Politically Correct Photography

[army_of_one]

I think it comes down to what you're aiming at. What kind of story you want to tell with your image.

Whether it's documentary, photojournalism, or art the context of the person making the image is ultimately what matters. Of course, being a subjective medium the creator has to be prepared for the images reception.

 

[starfish2000]

I dont have a problem with re-enactment groups wearing swastikas as long as they are German WW2 re-enactment groups....if its the battle of Hastings or something....now that I would find offensive.

When I was in Prague in March I found a superb bit of show material to accompany Junkers watches....Is that the time?....I must invade Poland

Now now don't be Nazi....imagine seeing this in your local H Samuel

To be honest making something taboo just gives it more power and attraction to others, thats why our society is so fucked. We have a collection of people agonising over everything and a race to victimhood. Id rather we worry about our civil liberties being eroded now rather than will so and so be offended by a historically accurate photo of a re-enactment group. I mean I'm mixed Irish and Im not offended by people dressing up as Paddys or talking about the Potato famine.

Its just silly debating it....it happened, one of the darkest periods in History and we should discuss it, debate it , lambaste it and be silly and serious about it, but hiding Swastikas away from their historical context is just utter bollocks

 

[gamma globulins]

It's an interesting question. I took a couple of photos in a war museum a month or so ago, of some German WW2 memorabilia. One is of a helmet and dagger, close up.

It's not a great photo as photos go, not the worst either, but when deciding if I'd edit it and put it up on flickr, etc, I stopped to think: was I putting it up for its merit as a photo, or because of the subject matter, and if it was the latter, was it an appropriate thing to do?

It's an internal discussion that I wouldn't have had for many other photos of other subjects.

In the end, I didn't upload the photo.

I think I'd probably agree with your decision, though I also have a bit of a rule of minimal photography in churches, cathedrals, museums etc. I might take one or two shots, but for the most part, as these places survive on foot traffic, I'd rather take fewer photos and be motivated to go back, than to take loads and feel like I'd exhausted the setting.

The one exception for this was in Peterborough cathedral recently where they had a photography charge of £2, which I thought was a bit steep (TWO POUNDS!), so I made the most of it and probably won't go there with a camera again for quite a few years.

 

[stowpirate]

The one exception for this was in Peterborough cathedral recently where they had a photography charge of £2, which I thought was a bit steep (TWO POUNDS!), so I made the most of it and probably won't go there with a camera again for quite a few years.

I just ignore these money grabbing scams. With mobile phone cameras it is unenforcible and what can they do? Get the camera police to arrest you or confiscate your camera - I doubt it. Most rural churches are happy for you to photograph inside and out and will even lend you a key to open up church. Or the dedicated key holder will open the church for you without any charge or a feeling you have to contribute in any way, they are just happy for your interest. So what is really driving this charging culture? I suspect pure greed which is very un-Christian?

 

[gamma globulins]

Well, maybe if they were making a profit. I suspect that the cost of keeping the damn thing from falling to pieces makes them desperate for every penny they can get. Usually I leave a few quid in the upkeep box, but this time I considered the photography charge the same thing and didn't leave anything extra.

Just wish I'd had my tripod with me, it's dark as f*ck in there.