"Shouldn't you be asking them that?"
I would probably have found this a little funnier had I not spent the previous night poised over a relative's toilet bowl following an unfortunate reaction to a Chinese takeaway. My comedic advisor, however, probably assumed my dehydrated and tired appearance was the result of a late-night schmoozing session with a high-flying executive. I was, after all, in London.
I had ventured to the capitol to visit WildPhotos, an annual program of talks and debates where the Bence Mates of this world explain spending the last year blow-drying leaf cutter ants while Klaus Nigges justify dressing as a pelican and photographing urinating jet-skiers. If you are in any doubt that wildlife photographers are an odd bunch, this is the event for you.
Somewhere though between Chris Packham assaulting an Andy Rouse effigy with a super soaker and Stefano Untertheiner recalling his love for an albatross, the organisers somehow managed to find time to fit in a relatively sane debate on photographic ethics.
"Photographic Deceit: How far is too Far" was chaired by Mark Carwardine and began with a survey. The audience of professional and amateur photographers were asked to show their hands in response to a series of questions on baiting, captive subjects, editing, and captioning. The answers regarding baiting follow:
- 95% would leave food to attract birds.
- 70% would feed roadkill to a predator.
- 20% would feed a live mice to a wild owl.
The full results, which are available here, show starkly that everyone has an opinion on how far is too far but that everyone's opinion varies. Over the next hour, many valid points were raised and discussed but I think that wildlife cameraman Doug Allan summarised the mood best. He stated that photographers and cameramen should do only what they feel comfortable with and would be ready to defend, whilst being completely transparent.
Most delegates agreed that photographers are not necessarily the best people to judge their own actions but that they should make it possible for others to do so. This was included in a Ethics Declaration, available here, which many delegates (including me) agreed to sign and have since done so.
I, as a developer and user of the Exposing The Wild Captioning System, believe that the system is the simplest and most complete way of doing this available. However, if it is not for me to judge my own photographic actions, perhaps it is not best for me to judge my own captioning system. I will simply be fully transparent about my reasons for creating and using it and let others judge whether it is for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment