Many of us don’t consider the harm we do with our photos. Our actions might be innocent, but there's a dark side to most genres that we don't ever consider.
The Problem With Wedding Photography
A book sitting on the shelves above my desk is about wedding photography. It starts by saying that wedding photographers were once considered bottom feeders. It then points out that things have changed significantly over the last couple of decades as documentary-style photography has taken over from the "look-at-the-birdy-and-say-cheese" group photos that plagued the genre for most of its history.
This new style of wedding photography has certainly caused some upset among the clergy here in the UK, and I suspect elsewhere too. Wedding photographers seem to think their work is more important than the wedding. A retired vicar friend of mine told me that he was marrying a couple when, during the vows, he heard a noise. Looking behind him, he saw the photographer climbing onto the altar. Recent news stories here have reported the feud between priests and wedding photographers, with the photographers saying they should be shown more respect and not pushed to the back of the church where they are sometimes sent, and priests pointing out that their job is the most important.
I’ll have to say, as a wedding photographer, I agree with the Church's point of view. A religious wedding is a celebration but is also a sacred occasion. Secular wedding ceremonies are also important events. No matter how it is conducted or by whom, the ceremony is by far the most significant aspect of the day. However much the happy couple pays, the photographer should allow the ceremony to progress without disturbing it, the participants, or the congregation.
So, perhaps we wedding photographers are bottom feeders. Or are we?
Are Landscape Photographers Worse?
I recently bought a fantastic landscape photography book by a well-known photographer I have a lot of respect for. In it, he exhibits photos taken early in the morning at a particularly beautiful stretch of coastline that I am very familiar with. Where he has set up his camera before dawn is probably the best place to get a photo of that scene. However, it’s also the best roosting spot for a raft of endangered shorebirds that overwinter and feed there.
When I shot this famous scene of Bamburgh Castle I was first on the beach and I was far away from the rocks behind me where the waders roost. Later, I turned around and rocks were crawling with photographers.
Migratory birds need to spend all their energies feeding to regain the body mass lost during their flight to their overwintering grounds. Every disturbance reduces the survival of the birds. Those birds, or any wildlife, are an important integral part of the landscape, just as surely as lions, giraffes, and elephants are to the savannah, and polar bears are to the Arctic.
Perhaps Wildlife Photographers Do More Harm Than Good
Landscape photographers probably disrupt the creatures through ignorance. However, creatures are often deliberately disturbed by wildlife photographers who fantasize about appearing on the next cover of National Geographic no matter the cost to the creature.
Somebody I know has an extremely rare and shy bird breeding on their land. Officially, there is only one known breeding pair in the UK. There is more because nobody is letting on that this bird is there because they know they will be inundated with wildlife photographers who will disturb the birds and disrupt their breeding.
So, maybe some wildlife photographers are the worst.
Despite sitting silently in a hide, this eagle still seemed to be aware of our presence.
Yes, But What About the Paparazzi and Fashion Photographers?
I’m not so sure, though. The paparazzi hound people and invade their privacy. This has led to enormous upset, disruption to family life, and that horrific fatal car crash in a Parisian tunnel in 1997.
Yet maybe that pales into insignificance when one compares that to the harm caused by fashion photographers who feed the world with images of skinny models with perfect skin. The damage that does to the self-esteem and mental health of, especially, young women. Fashion photography contributes to increased depression, anxiety, and self-harm; decreased socio-emotional well-being; low self-esteem; as well as negative body image.
Photographers of all genres should remember that the photograph is always less important that the subject and the viewer.
There are few subjects that are not adversely affected by our photography.
Social Media and The Demise of Honest and Good Photography
But maybe there is worse happening than that. Social media companies now employ vast numbers of content moderators who are exposed to horrendous images of inhuman acts. As a result, those moderators suffer mental health issues from exposure to the pictures. Moreover, there are insufficient moderators to perform that task. Should those inhuman photographers be solely accountable for those images, or should social media companies share that responsibility?
Until now, in America, internet companies have been exempt from any responsibility for the content their sites show because of Section 230, which was originally part of the Communications Decency Act.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Originally put in place to promote freedom of expression and innovation, it led to social media platforms washing their hands of any responsibility for the content they show. So long as they did not edit the information posted on their site, they could not be held responsible.
This led to a raft of social issues, not least harassment, hate speech, inciting violence, misinformation, abuse, promotion of suicide, and self-harm, as well as allowing posts by foreign groups to disrupt the democratic process. The mob storming of the United States Capitol in January 2016 is seen to have been prompted by social media posts.
So, it’s not just the photography that is to blame, but how people use images and other information. Those companies that host images will probably soon be held responsible for the outcomes. Just as there was bipartisan support for introducing it, there’s now bipartisan support for rescinding Section 230 because of the harm caused by uncontrolled social media.
If that happens, this will affect not just the big hosts such as Meta, X, and Google, but smaller image host providers, including sites like Fstoppers and its competitors. The moderation of comments and galleries will become more onerous, and I can see commenting disappearing from many sites.
I planted this stick in the sea to create a better seascape photo. Was this photo fake news?
Election Interference and Faked Photos
2024 will see more elections worldwide than any other year in recent history. Never have there been more opportunities for bad actors with evil intent to use imagery to interfere with the electoral processes by posting on social media. Already, fake photos have appeared that show one presidential candidate in a good light. AI image generation tools make that all the easier.
There was outrage recently because a member of the British Royal Family had enhanced a family snap released for Mothering Sunday here in the UK. Most of us have done it to pictures, so the scandal boiled up by the press seemed disproportionate. How many of your family members have used Instagram filters to improve their looks? On one wedding shoot, I removed a pimple from the face in all the pictures of a bridesmaid. Nobody noticed apart from the bride who thanked me for it. If such an edit is done with good intent, then I believe there is no problem. Sadly, not everyone has the same opinion, and for them, anything goes.
Perhaps converting a documentary photo to black and white is deceptive because it changes the mood of the picture.
However, except for minor edits such as removing dust spots, reputable news agencies insist that photos are genuine. There have been some notable digressions from this standard and great damage to the reputation of the news agencies that have done so. Nevertheless, most press reporting and photos are held to a high standard. Social media posts are not. Research shows that more than 40% of news on social media is fake and an astonishing 86% of Americans are falling prey to fake news.
In Conclusion
It seems the digital world we photographers walk in is precarious, and we risk having our reputations destroyed because of it. If people cannot tell the difference between a fake photo and a real one, doubt will be cast on the validity of all our images. All we can do is continue shooting genuine images and try to do as little harm as possible.
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.
Not to mention the retrograde cultural effects of all the commercial cheesecake/beefcake deliberately designed to circumvent conscious thought by triggering our lizard brains so we reach for our wallets without wondering why.
Michael, if you don't think advertisers cynically seek to manipulate consumers' weaknesses, you need to watch the movie "How to Get Ahead in Advertising".
I do believe most hobbyist and professional photographers are aware and mostly respect the environment they are shooting. I think this is especially true of those who shoot landscapes and wildlife, particularly as they become more experienced. The one class of "photographers" that can be offensive are the tourist shooters that descend upon an event, national park, or landmark and do whatever they want to get a snapshot of that bison or statue not caring where they go, who they inconvenience, or property they might damage. I found the best time to go to these areas are the non-peak tourist seasons and when weather is not blue sky sunshine; or not go at all.
When it comes to nature photographers they do indeed have to be careful to not disturb their subjects or in the case of landscape photographers disturb roosting or more important nesting birds. Though from experience it’s those with dogs and casual walkers that do most harm when it comes not just to disturbing roosting birds but to disturbing ground nesting birds. At this time of year I see dog walkers ignoring all these various signs warning not to walk in a certain area especially with a dog marching though with a dog or dogs all off leash. Skylarks once common near where I live are now not to be found because of the pressure on the landscape from dog walkers. Human behaviour in general is just not conducive for wildlife.
Not all of us "wildlife" photographers do it for possible fame and glory. I do it to document and submit images to sites like iNaturalist and eBird to document the presence of fauna and flora, and sensitive fauna/flora (e.g. endangered) may have their geolocations obfuscated on purpose to hide the location. But ultimately, we photograph wildlife to have a hopefully lasting record of said wildlife before populations are lost due to environmental change. The article quotes "extremely rare and shy bird breeding on their land": well, WHAT ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF COMMUNITY SCIENTISTS LIKE OURSELVES WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TIME AND ENERGY INTO DOCUMENTING WILDLIFE BEFORE IT IS GONE?!?!?!? Why doesn't Ivor Rackham include mention of people like us?!?!?!?!?
I do find that this article emphasizes the negative, and includes almost nothing positive. It's like a 90% / 10% split. I prefer to be more positive with my thought life.
I think that, collectively, wildlife photographers are a great group of people with a lot of joy and appreciation and love for the subjects that they photograph! That fact should receive 90% of our focus and emphasis.
The problem with wildlife photography, and photographers causing damage to the enviroment, is a problem of numbers, which are in fact a small subset of the hugely more numerous numbers of those who need that bucket list shot to post to social media. Social media encourages people to visit those "iconic" spots for that "iconic shot", whilst certain camera companies have worked hard to publish the landscape and nature photographer as an exiting lifestyle.
Serious photographers probably cause a very small part of the environmental damage that tourism causes.
I believe it is the "anorak" "birders" who create mayhem when some poor rare bird turns up in the UK at least. Doesn't most bird photography involve hides and stuff, with minimal disturbance to the wildlife.
As for wedding photography, social media and glossy magazines as well as a well oiled "wedding industry" have transformed many wedding ceremonies into a circus, with the photographer expected to produce far more than was once the case. BTW. How many people ever look at these wedding photo albums after the heat of the moment.
It is the same question of "numbers" which make visiting places like Florence or Venice, a voyage into Dante's inferno for most of the year.
So am I supposed to believe fashion photographers are responsible for anorexia now? What about the companies that hired them, asked them for particular images, and approved their work?
We are only responsible for the things that are a DIRECT result of our actions. If something bad happens indirectly as a result of our actions, then we are not the one(s) responsible.
When I started in photography (seems like I'm still starting), my wife gave me a book on bird photography. It points out the need to be careful, be respectful and mindful of the birds and their habitat, etc. I once met a photographer who was a nature photographer. She said he does a lot of crawling and hiding. Told me a change of clothes is a must.
Unfortunately we live in a world now where people feel they can do as they please, and will argue the point when caught. This is a special breed of person that believes they alone are allowed to ignore fences and signs that tell them to keep away. Usually they're from California (not really).
It's not necessarily entitlement, more often it's lazy ignorance. Reading (and ignoring) a sign that says "don't cross" is easy. Reading why you shouldn't requires effort. And you can sometimes see the formula clicking into action. I will ignore that sign because I spent $X thousand on my vacation - and what I want to do appears to be harmless fun.
Exactly. It is interesting to see the tourons (new term combing tourist and moron) on Youtube and in still photos ignoring signs regarding wildlife in Yellowstone NP. Buffalo do roam, sometimes over people.
I was recently at a wedding... and being a photographer myself. I understand your point here about disturbing camera noise. However: With recent technology, especially the newer 'Electronic Shutter' technology. Even with my older Camera 'Electronic Shutter' was already on the cusp, and was built into its function. Newer camera's, which these photographers had, could very easily have switched to 'Electronic', so as not to disturb the program. Ex. The Canon R5 Mark II I don't think even has a Mechanical Shutter.
Now... Wildlife? I don't see your point. With Wildlife photography. You are generally using long-lenses at such a far distance, you are doing nothing to disturb the creatures you are taking photos of.
Not to mention the retrograde cultural effects of all the commercial cheesecake/beefcake deliberately designed to circumvent conscious thought by triggering our lizard brains so we reach for our wallets without wondering why.
Michael, if you don't think advertisers cynically seek to manipulate consumers' weaknesses, you need to watch the movie "How to Get Ahead in Advertising".
I do believe most hobbyist and professional photographers are aware and mostly respect the environment they are shooting. I think this is especially true of those who shoot landscapes and wildlife, particularly as they become more experienced. The one class of "photographers" that can be offensive are the tourist shooters that descend upon an event, national park, or landmark and do whatever they want to get a snapshot of that bison or statue not caring where they go, who they inconvenience, or property they might damage. I found the best time to go to these areas are the non-peak tourist seasons and when weather is not blue sky sunshine; or not go at all.
When it comes to nature photographers they do indeed have to be careful to not disturb their subjects or in the case of landscape photographers disturb roosting or more important nesting birds. Though from experience it’s those with dogs and casual walkers that do most harm when it comes not just to disturbing roosting birds but to disturbing ground nesting birds. At this time of year I see dog walkers ignoring all these various signs warning not to walk in a certain area especially with a dog marching though with a dog or dogs all off leash. Skylarks once common near where I live are now not to be found because of the pressure on the landscape from dog walkers. Human behaviour in general is just not conducive for wildlife.
yup ..... dogs and cats out in nature is an absolute disaster
Not all of us "wildlife" photographers do it for possible fame and glory. I do it to document and submit images to sites like iNaturalist and eBird to document the presence of fauna and flora, and sensitive fauna/flora (e.g. endangered) may have their geolocations obfuscated on purpose to hide the location. But ultimately, we photograph wildlife to have a hopefully lasting record of said wildlife before populations are lost due to environmental change. The article quotes "extremely rare and shy bird breeding on their land": well, WHAT ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF COMMUNITY SCIENTISTS LIKE OURSELVES WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TIME AND ENERGY INTO DOCUMENTING WILDLIFE BEFORE IT IS GONE?!?!?!? Why doesn't Ivor Rackham include mention of people like us?!?!?!?!?
Probably because the point of the article is to point out harm and try to get people to change behavior.
I do find that this article emphasizes the negative, and includes almost nothing positive. It's like a 90% / 10% split. I prefer to be more positive with my thought life.
I think that, collectively, wildlife photographers are a great group of people with a lot of joy and appreciation and love for the subjects that they photograph! That fact should receive 90% of our focus and emphasis.
Sadly, I have to agree with Ivor and in my experience, many WL photographers (like any people) are clods to other people as well as threatening to WL.
Thanks for the insight.
The problem with wildlife photography, and photographers causing damage to the enviroment, is a problem of numbers, which are in fact a small subset of the hugely more numerous numbers of those who need that bucket list shot to post to social media. Social media encourages people to visit those "iconic" spots for that "iconic shot", whilst certain camera companies have worked hard to publish the landscape and nature photographer as an exiting lifestyle.
Serious photographers probably cause a very small part of the environmental damage that tourism causes.
I believe it is the "anorak" "birders" who create mayhem when some poor rare bird turns up in the UK at least. Doesn't most bird photography involve hides and stuff, with minimal disturbance to the wildlife.
As for wedding photography, social media and glossy magazines as well as a well oiled "wedding industry" have transformed many wedding ceremonies into a circus, with the photographer expected to produce far more than was once the case. BTW. How many people ever look at these wedding photo albums after the heat of the moment.
It is the same question of "numbers" which make visiting places like Florence or Venice, a voyage into Dante's inferno for most of the year.
So am I supposed to believe fashion photographers are responsible for anorexia now? What about the companies that hired them, asked them for particular images, and approved their work?
No, of course not!
We are only responsible for the things that are a DIRECT result of our actions. If something bad happens indirectly as a result of our actions, then we are not the one(s) responsible.
INaturalist allows one to conceal location data for photos of threatened and endangered species of both plants and animals.
When I started in photography (seems like I'm still starting), my wife gave me a book on bird photography. It points out the need to be careful, be respectful and mindful of the birds and their habitat, etc. I once met a photographer who was a nature photographer. She said he does a lot of crawling and hiding. Told me a change of clothes is a must.
Unfortunately we live in a world now where people feel they can do as they please, and will argue the point when caught. This is a special breed of person that believes they alone are allowed to ignore fences and signs that tell them to keep away. Usually they're from California (not really).
It's not necessarily entitlement, more often it's lazy ignorance. Reading (and ignoring) a sign that says "don't cross" is easy. Reading why you shouldn't requires effort. And you can sometimes see the formula clicking into action. I will ignore that sign because I spent $X thousand on my vacation - and what I want to do appears to be harmless fun.
Exactly. It is interesting to see the tourons (new term combing tourist and moron) on Youtube and in still photos ignoring signs regarding wildlife in Yellowstone NP. Buffalo do roam, sometimes over people.
I was recently at a wedding... and being a photographer myself. I understand your point here about disturbing camera noise. However: With recent technology, especially the newer 'Electronic Shutter' technology. Even with my older Camera 'Electronic Shutter' was already on the cusp, and was built into its function. Newer camera's, which these photographers had, could very easily have switched to 'Electronic', so as not to disturb the program. Ex. The Canon R5 Mark II I don't think even has a Mechanical Shutter.
Now... Wildlife? I don't see your point. With Wildlife photography. You are generally using long-lenses at such a far distance, you are doing nothing to disturb the creatures you are taking photos of.