Subjectivity and Ethics in Nonprofit Media

Yesterday I went with a guide and Erika to meander around Saint Louis du Nord and shoot some portraits of people in the community. I grabbed my ringflash and a couple of Speedlights, just for fun.

Saint Louis is not the easiest city to do walk-around shooting, so it was an adventure that stretched us all, to say the least. But I was pleased with the images we came away with.

As I was chimping through the portraits, I began feeling like I was staring at a textbook study in photojournalistic ethics. PJ ethics are not well understood by most people, and by writing about them I definitely risk labeling myself as a nerd. But since I think photo ethics apply as much (if not more so) to nonprofit organizations as they do to news agencies, it seems worth exploring a bit here.

First, two images in particular:





These portraits are similar, but obviously there is a big difference in the mood conveyed between the two. I personally like the second one because of the sense of drama and, well, I think most photographers are sort of drama queens.

But the question of which photo to publish involves more than just personal preference. Which image is more truthful? Which one is more respectful? And what mood should we be conveying with our images?

Visual Honesty
On the question of visual honesty, most photojournalists have a basic standard: The content of an image cannot be manipulated in Photoshop. That is, no removing from or adding to whatever was in the frame when you shot it. Obviously the lighting here is moody and not entirely "natural," but that's generally considered acceptable because it can all be done in the camera when you release the shutter. After all, even using a flash at all is not "natural," be we do it all the time.

But beyond the idea of manipulation, PJs begin to differ on what is ethical in terms of content, especially when portraits are concerned. I'll sum up my standard simply by saying that it's OK to "pose" someone or even use a prop (neither of which I did in this image), so long as it's not misleading to the viewer.

For example, I was recently trying to photograph a doctor treating a patient, and I was having trouble gaining access. Someone suggested I dress a bystander in scrubs and then "set up" a photo. For obvious reasons, to present viewers with an image of a doctor who is not in fact a doctor is, in my mind, misleading and unethical. I am not shooting commercial or stock photography -- this is real-life stuff with a documentary ethic. If I tell Northwest Haiti Christian Mission supporters that we treat sick people, then they deserve to see real photos of real doctors.

In the case of the photos above, I have to ask myself which expression is more representative of the girl's personality and culture? In this case I get off easy, because she seemed like a pretty happy girl, but she's also Haitian, and most Haitians don't smile in photos. They prefer a more serious expression.

Respecting People
Central to a Christian ethic of photography is a respect for your subject. Seems like it should go without saying, but there are plenty of PJs who have little or no regard for their subject's feelings. If someone clearly does not want me photographing them, I respect that. It happens a lot in Haiti. There are exceptions, but for me they really only apply when photographing people in times of great distress amid, for example, a public crisis of some sort. It is rarely appropriate to "sneak" photos of people after they have refused permission, because at that point it becomes voyeurism.

Now, that does not mean that a subject needs to be comfortable with me before I photograph them. There are lots of instances when a subject allows me to shoot but may never really be comfortable with that. That's OK with me, if their minor and fleeting discomfort is going to contribute somehow to the greater good. I'm never really comfortable at the dentist's office, but I still allow the dentist to do his or her job on my teeth.

Nor does respecting your subject's feelings mean there are never times to be aggressive in your photography. If it can be done respectfully -- and that is often a case-by-case judgement call -- then it seems appropriate.

Message
Finally, the issue of what message we send with our images is essential to consider, and is really the question that arises with the photos above.

Let's assume hypothetically that happiness equals being fed and well cared for.

If this girl is smiling in my photo, does it mean she's happy? And if she's happy, is this image a call to help her with international aid, or is it a call to celebrate the fact that she does not need help?

The question is relevant because I can get just about anyone to smile in a photo, even a poor, starving girl. But would it be responsible for me to capture a smile on the lips of a dying, victimized child?

And the opposite is also a valid question: If the girl looks serious, is she not happy? And if she's not happy, is the image a call for help with international aid? But if she is actually happy (and fed and well cared for), am I merely using her as a tool to manipulate Westerners to give money?

Theses are serious questions that all of us working with nonprofit media must answer, whether consciously or unknowingly. Unfortunately, I think we far too often see an image and immediately begin thinking about what we'll use it for, without considering the complete story.

And quite honestly, I'm not sure how I would answer my own questions about "Message" for the photos of this girl. I can only say that if and when the photo (or photos) is published, it should be done in a way that not only respects the subject, but also the viewers -- making sure that they have an honest set of information before them as they decide how to use their financial, spiritual, and physical resources.

A few other images from the day: