Years ago, when I went in for a colonoscopy, I brought a very quiet film camera (Hexar Classic) with me and hid it under the platform they put you on to do the procedure. Somewhere along the line they rolled that into the recovery room.
Groggy, but with that absolute fanatical obsession that haunts street photographers, I took pictures of the patients, the nurses, and whatever I could that I was surrounded by while waiting to go home. It's long enough in the past that I feel comfortable posting a few of them now.
My poor doctor, who I loved, is gone. One day I called the office only to find out that he was "gone" but no one would tell me about the circumstances.
When my dad was in the hospital, I did ask his permission, and took many pictures of him. Of course the nurses and doctors told me that it wasn't allowed, but I did it anyway when they weren't looking.
My father had the same feeling about photography – that if it was there – and part of life – it was okay. It might even be important in the future.
Yes – this shot invades a woman's privacy – and though it's not flattering – it's also just a matter of fact shot of my own point of view from my bed.
It's quite beautiful.
Is this the konica silent motor drive? I had one…twice that I sold and I regret it….twice. Stunning image
I thought about doing something like that, but ten seconds after the doctor gave me the "milk" I was gone…You were brave to stay awake!
Agreed. Beautiful and stunning in its utter, unapologetic reality capturing a moment we all fear but almost universally experience. Your father had it right.
Okay but one wonders how the people you took shots of feel about it? I know when I had my BIG fall several years ago and spent some time in ICU I for one did not feel like having my picture taken. I was even upset with my wife for taking a shot of me when they wheeled me off the chopper and into the ER.
this is incredible indeed.
+Rod Warczak – this is a good opportunity for us to look into that aspect of street photography from 'the other side', as it were. Why did you not feel like having your picture taken? Was it the common reason of self consciuosly not being at your best or some other reason? I'm being serious here, lest there be any question.
+Dave Beckerman This is wrong on so many levels and weirdly voyeuristic at best. You're in a hospital! I for one would be pissed off if I found an image of myself on a public site that had been captured with out my permission.
That you seem proud of the fact that you sneaked in a camera and photographed people in recovery with their consent or the consent of the hospital is perhaps the worst bit for me.
Perhaps I could excuse it if were pictures of you in recovery.
(/rant)
photography, by it's nature, is voyeuristic
I've taken shots in hospitals before without any problems. I love your drive +Dave Beckerman !!
If someone with a camera had taken my picture while I was unconscious and it was done well, I would have been fine with it. But I wasn't going to hand the camera to the doctor and ask for a snapshot – it's not the same thing. Yes – this is on that "private" line which is why I posted it.
And yes it was the Hexar Classic with Silent Mode. Later they removed the silent mode because of some copyright thing. I had a very early model, like number 50 or something.
You can discuss whether this is "right or wrong" forever. My own take is that it is interesting exactly because it is on the line.
I think someone in recovery after a surgical procedure is entitled to a certain privacy which you violated here.
The nature of social documentary is that you are hopeful of righting a wrong. The nature of street photography is such that you pursue your own subjectivity. You have conflated the two into some self-serving hybrid that is purely voyeuristic. Not cool.
These people have every expectation of privacy, they are not in a public place, and they certainly did not give you permission to show their images in order for you to gain some kind of social capital points.
And, FWIW, this is not private dissemination. It's public, it's google, and it's searchable.
I'm not proud of this shot. I post it for the first time more than a decade after it was taken, to show that when I was doing this sort of work – I would routinely cross the line. A good question is, would I do it again?
Uhm… yeah, I would. But I'd wait ten or fifteen years before posting it (should I be lucky enough to live that long) or else when I'm gone as Walker Evans did with his subway series. (At least I think that's what he did.)
Of course now his secret subway shots are considered masterpieces.
Here's what I wrote up once about the street photography ethics:
https://plus.google.com/116247667398036716276/posts/G4sfeAzh1KQ
+Dave Beckerman. I suggest you delete this post.
With all the other photos you have I would think that you would not be compelled to post one of someone in a recovery room in a hospital. This is done in poor taste regardless of the amount of time that has gone by.
Why? It's an excellent post. The photo and the discussion, IMO
Even Arbus had limits – she didn't want her images of the hallowe'en party featuring adults in an institution to be shown, ever, but John Szarkowski put them in the public eye posthumously. You have a choice to stop yourself, knowing it's an invasion of privacy that serves no-one as anything other than what Barthes called the studium, a subject for the curious gaze.
+P E Sharpe – I disagree entirely. There are certainly plenty of examples of studium – it is what keeps the papparrazi in business after all. This image does not qualify to that standard. It is a far more important image that speaks truth to a very real human experience that otherwise cannot be effectively communicated. I am sympathetic to the matter of privacy. +Dave Beckerman did well to wait a decade before publishing it here, but it is an important image for the moment it conveys and should be displayed.
+Jim Sabiston I can't say I was particularly concerned with how I appeared although it was pretty bad. Nobody I know wants a picture taken of them when they feel awful much the less in a critical state in my opinion. My wife thought it might be interesting for me to see how I looked when I came in, well I know how I felt and that was bad enough.
+Jim Sabiston, human experience can be conveyed using knowing participants who have given their permission. These are not new ethical guidelines for photographing others.
I love it. plus you can barely see her face or tell who it is.
+Rod Warczak – Thank you for responding so honestly. I would tend to agree with your observation, I've been in the emergency room myself after a rather spectacularly stupid crash many years ago (I rode my bike head-on into a Buick going 50mph plus in the opposite direction – got off remarkably light considering!) and getting my picture taken was the last thing on my mind! Your wife sounds like a barrel of fun! ; )
Sorry to post and run, but I promised myself that I wouldn't get caught up in photo discourse. I broke my own promise! Have fun gnashing your teeth over this one, y'all. Cheers!
+P E Sharpe – I still disagree. You are correct of course in that something of the message/condition could be conveyed with a cooperative/participating subject, but it is a well known principle that the result of an experiment can be affected by the presence of the observer – to paraphrase. The same holds with street photography. The result is always different if the subject knows you are there. It is unavoidable. The unknowing capture is always the most true.
+Jim Sabiston The only import this image conveys here is the expropriation of another's private suffering to provide public kudos to +Dave Beckerman
I posted this to promote this discussion. I have posted hundreds, maybe thousands of images on G+ – and for the most part the comments fall into the "awesome, beautiful, fantastic" sort of thread, and I was curious to see what would happen if I posted an image that might engender more of a discussion – which this has.
I have pictures that fall into the Diane Arbus school in terms of subject that I've never posted. In fact many of her images are much more invasive to me then this shot is. I'll leave it at that – and I'm sure that this thread will disappear into G-world within 24 hours – if that.
Have a good week everyone and I'm glad to see this could be done without any name calling. That in itself is amazing to me.
Oh – and as to photographing people on the street. Although it is perfectly legal – and although you can say that people on the street in public places have no right to assume that their actions are private – that is all bull.
Whenever you do a candid without the persons permission – you are invading their privacy. That is the cost that the street photographer must live with in order to show what life is like.
+Jim Sabiston Well at least she hasn't disseminated the photo to everyone. She was pretty shocked at how bad I looked but one does not fall 30 feet onto a bunch of rocks and come out looking like a glamour boy. She is a blast though and I love her thoroughly despite rather bizarre ideas of what a great photo opportunity is.
I see nothing wrong with posting this pic. It is no worse than posting a pic of a homeless person trying to sleep on the sidewalk… better than seeing nudes. (Yes, nude is art, but honestly, I don't care to see it on here… no I don't report nudes, just hide them.) I wouldn't want my picture taken like that but if someone found my lying in a hospital bed as "art", gee, I guess I'd be flattered to a certain point, would still feel awkward, but no different than if someone took my pic on the street without me knowing it.
+Dave Beckerman I understand why you took the photos but I don't think this is the appropriate forum unless you have received permission from the subject even 10 years later. Even in street photography one should get at least verbal permission from a subject in my opinion.
+Lori Bush Exactly. When we photograph people on the street without permission – whether they are kissing or holding hands or homeless or making a call on their cell – whatever. We invade their privacy. As a street photographer it's something that you can admit and live with if you really believe you are doing something worth the price.
+Dave Beckerman "I'm glad to see this could be done without any name calling. That in itself is amazing to me."
This is my first debate on G+ and it is a good one. Thanks for being the catalyst. While I disagree with +Geoffrey Dunn and +P E Sharpe , their points are quite valid and even when we take these types of images, no – ESPECIALLY when we take these types of images we must be aware of and sensitive to those points. If I were to publish this image in a formal publication immediately after taking the shot, I would seek permission to do so. The passage of time likely removes some of the sharpness and immediacy from the subjects experience, but the power of the image and the truth it speaks remains.
+Rod Warczak Verbal permission for street photography – never. It won't happen. I wrote a pretty long post about that – but I don't know where it is now – but only someone who hasn't done street photography can say that (no offense). It simply isn't possible.
On the other hand – if you are talking about photojournalism – maybe that's different.
And as I've said a few times – I absolutely agree that you are invading someone's privacy – but it just can't be helped if you want to try and record unguarded, unposed, moments.
As a medical provider, I have a tough time with this shot. Yes, we can call it art. My issue is the privacy. What if she was told on this day that she had colon cancer and it was so widespread that she would not live? Does that make this photo any different?
I found this interesting write-up in regards to taking photos of patients.
http://medhum.med.nyu.edu/blog/?p=160
+Dave Beckerman Well I have received permission and if I haven't I don't use the photo. I guess my experiences have been different. I usually do take the picture first and then request permission to use it and also offer to send a copy via email if they like. Most folks have been flattered others have told me to take a hike. The only time I am not concerned about using a picture is when there is absolutely no way of identifying the subject. Being in public in my opinion does not necessarily give anyone the right to take a photo of you and use it. Speaking of kissing couples brings to mind someone's wife viewing her husband or someone's significant other with someone they do not know. The ramifications could be significant. Once again that is just my personal take on things like this.
+Dave Beckerman I disagree with your assertion that you posted this image to promote discussion on this topic. The intent of your post was to illustrate the lengths you would go to get a shot and to let show how cool you were for doing so … that is what I initially reacted to. A photograph is essentially context-less … I reacted to the context you provided … it certainly wasn't cool. Anyways, the debate does seem to have remained civilised … I applaud that.
Aww, poor lady.
One of your best promotions, but I'm not crazy about it…
+shannon myers Excellent article and thought provoking. If a medical provider feels this way I feel validated. Although I have worked closely with doctors for some years and realize that they are quite human as well I appreciate that for the most part they adhere to a very rigorous code of ethics and maintain the highest standards on a patient/ person's confidentiality.
+shannon myers & +Rod Warczak Not to mention their consent
+dave beckerman I believe that you posted this photo to stimulate conversation, that doesn't make it okay. The ends don't justify the means in this case.
I am part of that medical world and that role would probably have stopped you trying to sneak a photograph because that is the rule. However I would be tickled if someone took a picture of me in that vulnerable position
that makes me want to cry