lukitas
second hand noob
I don't think it is impossible to show homeless people with dignity.
You"re staring at them with a great big mechanical eye; give them a chance to stare back at you.
This guy had 12 jobs and 13 failures. His first job was keeping a one hour photo lab. Posed like a king.
Cheers
You"re staring at them with a great big mechanical eye; give them a chance to stare back at you.
This guy had 12 jobs and 13 failures. His first job was keeping a one hour photo lab. Posed like a king.
Cheers
Ranchu
Veteran
Dignity wasn't the issue, the issue was exploitation. It's hard to be dignified when you're exploiting a homeless person's homlessness though.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
Exploitation? I can't see that in these photos...
Well done to the OP.
Well done to the OP.
BlackXList
Well-known
I feel a bit like I've come in part way through a conversation here.
I don't shy away from shooting the homeless at all, and I won't.
Shooting on the street, I'm not setting out to make anybody look foolish or bad, I'm out to shoot what I see, and what catches my eye, my intent is never to belittle or mock, and in that way I'm not out to exploit or demean people.
I think the homeless are too often ignored by people, and too easily ignored by many, I'm not going to make ignoring a fellow human being's plight easier by not showing it, in case I offend someone's sensibilities. I find that concept really quite disturbing to be honest.
It creates a shielding effect for the viewer from the realities of the world, and it also effectively erases those less fortunate from view, neither of which I'm comfortable with.
Obviously once an image is out in the world, you can't control how people respond to it, I'm secure in my intent, and that has to be enough, but there are definitely instances where I would take down images if I felt that people were responding in a way that I didn't approve of, if they were mocking a person for being less fortunate etc.
I don't shy away from shooting the homeless at all, and I won't.
Shooting on the street, I'm not setting out to make anybody look foolish or bad, I'm out to shoot what I see, and what catches my eye, my intent is never to belittle or mock, and in that way I'm not out to exploit or demean people.
I think the homeless are too often ignored by people, and too easily ignored by many, I'm not going to make ignoring a fellow human being's plight easier by not showing it, in case I offend someone's sensibilities. I find that concept really quite disturbing to be honest.
It creates a shielding effect for the viewer from the realities of the world, and it also effectively erases those less fortunate from view, neither of which I'm comfortable with.
Obviously once an image is out in the world, you can't control how people respond to it, I'm secure in my intent, and that has to be enough, but there are definitely instances where I would take down images if I felt that people were responding in a way that I didn't approve of, if they were mocking a person for being less fortunate etc.
BlackXList
Well-known
Should have added, I don't shoot exclusively those who are less fortunate, but I won't turn a photographically blind eye because of someone else's sensibilities, I know my intent isn't to exploit.
I photograph people who I find interesting, that has nothing to do with economic status.
I photograph people who I find interesting, that has nothing to do with economic status.
Cameron
seasick, yet still docked
Ranchu nailed it on the head when talking about exploiting the homeless. Exploiting the homeless with a quick snap, often not very good, is undignified and against my ethics. What you have done lukitas, is taken beautiful portraits of people.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
They are certainly very good portraits of the people concerned and I don't see exploitation or have any issues with them at all.
There's a long history of highlighting the plight of the homeless and disenfranchised; think about Dorothea Lange's "migrant mother" and her other photos of those suffereing in the depression / dust bowl era. Done sensitivly, this genre is one of the most powerful ways of gaining recognition for those poor souls and those like them.
There are other bodies of work I've seen, however, where the photographer "appears" to have chosen their moment to hit the shutter release when the subject is at their most vulnerable. That can make for very uncomfortable viewing and controversial interpretations of the photographer's intent.
My own view is that a series of this type of photographs is virtually impossible to read objectively, without at least some written narrative. We can all build our own stories around landscapes and more traditional portraits without being overly concerned whether the story we've imagined is accurate or not. However, I'd argue that some contextual positioning is usually beneficial when dealing with more sensitve subject matter.
There's a long history of highlighting the plight of the homeless and disenfranchised; think about Dorothea Lange's "migrant mother" and her other photos of those suffereing in the depression / dust bowl era. Done sensitivly, this genre is one of the most powerful ways of gaining recognition for those poor souls and those like them.
There are other bodies of work I've seen, however, where the photographer "appears" to have chosen their moment to hit the shutter release when the subject is at their most vulnerable. That can make for very uncomfortable viewing and controversial interpretations of the photographer's intent.
My own view is that a series of this type of photographs is virtually impossible to read objectively, without at least some written narrative. We can all build our own stories around landscapes and more traditional portraits without being overly concerned whether the story we've imagined is accurate or not. However, I'd argue that some contextual positioning is usually beneficial when dealing with more sensitve subject matter.
alistair.o
Well-known
Many references in this thread talk across the homeless and needy. Talk to them and with them. They are sentient. They are the flip side of most of us; just remember, one 'gust of fate' and we can be flipped into their world.
alistair.o
Well-known
Ah, Ned remember what it is like for you on Christmas Eve? You sat there warming your hands over a single candle and staring at the only card in the flickering light - that'll be the card you gave yourself by the way...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Alistair,
No, no, no. We must have a "one size fits all" answer to EVERYTHING. Unless someone else gives us that answer -- preferably, someone who knows little or nothing about the subject -- we may be reduced to thinking for ourselves and making our own moral choices. That would never do, would it?
To the OP: nice pics.
Cheers,
R.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Almost all photographs of people are in some way exploitive. Your morals are just that, yours. With your values there would be no Migrant Mother by Lange so best to keep your values to the way you work and not try and push those on others.
These are all wonderful images.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
1 and 3 are serious work to show interesting people. Not a typical snapshots of hobos.
lukitas
second hand noob
Thank you for some thoughtful comments.
I would like to get the exploitation issue out of the way. As Airfrogus pointed out, nearly all photography of people can be construed as exploitative. When I put pictures of my friends on the RFF gallery, I can be accused of exploiting my friends for a little applause from fellow photographers. Sometimes, exploitation is built in. Leibowitz shot Gorbachev for Vuitton. Everything about that photo is exploitative. And when I used to shoot naked dead chickens for supermarket chains, that was exploitation at a whole 'nother level.
And when I shoot the view from my front door, I take what is free, and make it mine, and exploit it. So maybe exploitation is a moot point, or at the very least, it needs to be qualified.
Jumping on the word 'exploitative' to dismiss photos of homeless people is sad. It shows a mindset that automatically imputes nefarious ulterior motives to the photographer. Something close to the several people who approached me with a suspicious frown, and the question : 'Why are you taking photos?' How dirty must ones mind be, when all one can think of when seeing a photographer, is that he must be some kind of pervert?
Ok, I've got it easy. I'm not doing it for money. I can blithely walk around and collect nuggets of beauty in a topsy-turvy world. Exploitation, as applying to photography, does not even come into the equation for me. But I do think the exploited deserve a fair shot, and that is not a pun. Giving a beggar a decent portrait is, to my mind, just the contrary of exploitative, even if he never gets to see the picture.
Of course, exploitative photography does exist. But there is much more of it in advertising than in candid (street) photography. Mebbe we should all be dumping guilt on advertising photographers, instead of those who shoot street people.
Lets just have the politesse, to assume that we do not necessarily have dirty motives. It would be easy, from my lofty standpoint as a photographer who shoots for free, to disdain all those money-grubbing jobbers, accuse them of the vilest crimes against ethics. I don't. Children have to be fed and educated, bills have to be paid. Earning your money with a camera is one of the most interesting ways to do it, and people like Avedon and Irving Penn showed that advertising does not exclude excellence.
Like that old ABBA song, something gooey and sirupy, that pops up in my brain from time to time, I have a sweet spot for that terribly kitschy portrait of a gypsy boy with a tear on his cheek, that almost everybody seemed to have in the 60ties and 70ties. I'd love to do my own version of it, one day. Some of them had a 'real' tear, made from varnish. Now that was an exploitative photograph. Selling misery to the masses. Yuk.
Cheers.
Oh, and thanks everyone for liking my pictures.
I would like to get the exploitation issue out of the way. As Airfrogus pointed out, nearly all photography of people can be construed as exploitative. When I put pictures of my friends on the RFF gallery, I can be accused of exploiting my friends for a little applause from fellow photographers. Sometimes, exploitation is built in. Leibowitz shot Gorbachev for Vuitton. Everything about that photo is exploitative. And when I used to shoot naked dead chickens for supermarket chains, that was exploitation at a whole 'nother level.
And when I shoot the view from my front door, I take what is free, and make it mine, and exploit it. So maybe exploitation is a moot point, or at the very least, it needs to be qualified.
Jumping on the word 'exploitative' to dismiss photos of homeless people is sad. It shows a mindset that automatically imputes nefarious ulterior motives to the photographer. Something close to the several people who approached me with a suspicious frown, and the question : 'Why are you taking photos?' How dirty must ones mind be, when all one can think of when seeing a photographer, is that he must be some kind of pervert?
Ok, I've got it easy. I'm not doing it for money. I can blithely walk around and collect nuggets of beauty in a topsy-turvy world. Exploitation, as applying to photography, does not even come into the equation for me. But I do think the exploited deserve a fair shot, and that is not a pun. Giving a beggar a decent portrait is, to my mind, just the contrary of exploitative, even if he never gets to see the picture.
Of course, exploitative photography does exist. But there is much more of it in advertising than in candid (street) photography. Mebbe we should all be dumping guilt on advertising photographers, instead of those who shoot street people.
Lets just have the politesse, to assume that we do not necessarily have dirty motives. It would be easy, from my lofty standpoint as a photographer who shoots for free, to disdain all those money-grubbing jobbers, accuse them of the vilest crimes against ethics. I don't. Children have to be fed and educated, bills have to be paid. Earning your money with a camera is one of the most interesting ways to do it, and people like Avedon and Irving Penn showed that advertising does not exclude excellence.
Like that old ABBA song, something gooey and sirupy, that pops up in my brain from time to time, I have a sweet spot for that terribly kitschy portrait of a gypsy boy with a tear on his cheek, that almost everybody seemed to have in the 60ties and 70ties. I'd love to do my own version of it, one day. Some of them had a 'real' tear, made from varnish. Now that was an exploitative photograph. Selling misery to the masses. Yuk.
Cheers.
Oh, and thanks everyone for liking my pictures.
Last edited:
lukitas
second hand noob
This is not quite how I remember it, but here's the one I found on google :
back alley
IMAGES
i'm walking down the street, taking photos...2 men approach me and ask what i'm doing? we chat, they are a bit drunk but polite and making sense...they ask me to take their picture, i do and we part company.
who was exploited?
who was exploited?
Anyone ever notice the homeless anguishing whether or not they can take pictures of the employed
in such a way as not to exploit the employed ?
Photographers are not so such much taking pictures of life,
as pictures of the attitudes and ideas inside our own heads which we see reflected in the outside world.
Stephen
in such a way as not to exploit the employed ?
Photographers are not so such much taking pictures of life,
as pictures of the attitudes and ideas inside our own heads which we see reflected in the outside world.
Stephen
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Joe,
Oh, everyone. Some people are never happy until they can be mildly and possibly falsely outraged on behalf of someone they'll never meet. Clearly, for example, you were exploiting women by concentrating on men. If you'd been photographing women you'd have been exploiting them by, um, taking their pictures. Besides, why weren't they LBGT?
And you were yourself exploited by, um, consumerism, or maybe capitalism in general. In a previous post I say "We need more One Size Fits All". Well, yes -- as long as the One Size can be described as exploitation by some miserable sod who makes a hobby (or even a profession) out of being outraged.
Of course there are exploitative pictures. As you wisely ask, who was exploited that time? BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMEONE! Some people couldn't survive otherwise. It's an industry right across the political spectrum.
Cheers,
R.
