To Pay or Not To Pay... The Culture is The ?

We tend to be moralistic about money, as if a financial transaction somehow tarnishes the supposed purity of journalism. The media pay for stories; they pay sources; they pay for access; they give money to political campaigns. They are supposed to pay photographers.

If the Kathmandu temple folks said you were supposed to bring an offering of bananas and coconuts, would that make a difference? Is it just the fact that cash is involved, and not some other consideration, that makes this seem like a moral decision and not a practical one?

I probably wouldn’t pay money to photograph an individual in a private setting (that would be more a pride issue for me than a moral one), but I do understand that other cultures aren’t squeamish about asking for money for such transactions.

oh yes, you are right. if you pay you lose.
Respectability, graveness and in the end the story.

But of course sometimes its hard to stand, when people are so poor.
But I am trying to find other ways of thankfulness (and me be something like guilt)

Thanks Preston and Kai…

It would eat me up inside if I had felt like I had to “pay to get in”.

Kai: The thing is, there are poor people all around the Kathmandu Valley, but its usually these higher profile religious figures that I am referring to that are in no way poor. Thats probably what gets me the most. I see all the poor people paying them for these blessings and hope, but yet it is another way for the temple to gain even more wealth and upward mobility.

But thats another story, and certainly an opinion!

Every time you pay a fixer for their time and knowledge – you pay for access.
How is this different?

it’s a well trodden path…a photographer (with an expensive digital camera and lenses worth much more than many people in this part of the world make in many years of backbreaking work) is asked for a ‘contribution’ or ‘donation’…it’s your choice: you can either pay for access and get the images you need, or you don’t and you don’t get access. i usually try to avoid paying, but try to offer other things such as fruits, flowers, etc…pens, whatever that doesn’t really have the smell of cash to it. sometimes all it needs is just a few words of conversation. 60% of the time it works…the other 40%? i pay or walk away.

Hi Rene

Pure curiosity: who you wanted to photograph?

I’ve been here for a long time and might say something that makes sense if I know who it was/will be.

Cheers Tom

I’m shocked that the question is asked, and by these answers. You get access without paying, or whatever it is that you are doing is worthless in regards of being journalism!

how much? ten dollars or even a hundred might be OK depending on what you get. a thousand would be outrageous.

sometimes, paying is the ethical thing to do rather than the reverse. as in, you’re supposed to photograph a museum, or a rock concert. you could show your press pass and they’ll let you in for free, give you the run of the place, take you up to the VIP dining room for lunch. sometimes that’s fine, and great. but other times, if you just stand in line and buy a ticket with the masses, you get a better idea of what the “real” experience is like.

same with your Hindu religious figure here. everybody else in Nepal has to make an offering to see the guy, get his blessing, whatever. why shouldn’t you? you think that because you’re a “journalist” this exempts you from what is considered normal behavior? don’t be a fool. this question is potentially as silly as that other thread where it was asked if images from an already-published photo shoot could or should be used by a defense attorney in a trial.

it seems to me that a lot of these “ethical” debates on lightstalkers lately are either deliberately provocative/devil’s advocate bait to start crazy flame wars, or that some of the contributors are incredibly naive. since when does being a photographer or journalist mean that you should check your native intelligence, common sense, and rational judgment at the door? we are not talking about the rare, excruciating moral dilemma. like i said, if it’s a thousand dollars somebody wants simply for access, that’s corrupt and probably illegal, and should not be paid. but a small “donation” or “offering” or “bribe” — of a few dollars — are you really going to lose sleep over this kind of thing?

haven’t you ever given money to somebody you photographed? because they were in a bad situation and you wanted to help…in other words, it’s OK to be the nice, condescending colonial power extending and volunteering your largesse, but not if the poor subject is bold and craven enough to ask for it? or is it OK if they ask nicely? and giving baby formula is OK but not vodka?

that’s why, these days, I just give out cigarettes. that’s right. this is assuming medicine and cooking oil they can get from MSF and WFP, that is. but nobody’s handing out cigarettes any more, because they’re bad for you. of course they are. but guess what? in much of the world, during or after a disaster or a war, what do you really want if you are a smoker? Cigarettes! Are you contributing to lung cancer? sure. but you’re also making the recipient happy in a way that an NGO cannot, precisely because you are offering a LUXURY and NOT a necessity. which may show that you actually give a damn about somebody’s state of mind, rather than claiming to save the world for them.

If you are going to him, on your behalf and not at his invitation then there is to be an exchange of some kind, in this case money. Otherwise, what in it for him. It’s actually a very simple issue, before you think of ethics or social justice, or relative morality (yours vs the other) or even the chip on your shoulder or journalistic values. You know how many photogs there are in the world who come to India to get pics? If you want someone to do something for you, you gotta do something for them, ie; show respect in a method they value. Cash, fags, lollies, whatever. I don’t like it sometimes either, but that has got nothing to do with it.

while i appreciate your point, alan, i cannot help but find the dichotomy you introduced to be rather restrictive and usefully black/white. if i don’t give a damn about somebody’s state of mind the automatic alternative is the extreme opposite, i.e., naive altruism?

i don’t nitpick. it’s just that you make a point worth considering but as you know, these things are rarely so simple.

i agree with alan on one point: that we are people first and that this label of “journalists” or “photographers” must not serve as a white card to not participate in the societies and cultures we visit and document. have you tried making one or two visits without your camera?

while some people do no see the clear distinction of “prints” and “money”, i do. you can’t buy anything with a print, in the most basic terms. have you thought of giving them prints to show your willingness to go with the flow, but not the cash flow? all situations vary and should be approached as such, but i firmly believe our personal integrity and quality of character comes through in our initial approaches and in our final photographs.

personally i would not write a check to anyone i’m photographing. i would rather not have access at all than to have access i found to be somehow cheapened to a performance and fictionalized. i would rather spend my time, compassion and ingenuity than my cash money. in some situations, this is not possible and i have heard of photographers arguing you are “taking up their time and so the subject requires compensation”, to which i disagree entirely. you are not buying their time or photograph, you are documenting a subject matter that in many ways, requires honesty and integrity on your part to win over in order to produce the most intimate and revealing photographs possible. this exchange of time for money is distasteful. i would rather struggle to find an alternative.

you can’t buy hard work.

oh, and the day i pay to work is that day i do a reality check.

open minds, open hearts.

Still waiting for Rene to tell who she wants to photograph….and give her advice on what to do in her situation.

Rene, is it these crazy Sadhus and Babas in Pashupatinath? LOL

‘oh, and the day i pay to work is that day i do a reality check’

I pay to work every day: cameras, computers, telephone. The question is what is the return on the investment? Just try to get a receipt.

‘i would rather spend my time, compassion and ingenuity than my cash money’

Sometimes you just have to accept that your (my,our) compassion, time, prints, documentation etc. don’t count for shit in some people’s lives and that they might just need money to survive. In certain situations, not giving some in return for what you take would be indecent…

(Quoting Mustafah’s post for convenience only: this is not directed towards him specifically).

david, while you’re absolutely right that prints “don’t count for shit in some people’s lives” you must also take into account the realistic limitations of our profession. after all, why make photographic documentation then if you concern is individual well being? medicine would probably be a more direct career path.

I suppose it’s a question of the general and the particular: let’s say I do a story on the relationship between poverty and mental health disorders (in fact, I just did). I do believe that the pictures might help raise awareness of the issues covered but I doubt they will have much immediate impact on the lives of the people I have photographed. As I am being paid for my work and could not do it without the cooperation of individuals who are in pretty dire straits, occasionally it seems appropriate to make some concrete gesture of support, not least because I couldn’t bear to hear myself defending a vague and theoretical greater good. Does that make sense?

Well, let me just say that I certainly did not start this as an attempt to start an ethical war. It stems from a conversation that I was having with a writer that is working here in Nepal. It was really just a question or a poll to see where the lines are and to seek a little advice on all of the grey that is in the world that we sometimes perceive as black and white.

I am interested to see though that everyone does have varied opinions and I was having varied opinions in the midst of the conversation that I was having with that writer. That is why I started the post.

I started out with an immediate response of “Im not paying for access” and then went in circles with my thinking and rationalizing for the next half an hour.

I am still not sure how I really feel about the situation. It is just a nominal amount of money. It is an offering that anyone else would be expected to give for an audience with that person and on some level that makes me think, why am I any different.

Its just that in classes and in conferences all of these ethics get drilled into your head about what to do and not to do and the world is not so simple. This isn’t the west. This isn’t some high level political figure who’s palm I would be greasing.

But yet I am not going there to receive any sort of blessing either.

And no, certainly not the frigging sadhus at pashupati. I would starve and never take another photograph before I ever gave them a dime. Actually I just never want to take their photos period. But I still think the guys on the streets in India are much more relentless.

Tom—- Im pm’ing you and taking this off list. I got a couple of ?s for ya.

Sorry to cause such a stir with the whole thing. Didn’t think that this thread would be accused of purposely starting some sort of dramatic thread of fire. Certainly not my intentions and I hope I am not excommunicated because of it :)

@david: you mean that theoretical greater good you did the story for in the first place?

She fel into a burning thread of fire,…lol

Good luck with it!

@ Mustafah, yes – very theoretical, fairly tongue in cheek…

then wouldn’t you think that if your desire is to remedy immediate wrongs, that you’re perhaps in the wrong profession? by your own admission, and many would agree, photography does not maintain the ability to immediately help those subjects we may want to help.

it’d be quite silly for a doctor doing work with, say, sick patients, to become angry at himself for being unable to inform a lot of people through photographs. his manner of work allows him immediate and somewhat more direct interaction and to view his work in the same light as ours is quite ridiculous. we are not doctors, nor are any one of us the immediate catalyst for change in every subject we point our camera at. sometimes we can be, sometimes we cannot. and so we must all do our part in informing and enlightening in our individual capacities and skill levels without using this argument against immediate solution as an argument to pay subjects and, possibly, falsify situations and promote photographs of murky truth.

and whomever factored paying for photographs with the cost of doing business, i would take another look at my bottom line if i were you. those things should be compensated by your income in some way. hence, working.

Mustafah, my point, more clearly (I hope): sometimes giving money to people you are photographing is the most appropriate thing to do.
Because it is immediate, concrete, and probably of more use to the person concerned than (at least my) photographs ever will be.
I would accept that my position is born from extreme scepticism: I believe most photographs benefit those who commission, make and consume them, far more than those depicted.
I also believe that the vast majority of pictures produced don’t really ‘inform and enlighten’ anyone. At least in the short term.
There are exceptions. Sometimes those who consume the photographs are in a better position to lever change for those depicted than they would be themselves.
But you can’t count on it.
You can, however, count on a loaf of bread, so to speak.
This is just my point of view.
It’s got nothing to do with remedying wrongs. It’s to do with trying to be a ‘mensch’, for lack of a better word.
And I also believe that there is no such thing as an ‘unfalsified’ situation…

PS
Re-reading, I think I’m pretty much with Alan Chin on this one.
One last point: in some parts of the world, giving money is part of elementary courtesy, a way of saying you appreciate and care about the person.

*Mustafah. it’s written right there.

i think you underrate the value of informational awareness in a society’s collective consciousness. there is great work being done by people in all fields and it’s critical to remain optimistic about these matters in the face of continued cynicism.

i agree with you on your point that often times the photographer benefits far more than those depicted, but that is another discussion and another story, as well as the value of food and water to people going with out. and while you can count on a loaf of bread, change requires more than giving out bread or coins, it requires a shift of paradigm as well as supply in order to foster a shift in direction.

you know, feed a dude for a day, teach him to feed himself. i would have no hesitation giving food to someone hungry if i had it, but not in exchange to profit from his predicament. the character and intent of the photographer must remain of the highest caliber. it’s a small nuance that matters little to many, but much to me. if we let extreme skepticism color our every judgment, then we smother any chance for being our personal best.

Apologies, spelling mistake corrected!

can an african cast a stone into this pond, i work in an area where there is less then the average western waste bin. i do not pay for pics. what i do rather is make an anon donation some sort be it clothing etc some other way later to the greater community in which i work. j.

Just for reference, to cover the John McCain campaign for a month, which includes travel on the Straight Talk Express bus and his plane, to have food and access to the internet, your media organization is expected to shell out about $50,000 per person:

http://tsv.live.mediaspanonline.com/ET/story/080814FRIEDIT

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2008/06/23/digitalcity.qp-5807963.sto

seems to be the norm, pretty crazy nonetheless. makes it hard for a freelance without big backing to make it.

I can not afford those prices for getting ‘access’ after I just bought that new Leica M8.2 and that cute 50mm f/0.95.

hi tvc. you joke i hope. j.

Litle joke

As a Fixer and Line Producer, I have been faced with situations which were extremely tough, got almost blown away by bombs in Kashmir and sometimes, the extreme pressure the person hiring you puts on you.

Recently for a project, we were finding it difficult to officially get in to get our story. Well, it was extremely important for us to get the story out and we had an option…pay the security guard just $20 and he would look away for an hour.

So, what was important here? Be ethical and let the story be buried to the outside world or pay? I guess it all depends on the story you are telling.

In another incident, we had to interview a whole family for a day and they obliged. We being with them the whole day robbed them of that particular days wages. So I paid them $10 which is the whole family’s combined income for a day. Is is wrong? Obviously no.

As long as every journalist knows that when the story comes out and it will do a greater good, he won’t mind paying for access. If its a story which just sells makes money for the publisher but won’t contribute towards social change….well..why not pay 1/10000th of the money you and your publisher make to these guys anyway!

Uday, you made a good point before following it up with a categorically sketchy one.

All situations are not the same and must be treated as such. Any view that remains set in black & white in a world shaded in grays will either not last very long, or doom the viewer to incomplete and possibly dangerous conclusions.

“In another incident, we had to interview a whole family for a day and they obliged. We being with them the whole day robbed them of that particular days wages. So I paid them $10 which is the whole family’s combined income for a day. Is is wrong? Obviously no.”

No matter what you insist, by doing that, you paid for their time and in that time, you performed something that benefited your objective (photos, interview, whatever) and so in the absolute sense of logic, you paid $10 to photograph or work. Try to keep in mind that $10 is a paltry sum in respects to hundreds made by selling prints or essays, so it’s almost a bit of mockery, even if unintentional. Just because you pay a street beggar $0.25 cents to take this picture doesn’t make you any higher or any mightier than anyone else, or even “obviously” justified, as you mentioned. That’s ridiculous.

You paid for pictures and thus negated a step some find to be important: character.

That is not to say you lack character. Rather, it’s to say that the force of your character and ingenuity should not be reduced to a mere exchange of money. Could you not give a gift of food or clothing that would imply your empathy but not your readiness to pay out for pictures? And tell me, should this practice become common place in that area of the world, how might this create blowback for other photographers who may not share your vision of “obvious” righteousness?

And for those who would argue otherwise: there is a clear difference between gifts and paying money for something. It’s one of the reasons you can’t buy Apple laptops with farm animals.

I have just one more point: did the family oblige once you told them you’d pay them or did they do it without your offering money?

Well, to be specific…we did not pay for the pictures. In fact they refused to accept money but we insisted cos we did not want to rob the family out of their one days wages. And obviously buying gifts would not feed that family.

On the other side, when we paid the security guard, it was more important for us to get the story out as it would cause awareness and might change a little bit about how people think…So…we definitely did not lose character by paying money there.

My point is…as long as the story / people are genuine and you are not “creating” something by paying money, its completely okay to pay for someone’s time and services.

We can try to be moralistic and self righteous about this but out in the real world, what counts is survival and every opportunity to feed someone.

I find it stupid to give people gifts instead of money. This is trying to cover our ass and think we have this halo on our head when we still know deep inside that we are bribing them…but yeah…I am giving them gifts and not money so I get to go to heaven and not hell. Who are we trying to fool?

Money helps. Everyone needs money. Especially the people you are covering for your stories. Buy gifts to your nephews and nieces for Christmas or Eid or whatever you celebrate. Let those people decide what they want to do with that money.

That sounds like a blatant cop-out to avoid actually spending time coming up with different ways to approach your subjects that can be respectful of them while also not reducing yourself to a rent-a-photographer. You’re spending your time working, should you not be compensated?

Your method of parting with money in various situations doesn’t bode well for developing alternative methods. Sure, sometimes the situation doesn’t give you much leeway and you’ve got deadlines, etc. etc., but since you propose giving money because you’re taking up their time, in essence, makes you paying for their day. Therefor, paying them for their time and since the time is spent photographing, paying them for their picture. I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about this.

Also, have you considered that by giving money or having that “understanding” between you and your subject, they may be inclined to do or not do stuff they otherwise would’ve if you came as a person interested in them first, photographer second? I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to consider this possibility…

Would you pay the day rate of a celebrity or someone who wasn’t impoverished to photograph them, because you are still taking up their time? Highly unlikely. And so your high horse isn’t really that high, dude.

It’s not all about money. And realistically, it’s not all about photographs. I could care less what you do with your money, mate, but keep in mind that when you set your camera down, when you’re not photographing, it’s who you are that’s important, and what you do that defines your character. I don’t seek to preach and have no desire to, so take this as you will.

It’s just my opinion that how we conduct ourselves without a camera directly reflects how we conduct ourselves with a camera, and thus, how our subjects perceive us and ultimately how intimate our photographs are able to be.

Cheers, dude.

mustafah,

i have avoided this conversation for a while because i know your stance all to well. its commendable how you stand by your beliefs, as i recall you said you would not do a job that would require payment. you would tell the editor you weren’t their man.

but one must assume you have never experienced real poverty if you think money doesn’t matter. the sum of $10 was not random or some sort of mockery,

“Try to keep in mind that $10 is a paltry sum in respects to hundreds made by selling prints or essays, so it’s almost a bit of mockery”

the $10 was to compensate the family for missing a day of work, it stood for the wages they lost in taking the time to be with the photographer. many people don’t make enough money to be able to take a day off of work to hang out with their new friend, they work so they can make just enough to survive. asking them to skip work and buying them lunch which costs $1 seems a bit hypocritical from the elevated equestrian.

" I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about this. " part of the problem with boolean logic is that it is hard to understand other peoples point of view with.

i happen to agree that money can tarnish relationships and have as of yet given any to anyone but its important to understand that their are exceptions to every rule. we are not all computers dealing with binary thinking, the world isn’t divided into good and evil or those on horses and off.

try to have an open mind, “dude”

Mustafah,

Where did I ever say that you always have to spend money for your work? I just mentioned two instances where I did have to pay money.

1. The story was too important to neglect (Important to the society) so I don’t see anything wrong in paying for access.

2. When we had to be with this family and photograph them, we never discussed money initially nor they wanted to accept it. But during the course of the day and the interview, when we found out the abject poverty they were living in and how we robbed them of a days livelihood, it is but natural for us to compensate them. In fact, they took exactly the amount they would have earned that day and not a penny more. They could have easily asked for more and we could have given that too but it did not happen.

So…the original question was…To Pay or Not to Pay…I am sure we are endowed with enough intelligence and compassion to make that decision when the situation arises. For the kind of work we are in, compassion is more important than just logic.

@sascha:

i fully understood what the $10 signified and contrary to your assumption—and without going into too much detail—your assumption on my background is not as accurate as you might hope.

keep in mind i did not say that my solution was to “ask them to skip work and buy them lunch.” that’s an over simplification of my point of view, which you insist is not “open minded”. ironically enough, having made that simplification strikes me as particularly hypocritical.

but you are right in that we are not computers dealing with binary thinking. i believe i mentioned how we work in a world that’s shaded in grays and while i understand that not all situations call for the same solution (again, read my above posts), i have a certain amount of core principles that i think are the best i can work with right now. i’m not right in all instances, nor am i wrong in all instances: just like everyone else.

sounds pretty open minded to me.

@uday:

i didn’t say “always spend money” but was trying to point out the detrimental nature of continually doing this. you gave me two examples and that’s all i have to respond on. after all, i don’t know you and i don’t know how you work beyond what you told me in those two instances. please don’t take what i said the wrong way.

photographs have the unfortunate predicament of being unable to immediately assist the people we photograph, but that is not enough. i believe that as human beings, we have in ourselves the extraordinary ability to go beyond the jobs we do to help our fellow man. i have no problem with giving if i have something, for all the material things in this world can be replaced.

with this in mind, i only have a problem with paying someone who is of a financial disadvantage so that i could make photographs of them. i’ve found myself in your particular situation more than once and weighed the pros and cons of doing such a thing. so instead of making pictures, i helped them in their work for the day and eventually made friends with people i otherwise would’ve seen only through a viewfinder. actually, they invited me to come back and take pictures but i had to travel elsewhere.

i would still refuse to pay them to photograph them with your arguments considered. that is my principle and that is what i tried to say here. nothing more, nothing less.

wish you all the best, dude.

Rene, according to me, I would simplify things.

You SHOULD pay if

1. The story is very important for the outside world and cannot be ignored because of access money.

2. The time he gives you affects his that particular day’s livelihood and causes any economic losses to him.

3. You / Your employer are making shit loads of money on this assignment.

Well, that’s my opinion…

I tend to agree on Uday. If you are dealing with someone who is strugling for life daily, I don’t think there will be much understanding for the fact that your pictures maybe change “the situation” somewhere in the future. That promise is worth nothing when your kids are hungry that night.

WTF!!!!!

I am completely with Uday!

Uday, dont defend yourself cos you know you are right!

Let me tell you this you alien “credit-geeks” attacking Uday for his humane behavior: What we do in this part of town is visiting people that sort out rice out of garbage!

What are you then otherwise? A friendly asshole?

OK, bit of hard languange now I read it again….but it is a strong message so I leave it there! Never forget you are the fortunate!

fuckin photocapitalictic RATS

Hey Durda!

“fuckin photocapitalictic RATS” …Are you with Uday or not?

1) Compensate for loss.
2) Reward for co-operation proportionate to the benefit your derive from it.
3) When you can, give money to people who need it. Provide something of use. In doing so you will also be respectful, giving them credit for knowing what they require, rather than imposing what you think they should have.
4) El que paga queda libre (apologies for any spelling mistakes).

Discussion closed!

Sunita was about to die when I met her…she was dead the next day.

Her brother and sister were guarding her aside her bed though they had no money…I gave them a buck (or anything between nothing and a litle bit, I dont remember!) Shame on me now!

Then Sunita died!

The real story is that she came from an extreme backward community. Sunita’s big belly was not cos she was pregnant but cos she had acsites….loads of water in the belly!

All people in the village thought she was pregnant so they tortured her…a lot……nearly they killed her cos they wanted to find out who the father was!

After being ‘pregnant’ and ‘tortured’ for over 13 months…she was brought to hospital….and died…her bro and sis will never forget how they beat her up … how they kicked her to tell who the father once was (who was never there cos there was no father at all and she only suffered ascites – just liters of water in the abdomen).

The bro and sis cremated their dead sis in KTM and then hung around cos they had no money to go back to their remote house.

I gave them 10 euros to get back to their remote village…though they killed their own sis by torture…It was such a heartbreaking scene…

LINK TO IMAGES: http://www.lightstalkers.org/galleries/slideshow/15858

Cheers Tom

Did I breack any journo rules here?

@Jereon: While those situations are unfortunate—and i’d whole heartedly embrace the notion of helping out my fellow man in the manner I’m capable of—is it really your responsibility to take on each and every burden of your subject matter? We photograph, not operate surgery wards. This isn’t an excuse not to help people and should not be viewed as such. My point: if you truly wish to have such a immediate and prolonged impact, perhaps medicine or some similar occupation is more suited for you?

Lastly, I’m sorry if this runs too long…

We are human beings first, citizens second and photographers last, if at all. We are not American and European photographers; we are human beings who happen to have been conceived in countries of which we had no choice. We must shed these identifiers in light of a singular question: how can we, as human beings, use our photographs to better mankind while also progressing ourselves in a reasonable and adequate lifestyle?

One need not sacrifice the other. This question, of how we may best fulfill our responsibility to our fellow humans while also sustaining ourselves, comes with it a great many variables that must be answered on a personal level for each and every photographer. But there are some things that can be applied to all situations.

The achievement of financial success and critical acclaim must not be our sole objective. These goals are limited in their communal uses and only serve to hinder our true potential. Rather, these goals must be recognized as a tools, much as our cameras are tools, so we may further the range of our work, the eyes that see it and the impact they may have.

If, to say, we wish to enter a photography contest that maintains the status quo but allows us to move our careers ahead, we must be critical in our evaluation and flexible in our reasoning. We must recognize the flaws and benefits of this while using a scale that does not leave us bitter and excluded.

In many ways, photography is not a direct help to those we photograph.

To travel to conflict zones and refugee camps to take pictures of starving people and proceed to declare we are entirely “helping” these people is disingenuous and reeks of ethnocentrism. Unless you give that subject medical aid, water or food, a photograph has the unfortunate predicament of being unable to directly assist that person. Furthermore, if those photographs win awards and accolades, then we must ask ourselves, who truly is the benefactor? Who is helping whom?

But we need not discard the structures in place before us. The college and business institutions of photography, that of education and commerce, have given us a template to use in furthering ourselves and our craft. We must not be afraid to evaluate the old and accept the new. In the same respect, we must also be fearless in our self-criticism, whether as an industry or as an individual. Awareness of oneself, of our own strengths and weaknesses, will increase the ultimate quality of our work and thus, increase the effectiveness our photographs will have. But to hide behind the title of photographer or journalist in order to avoid helping people we photograph is ludicrous. We are human beings first and foremost, and everyone, no matter the country, race, or creed, are our brothers and sisters.

This predicament is not black and white. But to fully appreciate this dichotomy, we must be willing to face uncomfortable questions and avoid acting reactionary in fear of somehow disrespecting the status quo in photography. If reason is to prevail, then a healthy debate is vital.

I think imposing your own personal views above the customs of the country you are visiting is rude, but there is a balance that can be maintained that respects both parties. It’s not concrete and it’s not black & white. If we strive to do the best possible thing as much as we can, that is the most we can hope for. Sometimes the conditions may change, but through personal character, humility and reason, we all can come to conclusions for each particular situations that upholds some of our values while not leaving our subjects exploited and used. That is what I attempt to do.

Over the year I have been photographing a group of Vietnamese immigrants at their makeshift shrine. It took months of visiting with the nuns and their congregation to get them comfortable enough with me to bring the camera out. Every time I made a visit I brought an offering of fruit, prints of the outside statues ect. I had to pay for the fruit and in a sense pay for the prints. I think that giving an offering of money would be completely fine. I think its a personal choice that really depends on your own personal ethics, yet you still need to put in the hard work that allows you to gain access. The most important thing is to get the images needed for your story and that might include paying for it.

Mustafah,

I understand what you are saying and respect your views.

I agree that we do not operate surgery wards and it is not within our grasp to take the burden of our subject matter.

You also say that to give an immediate relief, we should have become doctors. Well…let me point out one thing…

Okay, it is not the mandate of photographers to provide immediate relief but do you agree that it is not their mandate to cause any temporary personal losses to the subjects too?

Let people decide what is best for them to do. As you have some strong views about a particular issue, other people will have their own.

Photographers develop certain views based on their experience and life. It is wrong to strike down someone else’s POV because of our own biases.

Each situation demands a unique action. What that action is, comes from our experience. When we are in a drought zone, we will definitely not get online or take our books to read the do’s and don’ts of photographers ethics, but rely on our instinct.

Why is this stuff so complicated for some people? I agree it’s a very loaded topic and most of the posts above have some merit and the decision to pay/give whatever is influenced by the people involved, the story itself, your own attitude, but we impose ourselves (as largely western PJs travelling in Asia etc) who are relatively privileged compared to the people we photograph.
In the end, we do what we think we have to do to ‘get’ the pic. And individuals are free to choose the method. Also my belief in PJism’ s responsbility to the truth, my empathy, sympathy, or other high-minded feelings mean SFA to the ragpicker on the street here in Delhi so if I give him a dollar or whatever then I’m giving him a great deal more respect than many other Indians would. Am I using him? Of course. Am I selfish? Yep. Do I do other things like charity work that helps in other ways? Sure I do. But one day I might just get a photo that makes a difference to someone, I agree that that is a very long shot for many reasons but I still feel compelled to take pictures of the world around me.