism is not so serious as to demand maximum objectivity where the stories won't impact anything of great importance in society. Is there anyone left who doesn't know these images are altered to idealise?