To Photograph or Not To Photograph...

It doesn't matter what sport you photograph, and sometimes it doesn't matter what genre of photography you're taking part in either, but there might come a time when you will stop and ask yourself: "Should I photograph this?"

Take this as an example: about a month ago, one of the team who plays on the D was taken out from behind. He hit the ice and lay there for some time. He was down and he was hurt. I didn't photograph it. Would you?

Or how about what happened to Richard Zednik? Back in 2008 he had his carotid artery cut open. They were down in the corner grinding it out when his team mate, Olli Jokinen, was up ended and Jokinen's skate blade made contact with Zednik's neck. He bled profusely. The carotid artery is a major artery in your neck; it takes blood to the brain. It could have killed him if not for the quick actions of the medical staff. Would you photograph that?

There is no right answer on whether you should or should not photograph a player or an athlete in pain or having had a serious accident. It is all down to your own personal ethics and morals. What you might photograph, another photographer may not. If you're working freelance then that's fine, but when you're working for a newspaper or a stock library you'll have to follow their ethical code of conduct whether you like it or not. Getty Images clearly state that:

                                    "No staff member shall let their personal opinions influence the coverage of stories or events" (Getty Images, 2012)

Newspapers and stock libraries work on a utilitarianism approach to photography. This means that they would, and did, print photographs of what happened to Richard Zednik. Just like they printed photographs of the crashes that killed Dan Wheldon and Marco Simoncelli. Basically, utilitarianism is the belief that everyone has a right to know and that it is for the greater good of humanity.

These photographs can often be printed and published at the expense of those involved and their at the expense of their families, causing more grief and pain.

Yes, people have a right to know about what happens in the world, whether it be sport, war or crime. But should they really be viewing images of other people bleeding and in pain? Or images that depict the last few seconds or minutes of someone else's life? Surely these should be private moments, or as private as they can be.

Back in the 1980s a newspaper on the east coast of the USA printed a photograph of a dead boy in the arms of a man. The boy had drowned. While there where around 30,000 complaints about the image being printed in the paper, death by drowning saw a sharp drop in the three months that followed.

While a lot of people don't like viewing images of others in pain etc. they still look at them because it’s morbid introspection. This is an interest of all things morbid. A good example of this is when there has been a crash on the opposite side of the motorway. People slowdown in order to get a better look at what has happened. It’s a basic instinct, to look at what has befallen others, a kind of "if I look at it, it can't happen to me".

We all do it, not slowing down on a motorway to see the carnage of a crash, but watching TV or looking at photographs and exclaiming, "Oh! I can't look, it’s awful!” But you don't look away; you carry on looking, because you're curious.....because if you look it won't happen to you. Everyone takes part in morbid introspection whether they admit it or not.

The other side of utilitarianism is absolutism. Absolutists believe that everyone has a right to privacy and you shouldn't take or publish images of people in pain, dying or dead. They believe it is immoral.

Some photographers fall back onto what they call the 'golden rule'. The golden rule is basically 'treat others how you yourself would want to be treated'.

One of the lecturers at university said another way of deciding whether you should take an image or not is to ask yourself if you would do it in front of your mother. If the answer is no, then don't do it!

There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to a subject like this. It’s a bit of a grey area. It’s down to you and what you believe.  Everybody has different ethics, everybody believes something different.

So where do I stand? Well, I believe it’s wrong to photograph players that are in pain or that are bleeding, regardless of what team they play for.

Going back to the d-man who was taken out from behind, I stood on the stairs and watched him on the ice in obvious pain. I then watched fans get up and walk to the plexi so they could get a better look at him. It really annoyed me, they saw the poor lad go down and seeing that wasn't good enough for them. They needed to see the aftermath. While it annoyed me greatly, I knew that it was morbid introspection. The player who committed the offence didn't get sent off, or even receive a penalty which I found rather disgusting.

If I have images on my memory card of a players getting hurt, I look carefully at each image while I decide whether to keep them or not. I'll generally keep the images that lead up to the incident happening and then delete the ones that show the accident and what happened after.

Some players quite like having photographs of themselves getting hurt; they like to see what happened for themselves and not go on an account from team mates. Unfortunately for them, they won't be seeing anything like that from me.

Twitter: @RaiPekkanen
Facebook: facebook.com/raipekkanen

Related Article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20616635

Bibliography

Getty Images (2012) Editorial Policy [Online] Available from <http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/corporate/editorialpolicy.aspx> [30 November 2012]

Pop!

So I took a photo during the game of Czech defence man, Ondrej Pozivil, and I looked at it and thought: "Ooo - not very good, but lets see what black and white does."

So I tried turning it black and white. It looked good, I liked it. But I thought there was something more I could do with it. So, I popped some colour!

Here's the finished picture, which I happen to really quite like:

Facebook   :   Twitter

Young Shot Goon

Hockey films. I've seen a few and never really been that impressed. Some of my hockey buddies seem to love these films, they see something in them that I clearly don't. Maybe its my inability to suspend my belief for that long.

Take Slap Shot, hailed as one of the greatest hockey movies of all time. I'd heard a lot about this film, how good it was and how funny. So I was expecting to be blown away by it, but I wasn't. I was disappointed. The second and third films weren't much better. Well, actually, the third film was terrible.

Youngblood. A promising young hockey player goes into a minor league in Canada and he gets his leg-over the coach's daughter. That's all I can remember about that one.

The latest offering on the sliver screen was Goon. I went into the cinema so full of hope, but alas, I was disappointed. It was a film about a guy who could fight and was as thick as two short planks. A stereotypical hockey player.

It appears that these films have one main theme in common, violence. Those involved in hockey know that fighting, benches clearances and beating up mascots don't happen every game. Bench clearances happen less often, and beating up mascots.....well, I've never heard of it.

Maybe its just me, but I think films like this probably don't do much good for hockey in countries like the UK, where hockey is a minority sport.
It would be nice to watch a hockey film and it not be filled with violence or stereotypical hockey players.

Why don't I write one myself I hear you say! Well judging on the writing of this of this blog, mine wouldn't be much better than the films already out there.

Facebook    :    Twitter

What's in a name?

Evey hockey team has one. Some teams have more than one guy on their roster that can be classed as one.

Sometimes it appears, that some fans, have forgotten what these men are used for.

So what exactly am I talking about? I'm talking about the Sean Averys, the Dave Semenkos and the Steve MacIntryes of a team. The enforcers, aggressors, instigators, agitators, and my least favourite word of them all, goons.

Most likely hitting the 6 foot something mark, and more often than not built like a brick shit house, these guys have two things in mind when it comes to playing the game. Firstly, to play the game and hopefully win, and secondly, to protect his team. Sometimes, they have other things on their agenda like generally getting under the skin of the opposition.

These guys aren't meant to be all fluffy and cuddly. No. Cross the line and they'll smack that smile clean off your face with one easy swipe of their giant bear paw.

Hockey fans everywhere have, at one time or another, bad mouthed the other team's tough guy. While I too am guilty of this, I like many hockey fans out there understand why these big, strong, powerful guys play like they do.

But what exactly do these adjectives actually mean? Well, lets take a look....

Enforcer:
1) To impose obedience as by force
2) One whose job it is to execute unpleasant tasks for a superior

Aggressor:
1) A confident assertive person who acts as an instigator
2) Someone who attacks

Instigator:
1) To urge onto some drastic or inadvisable action
2) Someone who deliberately foments trouble

Agitator:
1) One who agitates
2) To excite, disturb, or trouble a person, the mind or feelings

So, the next time these guys drop n' sock you can sit there and think, "Yep, it's all in the name."

Facebook  :  Twitter

Happy Hallowe'en!

Happy Hallowe'en! 

Copyright FYI

It seems like a large slice of people either don't know about copyright in terms of photography, or they simply just don't care. Perhaps in some cases it's a bit of both.
But in case you fall into the category of "don't know", here are a few things you need to know:

• Copyright is the exclusive right given to a photographer for an original piece of work.
• When a photographer takes a photo, copyright is automatic. Photographers don't have to register for copyright but it does help when trying to prove the images are indeed theirs.
• The photographer has the legal right to decided how their images are distributed, reproduced and copied.
• In the UK, photographs are protected abroad by the fact that the UK are a member of several international conventions.
• If you use a photographer's work without their permission first, they could seek legal advice. Criminal charges won't be brought against you as copyright infringement is not a criminal offence but is a civil offence.
• It seems odd, but even storing photographs on your computer amounts to copyright infringement. Even if you're just going to use it as your wallpaper on the desktop, it is still infringing copyright. 
• Copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer.

So now you know the basics, what about editing photos that aren't yours? Are there rules about that? Well....

• Only the photographer, or those who own the copyright to the image or images, can edit or manipulate them.
• If you edit or manipulate a photograph and say it is your work, you've still infringed copyright law.
• You must get permission from the legal copyright owner of the photograph before making any changes to it.

There you have it. A basic run down of copyright law. So next time you save a photo to your hard drive and think about distributing it or manipulating it.....just think about this blog.





Twitter
Facebook

Food Glorious Food

There are only two things in this world that I'm half decent at: Photography and cooking.

While every week I have a camera in my hand for hours on end, I don't very often have a whisk or other such cooking implement in my hand. Cooking, or baking, is something that only happens every now and then.

This week after a conversation about food, I ended up making two different types of cookies that actually turned out to be more cake like biscuits. They were cranberry and white chocolate and apple and oatmeal. They seemed to go down very well at the rink on Sunday when I took them in, so the fact that they went a bit wrong doesn't really matter. I went out with nearly 30 and back with just 3.

I do like a bit of cooking. I enjoy making things that are not of this country. So when I do cook, I make things like Moroccan fish and chips, Swedish potato gratin, Aardsppeltaart (Belgian potato tart) or Italian pea and herb risotto. I once made Oravska pochutka, which is a Slovakian style sausage and potato casserole which mainly seemed to be made up of sauerkraut.

Obviously, I like making sweet things too. Cheesecake is what I really to make, not the type that you leave to set in the fridge, but the baked kind. The last one I made was New York style, I'm not sure what made it American. Another American dessert I've made in the past has been Grasshopper Pie, called so because of the green food colour added to it.
I've made various other things too like Boterkoek (Dutch butter cake), Appelkoek (Dutch apple cake) and Koggetjes (Amsterdam caramel cookies).

I tend not to make cakes, not even for birthdays. Instead I make other sweet treats. This year I made a Scandinavian tea ring for my mum, and a Tarte aux pommes a la Normande (Normandy apple tart) for my dad.

What I really love to make is bread. I could make a new loaf of bread every week! So far I've made:

• Rugbrød, Scandinavian rye bread
• Jarlsberg vri brød, Jarlsberg twist bread. Jarlsberg is a Norwegian cheese.
• Pan rustico, rustic Spanish bread. When making this you have to leave the yeast to ferment for 24 hours.
• Kartoffelbrot, German potato bread

There are a few other breads that I really want to make. One of which is 'slow bread', this is a bread that is left to rise for 48 hours in a cool place.

No doubt when I make any more sweet things or breads I'll break my camera out and have another go at food photography.

Twitter