| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Paying to Photograph People
Asked by Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) on 1/22/1999
|
I often read about photographers paying people, usually indigenous people, to photograph them. I see several problems with this: 1) It seems like it is culturally destructive, creating a new type of beggar; 2) In some cases, it prevents forward motion for cultures (there was a recent article about this happening in Thailand where women continue to wear harmful bands around the neck solely for photographers, and 3) One ends up with photographs of the same people in the same poses as everyone else. In fact, one ends up with highly posed photographs that aren't very interesting.
On the other hand, I realize that many of these people have had their traditional livelihood destroyed by resource extraction, factory farming, and a variety of ecological problems. I often get approached by children who say "Photo, photo" and what I usually do is give them some food or gum or whatever I happen to have. Then I don't take their photograph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
michael f.h. moon
(K=90) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
This effect isn't limited to the case of photographers buying imaging rights from quaintly dressed indigenous peoples. It certainly does give the impression of creating beggars and fostering dependency. OTOH, I have read of cases where the "beggars'" earnings exceed what they might otherwise hve earned at more "honest" toil. I think there is a moral issue with paying people a pittance to do what, were one to pay a going rate for the same thing here, would put a _real_ dent in your budget. Talk about taking advantage! Plus, I think we should take responsibility for the fact that our wealth is based in good part on generations of exploitation of other peoples, and not participate in activities that continue or give the appearance of encouraging this exploitation.
Vitriol aside, it's benign and not intended to harm. But we should never forget that poverty and economic dependency may be created by good intention, such as peasants being paid a "subsidy" to remain on property whose productive potential is way too small to support them alone. Our culture's institutionalized system of tourism, whereby we think we need to see indigenous peoples doing their pre-Western thing, encourages the de facto institutionalization of the very response that holds the "indigenous" peoples from advancing their culture just as we have advanced ours.
And speaking photographically, we have a wealth of pics of traditionally attired folks posing. It's far more interesting to see photos of people whose culture is in change. Masai with an 8' spear in one hand, a cell phone in the other; decanting Coke into a gourd, the "traditional" vessel, before returning to the posing grounds. Kilted bagpipers playing in rock groups. Bedouin bringing camels to auction in the back of an airconditioned pickup. As part of the ethic of a photographer to record rather than to interfere with outcomes or scenes, where should our preference lie?
|
|
|
|
Jeff White
(K=154) - Comment Date 1/23/1999
|
I am not a world traveler but have done some photography of native american people. It is considered a cultural thing that they should receive something for allowing you to photograph something of theirs. Exchange is considered a showing of friendship and respect. If the resulting image is worthwhile is up to the abilities and vision of the photographer.
|
|
|
|
rene
(K=237) - Comment Date 1/24/1999
|
Perhaps if any remuneration is only offered after the event of photographing as a token of appreciation with no hint of it coming or striking any deal before the picture is made, it would be far more acceptable and uncontrived. Of course, I do not know where this leaves other photographers coming in the wake of his trail. It is a universal condition that man wises up to the attractions of monetary rewards quickly. When that happens, any picture made will merely be that of just another bloke in a costume, a sheer contrivance.
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
Hi folks - this is an interesting thread as it goes to the heart of the problem in photography of people, and is not entirely unrelated to the "war photography" thread also in this forum. Where does a photographers "right" to record, interfere with others rights to not be subject to an intrusion or invasion of their privacy. Or should we give money WITHOUT taking the picture - does that make the interaction more "honest"? I thought you might enjoy this anecdote, and although it may sound trite in the context of this thread's original question, it is not intended to be so. Rather I feel it might give another perspective on valuation of our "time" as photographers, and some of you may find the example helpful as a way of dealing with similar problems/people. A professional photog. friend - a very polite guy, ethically sound and who is very considerate to models and subjects, and who will if asked, happily provide colour prints to folk who casually model or pose for him - took a ski landscape pic at the local ski area when he was out skiing. In the middle of the shot, but a reasonable distance away - skiing by, was a woman in a distinctive colourful suit, but covered in hat and goggles so you could not identify her face. Pic was used amongst dozens of other pix in a ski promo booklet and the woman saw it, phoned the promo people and got the photog's name and address. She promptly sent a very snippy letter to the photog. claiming expenses - claiming that as he had decided that she was a suitable model, "stylish enough to warrant inclusion in your picture" as she put it, that she should be paid. After all she had incurred vast expense getting skilled to the level where her skiing and stylish (expensive) skisuit made her suitable for his purposes. And as it had been published he had obviously been paid "professional rates", and she felt that she also should receive some income. "And you did not ask my permission" she added. And if he did not pay up, added "I will be instructing my lawyer to sue you". Gasp! Photog was worried about it. So I suggested he politely and promptly write and ask her to carefully work out what it had cost her for ALL her skiing over the years - clothes, skis, lift passes, travel expenses, car fuel, meals, etc. and divide that by the number of hours she had spent learning, riding lifts and actually skiing, in order that she arrive at a cost-per-hour. Then to please send us the figures. I then suggested to the photog. that when we receive the figures and hourly rate we do the following: divide her estimated hourly rate by 60 to work out what the rate is for each minute, then divide by 60 again to get the cost per second, then divide the second by 500 (his shutter speed) to get a TRUE reflection of the cost for the amount of time she had actually given him. I worked it out and even at the MOST extravagant estimates per hour it still worked out at much less than 25 cents for the 1/500th second. And as the skier woman would have committed herself to the figures there is not much she can do to complain. There is actually an incentive for her to reduce the cost-per-hour slightly to make it sound more acceptable! Anyway we sent the letter asking her for the info...............but she didn't respond! If she had been less greedy she could have had some nice colour prints. It is a scenario a lot of us who earn a living from images may encounter. Might be worth using this method if someone is trying to greedily screw you. F.W.I.W. - when I travel and take pix of indigenous people I will invariably ask first for permission to take pix (I like to use a 17-20mm lens to give a feeling on involvement, so require some real cooperation from subjects) and will offer some small change, or food, or offer to send prints back to them (which I do). I dont think there is any easy answer to this predicament. If indigenous people could afford to chase us with lawyers perhaps we would feel as threatened as the friend I describe above. JOHN
|
|
|
|
Joe Stephenson
(K=377) - Comment Date 2/5/1999
|
Is there a double standard operating here? Is it ok to pay models in your home country, but not in a "third world" country? Is it ok for a model in the US to dress and behave in ways that photographers find interesting photographically, but not ok for a model in another country? Is a US photo model a "beggar" because of being paid for modeling? And if you give people goods or money for doing nothing, that seems to foster begging far more than paying an agreed upon amount for modeling. At least there is a quid pro quo, and to my mind, modeling is as honest a form of work as any other. Why shouldn't the model be paid? If the photographer produces a banal, hackneyed image, that is not the fault of the model or the fact that payment was involved. Sincerely, Joe Stephenson
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
This lumberjack likes the way Joe puts it. Having had many "illegles" work for me when I was a contractor, I paid them a little more than what was normal if they worked out, I got to talk to them intimately. Their view of we "rich" gringoes is so much different than our own perception of how they view us it's scary. If I were in say Africa and I wanted some shots of indiginous people in costume I would "expect" to pay something. Does this act constitute exploitation? I don't think so. Most of the exploitation in the world is done by those in control of that country, not by me. I won't bear that burden. Sorry. I would pay someone to pose there just as I would pay someone here. I pay if for nothing else but to help them out. A buck or two to them is worth so much more to them than it is to me. What's the deal. The situation of paying someone in another culture is not the same as throwing midgets in bars. It's just another way of making a buck. Nothing changes in this world. Always been that way and always will. What's the deal? To cheap to kick into the pot? The world is no longer filled with the noble indigenous cultures anymore. TV and cell phones have changed it all. Pay your models a decent wage. Don't disrespect their cultures, but don't disrespect them either. Before you go about banging away with that motor drive, find out what the deal is in the area and if it's ok to shoot go ahead. But if you should pay, then pay. Help them out. If they're beggars already they're beggars already. Your money won't change that. Give em a couple of polaroids too. They like that. Then Aunt Motumbo can see what they look like. Lumberjack
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
Joe - you wonder if there is a double standard operating here (I presume in the anecdote in my last post). No I dont think there is. There is perhaps more of a discussion of what is legitimate to photograph in a public place (another separate thread). The "model" in question in my post was not a model in the accepted sense of the word (or at least in the sense that you use it). She was a passerby, one of a several dozen in that particular image, facially unidentifiable and not being portrayed in a derogatory fashion. Nowhere was it implied that modeling is "begging". Where a professional model agrees to spend his or her time to provide the image you require, and brings their professional skills to the process, then yes of course they should be paid. Absolutely. But I am not sure that is the case in the example I gave. Certainly in foreign circumstances the transaction between photographer and subject is dependent on a lot of conditions, not the least of which are the motives (and intelligence) of the photographer. I would add that I think exploitation is exploitation wherever it occurs. Even where the exploited individual is the photographer. When I said "If indigenous people could afford to chase us with lawyers perhaps we would feel as threatened as the friend I describe above" I was NOT being sarcastic. These are the types of strictures which, when rigorously applied, DO prompt us to question just exactly what it is we do as photographers, and the power we have to do good or ill. I have found myself in the position of being abroad in a foreign country and recording aspects of another culture, and I think doing it with a fair degree of compassion and civility; then returning to my rural home, and within two days being outside repairing a wall and a photographer (american) approached, watched the proceedings then took some photographs of me. He was attracted by "this quaint scene" as he put it, when we talked. I didn't feel that I had been imposed upon, the transaction was civil, and we shared some fellow feeling. But that is certainly not the same as the circumstances under which many images are taken in third world countries. There, as the original post stated - there are many damaging effects that tourism and photography can have. I think we have a responsibility to find out in individual circumstances what we can do about bringing about change - and if that means NOT taking pictures then we have to comply. I fear though that very few people will make this effort. It is way to easy to see it as someone else's problem, and that "My one picture wont make that much difference". JOHN
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
John, Interesting that you should say this. I photograph in the west and have been pretty much a (gulp) landscape photographer (duck). I also shoot still life, both found and contrived. I was always dissatisfied with my portrait efforts. But I looked at a copy of Jay Dusards cowboy book and wanted very much to photograph the western culture up close. Mainly cowboys and cowgirls at work. I also have a yen to photograph the native american both north and south. But I am very hesitant to try and photograph these beautiful people. I feel that I am intruding. What did you feel when that kindred photographer was shooting you? I would love to photograph some of the barns and ranches that I see out in the Wind River area and in Utah. But I am hesitant to drive out to a homestead and interupt someones day and ask them if I could intrude. I don't go to Mexico and photograph because of the same reasoning although I live right next door. I have these visions in my mind that I would like to create. If I went to an area where people were welcome to shoot the locals that would be one thing. But to go up to an individual and press a camera in there face, is that an invasion? What do you street shooters out there do? What are you strategies when shooting? How do you approach it. Not the techniques but what are your philosophies when you are out and about with a camera. Alan, I liked the old woman with the hands in front of her face very much. What were your feelings before the shot, about her? Lumberjack
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
Lumberjack - You have (sort-of I think) answered your own question! You said ".....to try and photograph these beautiful people. (BUT) I feel that I am intruding...." Have you told these people that? SO MUCH of successful "street" photography depends on what YOU bring to the process. After all what you are doing is recording a response to your approach. A confident yet inquisitive, but humble, approach will open doors. TELL those folks that their lifestyle fascinates you, and that you feel that it deserves to be recorded. INVARIABLY they will be made proud that you (a total stranger) are interested in what they do. Ask them how they cope with harsh dry summers and desperately cold winters. Show some interest (and dont EVER think you know it all, and assume that country folks dont read the New York Times and dont have a keen interest in Wall Street). And you may learn - by being told good-naturedly (as I was by a Texan rancher) that you "dont ask how many cows a man has down here son - it's like asking how much money he has in the bank". It is a learning process for both parties - be prepared to "give" something of yourself in return. It works, sometimes, and sometimes not. Your mouth is the first piece of equipment you need to use in making meaningful pictures in such circumstances. Obviously people may be very busy, but that's simply another obstacle to overcome. You ask "is it an invasion?"......well it could be, but it is also a demonstration of how dedicated you are to do the work (get the picture) ... how long you are prepared to wait for the opportunity. And of course, the longer you spend watching the more you will see/learn/observe. And you can also make that fundamental human offer "Hey man I don't really know much about (whatever it is that's going on) but can I help you?" And set what YOU want aside for a while. Many photographers miss that fundamental aspect of the interaction that happens between subject and photographer - the personal qualities the photographer must bring to the making of a picture. Too many photogs see portrait picures as a "taking" process and fail to see that the quality of the outcome is highly dependent on what they "bring" to the process. Try looking at the process as being one of finding out about the subject, making that human connection, and the photo (if there is going to be one) will flow from that. This is MAKING photographs. Images snapped in the street is a whole differnt ball-game, It's camera sniping and is TAKING pictures. And that is not to knock it, simply to make a clear distinction between the two ways of doing the work. And something very interesting happens when you are forced to enter a dialogue with a subject - you will find it hard to think about the conversation AND the technical stuff. SO you will start to concentrate more on the subject and communicating with them, and your photography will become MUCH more intuitive. The results will surprise you. Some very good work comes out of such circumstances. And you asked how I felt being on the receiving end of the same thing? Well - very amused, but as someone who enjoys meeting people I saw an opportunity for a conversation and we both left the transaction satisfied - he had his picture, and I discovered a wee bit about life in North Carolina!. JOHN
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
There is a huge difference between "street" photography and "portrait" photography. In general, street photography is rarely about the interaction between photographer and subject, and requires a certain amount of invisibility of the photographer. Talking to the subjects about what you are doing makes them play to the camera and loses the spontaneity that is geneally considered one of the hallmarks of effective street photography. Some comments on this can be found here, from a museum exhibition on street photography.
I often ask for permission if a face will be visible, especially outside the US, but never speak beyond that. I usually spend a fair amount of time with the camera at eye level so that people don't respond to me or the camera. The result is usually photographs that have a documentary or journalistic nature, as is usually the goal with street photography.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 2/7/1999
|
I'm not sure if James ('old woman with the hands in front of her face') is referring to a picture of mine. On the Web, I think I have only pictures of young women (well, young to me). Two pictures might fit: l aughing saxophonist and woman with cigarette, or one or two others. 'What were your feelings before the shot, about her?' It's an interesting question, and I'll try to answer it anyway.
When it is working, when the situation is going well, there is a huge feeling of empathy, of being with the person involved. I see the subject as two things simultaneously: as an abstract collection of shapes, relating to the other shapes in the background, but also as a real human being. I photograph people I know, and people I don't know. When I know the person, I am interested in capturing a 'likeness'. Otherwise, I am more concerned with the person's 'human- ness'. Most pictures are not posed, and the subject may be unaware of me and my camera, so it may be a one-way transaction. But I don't feel the subject loses. I'm not good at articulating this, but when it goes well, I photograph with another one of those short words that means too much and too little, 'love'. Love and honesty.
I've only been photographing people seriously for a year, almost entirely in places where I am already accepted, even expected. Intrusion is a definite no-no for me. The subjects get a print of the photo, and are usually totally amazed. 'Bloody hell, f*** me,' is a typical reaction.
Like some other posters here, I am less comfortable being a tourist and snapping the locals. I dislike the usual posed shots, and much prefer to be in the situation, photographing people doing whatever they happen to be doing.
Modelling, in the sense of fashion/product shoots, is a profession. People are paid to look beautiful, and they spend a lot of time and effort doing so. I have qualms about this ('idealising' both sexes), but have no problems about the professionalism. So if people in Thailand, India or wherever have realised that they can also be professional models, just by being who they are, good luck to them. This may be less harmful than 'idealisation'. Does this encourage the retention of 'quaintness', and retard 'progress'? Or does it provide some welcome income, direct to the locals, rather than to the (Western-owned) hotel chains? Some of each, doubtless.
|
|
|
|
Joe Stephenson
(K=377) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
Dear John, Actually I was not responding to your post, but to Michael Moons of 1-22-99. Upon further reflection I feel that cross cultural photography magnifies and makes more obvious the general problemas you also suggestthat the photographer must be conscious of their subject and its meaning and the relationship between the photographer and the subject.
I try to do what I suspect most of the participants to this list seek to do. I want to travel my chosen path through the world, enjoying relationships with all kinds of people in all kinds of places. I hope this journey leaves me and the world richer for the trip. A camera, like many tools, can be used as a bridge, or as a weapon, or more benignly, as a sort of interpersonal bludgeon. I like taking pictures of people, and over the years Ive found that I get more pictures that I like if work with people and involve them in the process. Doing so helps me to know and better appreciate the subject better, often allowing me to make a better photo.
However, Jeff is quite right in saying that "street photography" often benefits from quick shots where some or all of the subjects are unaware that they are being photographed. I dont really seem to have the knack or timing for it, so I tend to chat with people and work with them that way. Like any other aspect of our craft, you have to learn what works for you. Sincerely, Joe Stephenson
|
|
|
|
|
