I've seen a photographer I like very much criticized on the site for some of his pictures. He has shown people with disabilities, dead people, and people in institutions. I think his work is about telling the truth of what he sees, but I can also understand how people are angry about what he posts.

I generally want to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. But I wonder how and why people draw the lines where they do. Drawing attention to suffering and crime can be a step towards change.

Interested in points of view expressed with respect for differences of opinion.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same photographer - so take what I say with the understanding that we might be talking about someone completely different.

There is someone here who posts graphic, raw photos that are unbelievably tense and emotional that cover what appear to be decades of time. At first I thought that he was "drawing attention" to this side of life.

However, as I watched more and more of his postings unfold, I realized this wasn't an outsider documenting troubling facts, but someone from the inside. What cinched it for me were two photos 1) a prostitute who had been arrested and was flashing the photographer and the lack of reaction by the policemen to the photographer and 2) the photo of the suicide victim with men coming in the room from the opposite side of the photographer. Clearly then the photographer must be one of the police. Then I had to ask myself, "What was his motivation for taking the photos?" He certainly wasn't telling (a friend sent him a message within a day of his first posting asking how he had gotten a great shot - which he failed to respond to) and his only response to comments seems to be "this is how it is."

While your candid photographs of people are filled with kindness and sympathy, his seem to be completely lacking any feeling and contain a clinical detachment that is very uncomfortable and totally unrelated to the subject of the actual photographs. Without any emotional connection to the subjects - how can it be viewed in a positive manner? They almost seem to be shots of animals in the zoo.

I personally do not like to take pictures of people, I did bring my camera to a funeral of a relative ( I was one of 2, so I wasn't alone). While everyone was singing Amazing Grace, I was happily shooting away until someone growled something into my ear about bodily harm if I didn't put the camera down. So I shot more discretely. But throughout the ceremony, I got some absolutely wrenching images of relatives lost in grief during the funeral.

Do I consider that exploitive? Perhaps. I've never shown them publicly, not even to family. I think they are one of those things best kept hidden.

But that moment of mine was more of me shooting when I shouldn't have been. Perhaps I was uncomfortable and started shooting to take my mind off of the events at hand. But there was no intent to profit (monetarily or otherwise) from those photos.

Exploitive photography in my opinion is more of an intent to profit off of somebody else's condition (usually tragic). Sure it makes a good picture, and that's why you think you can profit from it. But I do draw a distinction between catching a moment and shooting it, and actively seeking out a situation. I guess I'm rambling.

A friend of mine had a collection of grisly death photos that he enjoyed looking at for shock value. He got them because he was friends with an insurance adjuster who took the death pictures for the insurance company. His purpose in keeping them was for his own amusement. In my opinion, that is exploitative.

I assume you're talking about UrbanTomas, right? I think he's one of the most talented photographers on this blog but I do think his work might be exploitative. It's clinical and detached and he clearly seems to be part of the ugly world he's shooting. What's his purpose? Is it to warn others? Is it to tittilate? Is it an outlet to show the horror he's seen or is it a scrapbook to record the horror he wants to see again.

I don't know.

But the reason I don't know is because he won't tell anyone or respond to questions. Why would someone be so ready to show the world the horror caught in his camera but so reticent to say what he thinks about it or who he is? I hope it's not for the reason that so many people suspect.

I look forward to the day he sets the record straight.

Thank you all for responding. I suppose we each form our impressions.

In the picture of the four neglected children who died in a fire, his text suggests to me that he cares a great deal. He wants each child to be remembered by name, and he is looking at this tragedy because there are so many others. And along with these, he also has entries about birth, pictures of a father and child, portrayals of love, pictures of old people and old ways of life. I think he is full of love and pain. At times he is detached, perhaps. Complex. He has seen more then most of us. I doubt he is a cop. He may be a crime scene photographer. Or maybe in his country it is easier to get access. But I think he photographs institutions because he does not forget those inside. He knows a lot about addiction. No one lets a cop photograph them shooting up. He's in the trenches. I love his work.

There are many styles of photography on this site, with a strong leaning towards flowers and sunsets. Illness, death, disability, exploitation, neglect - all of these are as real as sunsets and flowers. If I died out of neglect, or if I was trapped for decades in the back wards of an underfunded mental institution, I'd want someone as brilliant as Urban Tamas to tell the world that I existed.

life isn't all kittens and puppies.

if your world encompasses the good, the bad and the ugly i don't see how it's exploitative to photograph them.

photojournalists have won awards for shots of the wtc, various wars, and natural disasters. how is this different?

I believe Tamas Urban (UrbanTamas's real name) is the Hungarian National Police spokesman (or at least he was as recently as a few years ago according to CNN). I agree that his work is profound, evocative and important...but I think it's possible to be all of these and still exploitative. I'm not saying he is...I'm just saying that for someone who is a published photographer and a Spokesman for the police he's very quiet concerning how he got these photos and what his purpose is. Regardless of whether it's exploitative, it's real and ugly and should be seen, regardless of how difficult it is to look at it.

By the way, he also has a book out although it may be out of print. Here it is if you're interested: http://www.biblio.com/books/75553735.html

Thanks for the link to the book.