RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
kediwah can explain it for himself and he does in the comment stream. See the link. I think the concern comes from "taking advantage" of people down on their luck and living on the streets, regardless of the photographer's rapport during the shoot. Lots of folks feel this way and won't photograph the homeless. I think all of this is in the comment stream, but what do you think?
/
Prosaic
Well-known
Cats, dogs, homeless... photography I dont care about. The comments are great though.
See also Digital Fortune Cookies or The poetry of Flickr
http://www.jmcolberg.com/misc/FlickrPoetry.pdf
See also Digital Fortune Cookies or The poetry of Flickr
http://www.jmcolberg.com/misc/FlickrPoetry.pdf
Prosaic
Well-known
I hope he´s paying them too?
bmattock
Veteran
Why? .
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
then you're probably more in alignment with kediwah's comments than the photographer, who seems to defend his work as socio-documentary. the images are strong, but in the context of Flickr, it kind of bothers me.
/
ferider
Veteran
The PLUG's 10 Commandments of Leica Photography
The PLUG's 10 Commandments of Leica Photography
These might have been posted before ....
Moses came back from a PLUG meeting carrying two stone tablets. We reproduce them here:
1) Thy children are ugly. Do not make us look upon them.
2) Thou shalt not have a photograph entitled "Pop-Pop" in your Leica portfolio.
We know Scooter loves his grandfather, we'd just rather not have to look at it.
3) Thou shalt not photograph thy dog, nor thy cat, nor thy ass.
(Some dispensation may be got for photographing thy neighbor's ass, we'd have to see it first though.)
4) Photographing in exotic locals does not makeith thou a great photographer.
It makith thou a tourist.
5) Thou shalt not photograph buildings.
6) Thou shalt not photograph statues.
Who do you think you are? Robert Maplethorp?
7) Thou shalt not photograph homeless people.
Leave them alone or buy them food. This pleasith the Lord.
8) Thou shalt not photograph people from behind and call it street photography.
This makith thou a coward.
9) Thou shalt not own stupid Leica gadgets.
This includes a "leica tabletop tripod", a "visioflex", a "NOOKY", a "SOOMP" or anything else that makes your Leica work with all the speed and ease of a 4x5.
10) Thou shalt not brag about the sharpness of thy lens, nor the number of Summicron's thou hast acquired, nor the freshness of thy rear-cap, nor the dinglessness of thy bottom plate.
Now go in peace & may the lux be with you.
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/plug/10/index.htm
Just putting it out there
The PLUG's 10 Commandments of Leica Photography
These might have been posted before ....
Moses came back from a PLUG meeting carrying two stone tablets. We reproduce them here:
1) Thy children are ugly. Do not make us look upon them.
2) Thou shalt not have a photograph entitled "Pop-Pop" in your Leica portfolio.
We know Scooter loves his grandfather, we'd just rather not have to look at it.
3) Thou shalt not photograph thy dog, nor thy cat, nor thy ass.
(Some dispensation may be got for photographing thy neighbor's ass, we'd have to see it first though.)
4) Photographing in exotic locals does not makeith thou a great photographer.
It makith thou a tourist.
5) Thou shalt not photograph buildings.
6) Thou shalt not photograph statues.
Who do you think you are? Robert Maplethorp?
7) Thou shalt not photograph homeless people.
Leave them alone or buy them food. This pleasith the Lord.
8) Thou shalt not photograph people from behind and call it street photography.
This makith thou a coward.
9) Thou shalt not own stupid Leica gadgets.
This includes a "leica tabletop tripod", a "visioflex", a "NOOKY", a "SOOMP" or anything else that makes your Leica work with all the speed and ease of a 4x5.
10) Thou shalt not brag about the sharpness of thy lens, nor the number of Summicron's thou hast acquired, nor the freshness of thy rear-cap, nor the dinglessness of thy bottom plate.
Now go in peace & may the lux be with you.
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/plug/10/index.htm
Just putting it out there
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Rule #11: There are no rules.
ferider
Veteran
aizan
Veteran
someone give that photog a medal.
Last edited:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Ray, here's what i got from that discussion:
1. The picture is powerful
2. The photographer knows he's good
3. kediwah is right, but flickr is the wrong forum to pursue the answer he's seeking
4. ... and the adoring comments from the photographer's fans are hilarious
overall, just another train-wreck (or pile-up like Keith said) in flickr. But then again, here in RFF, we have those too
1. The picture is powerful
2. The photographer knows he's good
3. kediwah is right, but flickr is the wrong forum to pursue the answer he's seeking
4. ... and the adoring comments from the photographer's fans are hilarious
overall, just another train-wreck (or pile-up like Keith said) in flickr. But then again, here in RFF, we have those too
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
especially as they punctuate the serious "ethical discussion" and periodic rants in defense of the photog.
Ray, here's what i got from that discussion:
4. ... and the adoring comments from the photographer's fans are hilarious
overall, just another train-wreck (or pile-up like Keith said) in flickr. But then again, here in RFF, we have those too
Yes, it is and yes we do. I was thinking about past RFF 'train wrecks' a while ago and I remembered one of my favorites was when a member suggested that we try to take the Gun terminology out of photography. Whew!
Thanks, Will.
/
.ken
I like pictures
How attached can a photographer be shooting telephoto, heavily cropping and heavily post processing the image for artistic merit, yet denies a voice, explanation or even a story about the person. This photograph is a portrait, not a photo that's about composition, juxtaposition or contrast between the elements... it's about the subject... but then, WHO the heck is the subject anyway? Do people even care?
Personally, It doesn't affect me much if the photographer decides to put up this information but it does tell me something if he did... it show's the "heart" that everyone's been talking about. I think the photographer is probably shooting from a hidden car... who knows though.
Personally, It doesn't affect me much if the photographer decides to put up this information but it does tell me something if he did... it show's the "heart" that everyone's been talking about. I think the photographer is probably shooting from a hidden car... who knows though.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Yeah, good point. The compression and the format/crop kind of give away that fact that he's shooting from a distance, BUT he's shooting with at 85 ; that's a normal portrait lens. However to me the crop seems to imply that he might have been farther away (maybe even shooting landscape orientation). I wish I shot more with a 90 to know what distance he would have to have been if the image is uncropped.
/
sjones
Established
I'm somewhat conflicted about this issue, largely because one of the photographer's defenders claimed that the photos had in fact inspired some viewers to provide some type of aid or assistance to the homeless (if those people actually photographed received any of this aid is uncertain, as is the veracity of such claim that aid was provided).
Otherwise, in this case, there is a fine line between exploitation and documentation. The photographs are very good, this is not someone who took a couple shots of homeless folks for some instant drama. On the other hand, as shadowfax noted, or to which he at least alluded, the photographer possibly has a good chunk of his ego invested in the project. Yet, in fairness, I would have to know the guy before proclaiming this assumption to be truth.
Generally, ego and art (however you want to define it) are inseparable, so I don't begrudge photographers, painters, authors, or musicians who indulge in some self-gratification. Yet, in this particular case, if the ego is being stroked, it is being done so at the expense of people in very dour conditions, conditions that provided the photographer the drama from which to work and, subsequently, receive praise.
This, then, leads back to my ambivalence. If these photos actually provide some amount of succor to the homeless, then irrespective of the photographer's motive, fine, keep shooting away. If not, though, then there is a possible degree of exploitation and objectification that is arguably worthy of some scrutiny. And if someone doesn't really care if it is exploitive or not, that is probably fine too, I'm just not politically correct enough to proselytize. Yet, if someone does care, then I think they have good reason to at least debate the issue.
Where I am not ambivalent is in the nausea that overcame me while reading excessively trite or outright pretentious arguments in support of the photographer. As one person commented, most of these folks would cross the street, holding tightly on to their personal belongings, if they actually came across some of the people photographed. If they want to stimulate their passions and expand the depths of humane understanding, then they should go out and meet these folks without relying on artistic enhancements to facilitate a reaction. Otherwise, it's all pretty ephemeral, isn't it?
Otherwise, in this case, there is a fine line between exploitation and documentation. The photographs are very good, this is not someone who took a couple shots of homeless folks for some instant drama. On the other hand, as shadowfax noted, or to which he at least alluded, the photographer possibly has a good chunk of his ego invested in the project. Yet, in fairness, I would have to know the guy before proclaiming this assumption to be truth.
Generally, ego and art (however you want to define it) are inseparable, so I don't begrudge photographers, painters, authors, or musicians who indulge in some self-gratification. Yet, in this particular case, if the ego is being stroked, it is being done so at the expense of people in very dour conditions, conditions that provided the photographer the drama from which to work and, subsequently, receive praise.
This, then, leads back to my ambivalence. If these photos actually provide some amount of succor to the homeless, then irrespective of the photographer's motive, fine, keep shooting away. If not, though, then there is a possible degree of exploitation and objectification that is arguably worthy of some scrutiny. And if someone doesn't really care if it is exploitive or not, that is probably fine too, I'm just not politically correct enough to proselytize. Yet, if someone does care, then I think they have good reason to at least debate the issue.
Where I am not ambivalent is in the nausea that overcame me while reading excessively trite or outright pretentious arguments in support of the photographer. As one person commented, most of these folks would cross the street, holding tightly on to their personal belongings, if they actually came across some of the people photographed. If they want to stimulate their passions and expand the depths of humane understanding, then they should go out and meet these folks without relying on artistic enhancements to facilitate a reaction. Otherwise, it's all pretty ephemeral, isn't it?
PMCC
Late adopter.
Amen. Abhor gratituous self-righteousness far more than photographs you may not like or approve of.
Last edited:
