would you take a photo of someone in destress for the press to publish?

I might.

But, I don't know if I could "detach" myself from a victim, for instance, to help him or her instead of snapping the picture. I'd like to feel that if I could help the person out of immediate danger, I would rather than hesitate in order to get the shot.

I COULD take the shot if there were already people enough to get the victim the help needed, such as firefighters rescuing someone from a burning building, lifeguards or EMTs doing CPR, a flood victim, after recovery, comforting a baby. But I KNOW, within me, there is a point where direct action would be the ONLY choice rather than the indirect action of taking a photo.

Examples:

I would have TRIED to put out the burning monk.

I would have TRIED to cover up the Vietnamese girl, running with the burn scars.

I would have TRIED to find and toss a floatation device to the crashed jet survivors in the frigid waters.

And I would have MISSED those shots.

Thank you, "Vance," for your insights.

Yep. Been there, done that. It's the job my friend. You shoot to the emotions of the story. I've done it as both spot news: The Loma Prieta Earthquake in California; Japan Airlines DC-8-62, JA8032 crash into San Francisco Bay, November 22, 1968, the 101 Calfifornia masss murder rampage shootings in San Francisico in 1993 and other stories as photo essays over the years.

News involves people and people have emotions. It can be a wrenching emitional experience. Every good photojournalist I have ever known has been a very empathetic person and there you are, wanting to help in some way and you have to keep that contact with the emotional, yours and the people involved and bring that to the image, but you have to get the image. It's what you do.

Rules of photojournalism:

1. F-8

2. Be there.

3. Compose as well as you can, but get the image and the most emotion you can.

Your comment about taking images 'just to be a press photographer' kinda bothers me. I known one or two 'press photographers' who shoot on that basis over the decades. They were technically decent photographers, but they weren't photojournalists. Every good photojournalist I have ever met, like W. Eugene Smith, had an abiding interest in people, who we are, what we do, how we relate to the world and each other and a passsion to tell some small part of that story. It's a passion.

Everyone mentions that there have been photos that have changed the way we see things and there certainly have been. I have no such pretentions about my images, though I can always hope. It is the images in aggregate, yours and others, about an event or situation that MAY have an influence. Well and good, but it's to tell the human story that you are there for and photojournalism is the area where you are going to find the gold you're after.

Vance

I've got a friend who was a photographer for the Toledo Blade for a while. He took a picture of some teens at the scene of a car accident where three or four of their friends were killed. He said he felt like the worst kind of vulture, preying on their weakened condition, and didn't think he's ever be able to wash it from his soul. He makes photos of grain elevators at night, now. I could take the picture in the moment, but I have no idea my own capacity for dealing with such a thing after the fact. It depends on how vulnerable you are to that sort of thing. On the other hand, such situations do not offer themselves everyday. It's one of life's crossroads.

By 'distress' do you mean : ready to be swallowed up by a tsunami or crying over a broken fingernail?