I was recently given an assignment to photograph a woman breast-feeding as a part of a larger story about Missouri not reaching the Center for Disease Control's standards of breast-feeding.
I was instructed to keep the photos tasteful, which I believe I did. However, one of the reasons the first photo didn't run was for a reason I didn't foresee. My editor told me that she didn't think my subject would want her legs to in the paper because they had hair on them. I said that if she made the decision to shave her legs/have a photographer be with her during such an intimate moment, that she wouldn't care.
The discussion ended shortly after, and a photo similar to the second ran instead. I think I should've fought for my photo more. I understand my editor's concerns and respect her opinion, but I love this photo and wish it could have seen print. What do you think?
Sarah Davis has been a member of La Leche League, an international organization that encourages mothers to breast-feed their childen, for seven years.
Sarah Davis breast-feeds her 9-month son, Micah, on Friday at her home in Columbia. Davis has been a member of the La Leche League since the birth of her first child 7 years ago. Her three sons have never had a bottle, Davis said.
4 comments:
That's not a valid reason at all. She was like that when you came there. You photographed the truth. I doubt she'd be butthurt about it. Even if she were, she knew you were coming. Lame editor.
Hi Taylor! Your pictures are great. I did have a thought on why they didn't want to run the first picture. During my internship in GA I did a rotation through the public health department and worked closely with them as well as La Leche League to help promote breastfeeding. While it is a very honest picture (and I totally agree that the subject would not care about showing the hair on her legs), it appears that the article attached to the picture is (at least in part) trying to promote awareness and higher rates of breastfeeding in MO. I think that photo may isolate some mothers who may (obviously inaccurately) think you have to be someone who doesn't shave your legs to be dedicated to breastfeeding. I'm guessing they wanted the picture to be as neutral as possible.
WHAT!!!!!! we will speak about this in person.
First of all... "La Leche League" is an awesome name for that organization.
But to get to the main point... if that lady didn't want her legs to be seen in public, she wouldn't be wearing shorts. She also knew a newspaper photographer was showing up to her house... How do we know that she even shaves her legs in the first place? Maybe she is against it! Your editor is projecting her own personal beliefs into the editing process which I don't personally agree with. Maybe your editor wouldn't want HER hairy legs in the newspaper, but perhaps your subject wouldn't mind. In the end though, the picture shows the situation how it was and it is truthful.
Another thing to consider-- If this lady was, say, homeless or living on the streets and had unshaven legs, would your editor make the same decision? I am guessing not. She probably wouldn't even think twice about it.
And an entirely different point to the debate-- which picture more effectively tells the story? I personally like the first picture the most, but I think the second picture tells the story in a more effective manner. It is a story about breastfeeding, and photo #2 clearly tells that story.
But thankfully, it is the Missourian and this editor can learn this lesson and have these debates... All part of the learning experience I suppose. I just don't agree with the decision to cut the photo solely based on some hairy legs.
Post a Comment