The One Time a Photographer Should Be Mean

The One Time a Photographer Should Be Mean

Are you kind? That sounds like an odd question to ask in a photographic article, but it impacts your work profoundly. However, there is one circumstance where you should be mean to other photographers.

Photographers shoulder a responsibility. Our work impacts those around us and the planet we live on. Whether we take that responsibility seriously or don’t care about the effect of our work is reflected in the photos we produce, and the reply to that one simple question sums up how good a photographer you are: Are you kind?

Why Be Kind

Kindness is good for you. It is proven to increase self-esteem, compassion, and empathy, and it improves mood. It can also decrease blood pressure and cortisol, a hormone directly correlated with stress.

It is one of the main principles of all the major religions and philosophies around the world. The idea of caring for others can be found in the writings of Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and others.

Moreover, philosophers as far back as Aristotle argued why kindness is important. Emmanuel Kant said it was our duty to be kind, and Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill said that being kind had good outcomes.

Despite that, some philosophies such as postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism suggest that morality is not a set of universally accepted rules, and, of course, some powerful people are the extreme opposite of kind. They deal in dishonesty, deception, and aggression, resulting in untold suffering. Nevertheless, history has shown they invariably get their comeuppance, and the organization, belief, or country for which they stand ends up losing.

The behavior called allopreening is when birds are kind to each other.

On the other hand, simple acts of kindness not only do good for society and those around you but benefit you as well. Multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers have shown that performing regular, simple acts of kindness boosts your health. Consideration and compassion reduce inflammation and protect you from chronic illnesses. They also enhance your mental health.

Moreover, some economists say people behave altruistically because others intend to behave altruistically toward them in return. So, that adage "do as you would be done by" holds.

Similarly, studies have shown that participating in the creative arts generates kindness in people. Throughout history, art has been used to convey emotions, ideas, and values, thus inspiring empathy. It helps us to understand others’ perspectives. We see the world through the artist’s eyes, and never more so than with photography.

Research has proven that even viewing images of acts of kindness helps people find inspiration, while undertaking acts of kindness has an even greater effect.

Many birds flock together for mutual protection. Likewise, community is vitally important for humans.

There are other benefits, too. Kindness leads to stronger community connections, fostering a collaborative environment within the art community. That can bring valuable opportunities to network with other photographers and artists. This is partly due to the reputation that kindness brings and the positive reactions from others in the photographic and wider communities. Consequently, the photographer gains a sense of belonging.

Being respected by your community helps build self-confidence, which, in turn, leads to you being willing to take greater creative risks. It also leads to greater resilience and the ability to handle criticism. Furthermore, you will see setbacks as opportunities to improve.

Your Photographs Mirror You

Although not always the case, a photograph usually depicts a realistic view of a small part of the world. It communicates a close approximation of how the world looked to the photographer at a fixed place and moment. Therefore, what you notice and how you depict it reflects your personality.

Let’s take a real-life example of a boudoir photographer. I didn’t know him other than by his reputation. He was renowned for his less-than-appropriate behavior toward some of his models, and word quickly spread around the town where he lived for young women to avoid being photographed by him. His misogynistic attitude was reflected in his photography, which lacked taste and any artistic merit. (A photographer friend of mine described the guy’s work as cheap 1970s porn.) The boudoir photographer’s business folded, and his reputation was permanently tarnished in his community.

Meanwhile, another photographer's business in the same community is thriving. He treats his models respectfully, never speaks salaciously to them, and always asks if they want to be accompanied by a chaperone.

Photographs Are a Double-Sided Mirror

However, there is a dichotomy here. How you view a photograph also mirrors your personal qualities.

For example, some people lack empathy and the emotional intelligence to understand what the photographer's images convey. They fail to see the beauty or benevolence that the photographer was depicting. Thus, they become limited in their own creativity because of their inability to find inspiration from other people's work.

When someone says that they don’t find inspiration from others’ photography, that says much more about the person commenting on the work than the photographer. True artists can find inspiration everywhere they look.

The One Time To Be Mean

Despite all that, there is one area where the photographer should remain mean: when one photographs something rare in nature.

News articles here in the UK, and elsewhere in the world, have repeatedly reported how unusual species of birds, insects, plants, and fungi are disturbed and even pushed to the brink of extinction by photographers who pay no regard to the conservation of the species. They do everything they can to get the shot they want, no matter the cost to the subject.

The locations of these subjects are shared on social media, and hoards of people descend from all over the country just to see and photograph them.

Sometimes, wildlife is mean. This shellduck deliberately honed in on the female mallard, but often, waterfoul gather in multi-species associations for their mutual benefit.

But surely one more person won’t make a difference if you tell a friend, will it? Sadly, it will.

Rare plants and fungi are often found in fragile habitats, and the very species being sought can be trampled underfoot. Furthermore, even small disturbances can mean the difference between birds successfully breeding and failure.

For example, in the UK, the red-listed black grouse and capercaillie are in danger of extinction. The male birds gather in a “lek” to compete for female attention with their courtship display. Sadly, photographers have encroached and deliberately disturbed the birds to take pictures of the displays, causing breeding to fail.

Taken in low light long before dawn, even at a distance of over 200 yards, these deer were aware of me.

Wherever you are in the world, there will be similarly endangered animals that photographers deliberately disturb to get the photo.

While you might be the most environmentally conscious photographer out there, with an in-depth awareness of wildlife and its habitat, and perhaps you are also the kindest person anyone will ever meet—not everyone else is. Some people don’t give a flying flamingo about the subject and its conservation. They are only concerned about getting the photo. So, be mean and keep your sightings of rare wildlife to yourself.

Ivor Rackham's picture

A professional photographer, website developer, and writer, Ivor lives in the North East of England. His main work is training others in photography. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being. In 2023 he accepted becoming a brand ambassador for the OM System.

Log in or register to post comments
14 Comments

As someone who loves wild life and wild life photography I often find myself at odds with those that make the rules. They throw their hands up in horror if you dare manipulate any pixels in post to remove an offending twig or blade of grass but turn a blind eye to any manipulation of the subject prior to the shot! I for one can’t see any logic in that! My turn to be mean. Take your opening image of the eagle that I imagine was taken from a hide level with the ground with dead bait to lure,hence manipulate the subject, which in this case was the eagle. I have a problem with images that were taken using such methods. Baiting can lead to unscrupulous practices plus the so called ‘wild life’ photographer pays for a second party to lay the shot on for them so that all they have to do is take the shot! and they have the nerve to call it wildlife photography. To my mind images obtained from baiting and setups make a mockery of what wild life photography is all about. Is that being mean? In my opinion a debate needs to be had about what is acceptable for an image to be termed wild life as for me it’s not just about the subject being a wild creature but the methods that were used to take the image need to be taken into account. I would really like to read what other think about this issue.

I get your point. In this case, the golden eagles are fed to restore their numbers as part of a conservation project. Roadkill is moved from the roads into a secluded clearing deep in the forest where the birds are safe from being hit by cars or shot by farmers. The hides are set up to allow photographers to take photos of the eagles without disturbing them and the money earned helps towards the conservation.

The conservationists also put hundreds of bird boxes up in the forests all over that country because many small birds have lost their nesting sites. That is because the older trees, which have holes suitable for nesting, have been felled and replanted. Again, this is funded by photographers who go to photograph the eagles and other wildlife.

So personally, I have no issue with it.

As for removing distractions from a photo, again, I have no problem with that at all unless the context in which the image is presented requires no such manipulation.

I wrote an article around the issue of baiting a few months ago https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/damage-inadvertently-photography-630066

"They throw their hands up in horror if you dare manipulate any pixels in post to remove an offending twig or blade of grass but turn a blind eye to any manipulation of the subject prior to the shot!"

What you choose to include or remove from an image is entirely your business - your image, your vision. On the other hand, deliberately goosing an animal or bird to perform for a photo is repugnant. So I agree. If they want all the blades of grass and twigs in a photo, they should take the photo themselves and create the art they desire.

Totally agree with Ivor about not divulging the location of rare or unusual species. I recently left a local facebook group where I used to post images of mainly birds. Recently a very rare Steppe Shrike, normally found in Central Asia, was spotted in a local small town on its golf course. It proceeded to hunt voles and wasps and basically anything it could get it beak into and drew photographers from far and wide as word got around through social media. It developed into a right old circus. Hundreds of images were posted on this Facebook group eventually becoming quite ridiculous due to the shear volume as everyone was at it. Photographers and twitchers were coming from the other end of the country. The bird eventually moved on. I felt many people were going to get a shot not through any real interest in the bird itself but so they felt they weren’t missing out on this social media event. While I was interested in the bird the nature of the situation that had grown around it prevented me from going as I had no interest in becoming part of a crowd gathered around one small bird. The question that stays is should we keep such sightings to ourselves and not broadcast them through social media?

We had a very similar situation here with a Siberian Stonechat that appeared shortly after writing this article. We heard that lots of twitchers had descended upon it. Walking back from a bird survey we saw a couple of people with telescopes. They were looking for it. My friend asked what it looked like, and they gave a description. He said, "What, like that bird there." The attached photo is of it from a long way away. I haven't advertised its location, but it is already on social media, which is how the bird watchers found it.

Last year, I was photographing birds on an estuary not very far from me and another pair of bird watchers came to ask if there was anything interesting to see. I said, no, just the usual. When I got home I found in one of the images a scaup. There's only one or two known breeding pairs in the UK, although I know the secret location of another. I keep quiet about it.

I take photographs for fun. I often run into birders who ask me if I saw something interesting. I tell them the truth. I often find that helpful because I dont always know my birds. In return, they tell me about something exicting and where to find it. It seems mutually helpful. The concersations with strangers are often interesting and jovial. That is me.

I love how you illustrate your point with animal photos. Very nice.

Thank you.

Within the herping community here in the United States, your suggestion of being "mean" and not sharing the location of a critter is actually the universal practice. This made it extremely difficult for me to break into the herping community, because no one, and I mean no one, would share any specific locations with me at all - not even for common species such as Sidewinders or Couch's Toads.

I understand why this is so. It is not just because herp enthusiasts don't want the critters disturbed. It goes way beyond that. They don't want the critters taken captive and sold on the black market or kept as pets. This phenomenon is actually rather common, and something that bird and mammal enthusiasts don't really need to worry about very much. But in the herping community, there are many who will take a turtle or lizard or salamander and take it home with them. And there are a number of folks who will pick up a rare/protected species of Rattlesnake and sell it illegally to breeders.

So for me, becoming a herper had to do not only with finding and photographing the reptiles and amphibians, but also had to do with learning herp ethics, and how to keep the whereabouts of the critters I find out of the wrong hands.

That's fascinating, Tom. Thank you. I didn't know herpetologists were called herpers for short. I've learned a new word.

Ivor, wow actually a useful and thought provoking article, good topic.

FYI just days before your article UNSECO declared the biggest threat to many World Heritage Site are the “Selfie Photographers”.

I can recall in the mid 1980’s a decision had been made to capture the last of the remaining wild California Condors, all 22 of them. I thought oh well if I want to see a wild condor I’ll have to travel to South America. Within an amazingly short 10 or so year I got news half a dozen or so birds were being reintroduced to an area of what is now Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. As of September 2024 they number 560 bird with more than half fling free and wild although still listed as critically endangered. At times these bird were also feed road kill in remote areas to many keep them away from landing close to human activity, they are gliders not powerful fliers and have difficulty achieving takeoff from a standstill. Much has been done to keep these bird away from human activity(ies).

There are a number of online resources to find wildlife sightings, peak spring and fall foliage areas, etc. online even excluding social media. What are they you are probably wandering well sorry I’ve never used other than as research a conformation of a sighting not as a locational aide. I tend to find things the traditional way, time, patience, persistence, understanding of species habitat, habits and plain old pure luck.

Image below pre cellphones, wifi, dial-up home internet, just an old fashion critter clutter. What and where … shhh I’d hate to see it these days … hope they aren’t thinking of widening the road, although it wouldn’t surprise me no matter how self defeating it would be. DUH!

"As of September 2024 they number 560 bird with more than half fling free and wild although still listed as critically endangered." - from 22 to 560 reading this made me hopeful and happy - thanks for sharing!

It's great when the reintroduction of a species is successful. There are similar stories here with Red Kites, although some rogue gamekeepers still illegally persecute raptors. It's an interesting figure about selfie shooters, thanks. Hopefully, photographers are becoming better educated and not adding to the problem. Sadly, that's not universally true yet. Thanks for the comment. I would love to see a condor!

Good to hear from you Ivor, as Derek K pointed out (above you) these California Condors are still listed as critically endangered. Numerically an illusion of success their greatest hurtle yet to over come is lead poisoning. Not from impact wounds but digestive contamination, big push to get hunters to stop using lead bullets and shot.