LA woman stabbed, killed taking pictures of homeless

[henri klein]

Tragic but nothing to learn from.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

As I mentioned earlier, I always give money when asked to. These people are aware of their situation, and how others look at them. They know how the photos will exploit their condition. It's only fair to give some money if they requested it. Here in Thailand, a 20 baht bill will suffice (about 65 cents). Once in a slum, people were happy to pose for me and mentioned that they hope the photos will raise awareness of their situation and bring some aids.

 

[kbg32]

A violent act such as this one could never be justified or excused.

This said, the so called street photography has now become a trendy activity. The idea is to go out, take zillions of pictures of everything and everybody and then possibly ending up with few decent images.

There are even courses, where, after forking out hundreds, self acclaimed specialist teach you how to become blunt enough to put your lenses few inches away from everyone nose. Candid shot is the way to go, you just can't be too close.

Picturing homeless, poverty, distress makes you even more a real street photographer...

With the number of such artists growing, there is a slight possibility that those turning into involuntary subjects get fed up and start not to enjoy the game any more...

I never thought of "street" photography as trendy.

"Picturing homeless, poverty, distress makes you even more a real street photographer..."

This statement is so untrue. Want to be a "real" street photographer? Go into a war zone. Photographing the homeless does nothing but satisfies one's egotistical economic standing and makes you the talk of some middle class dinner party. It does nothing to give you cred as a photographer. If you're not out there for a specific reason, a specific story, to show the ills, the beauty, whatever of this segment of society,... you're an idiot and just asking for trouble.

If you're not photographing the homeless like this person - http://www.flickr.com/photos/16536699@N07/ ...... don't.

 

[Sparrow]

Woman Photographing a Busker, Manchester par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity


... silly old me 🙂

 

[Keith]

Woman Photographing a Busker, Manchester par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity


... silly old me 🙂

That really is a charming image ... and this thread needed that.

Thanks. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

Read any forum -starting with this one-, google for street photography, street photography courses...
Small, RF kinda cameras are now selling more and more. Look at Fujifilm section of any forum...

Street pictures are everywhere. Homeless ad poverty are a favorite subject, for a multitude of reasons of course.

To me it really look obvious that there is a trend in street photography. Possibly, I am totally idiot and just dreamed about it.🙁

Or you could be someone who pays attention to it because you are a fan or practicioner. It's not mainstream. It's not in style. It's just always been a part of photography. Now the only difference is that every person who makes photos can share them online so you see more results. You used to only see the people that were deemed "masters."

What I am referring to, is the activity of shooting randomly many photographs, without even looking at the OV or display. Just collecting hundreds of them just to see what comes out.

More myth than fact. I photograph in NYC a lot. I rarely see these people who machine gun without looking at a VF of some form. If anything, I think people are very particular about what they photograph when they are into photography. If you aren't into photography, then you most likely don't care about results.

In the past there were a tiny fraction of people using cameras at all and especially for anything else than family pictures.

Maybe, maybe not. I've never conducted a poll. Photography has been popular for a long time at this point.

Digital and phone cameras have made this activity accessible, very cheap and very popular. Just look at the millions of pictures loaded to fb, instagram, etc on a daily basis.

Right, is this how you define street photography though? If so, I can see how you'd think you are right.

 

[kbg32]

Woman Photographing a Busker, Manchester par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity


... silly old me 🙂

I wouldn't consider him a busker at all.

 

[Sparrow]

... thanks Keith

PS the first Keith that is, the second Keith obviously didn't notice the 1d whistle ... or hear him play it

 

[ZeissFan]

I've stopped giving money to street people. I do give money to charities that aid the homeless. But I think giving money to them directly often feeds their addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Oh, and I don't photograph the homeless.

 

[lam]

This is very sad.
I don't photograph the homeless too. No matter how innocent or aggravated or interesting a person looks, you never know their motive or reason so why risk it. 'Homeless' photography is not my thing.
I'm saddened by this whole story even more, i'm sure lots of us have walked on the roads where she was killed..

 

[Ming Rider]

I admit to being a serial homeless shooter. Not because they're an easy target or so that I can 'brag at middle class dinner parties' but out of respect and a genuine interest for their way of life (some are there by choice).

Having been fortunate (yes, fortunate) to experience life on the other side of the fence for a short while, I have nothing but admiration for these people.

I've been told by others in the past to get closer, shoot head and shoulders etc. This just makes an exhibition of them. That's why I frame wide, include some of their world and shoot them in isolation, to emphasise their often solitary and lonesome existance.

Like this guy. He may be begging, but he's playing a penny whistle. He becomes a musician, or a street performer, a human being, not just a homeless guy.

 

[kbg32]

... thanks Keith

PS the first Keith that is, the second Keith obviously didn't notice the 1d whistle ... or hear him play it

I saw the whistle. I still would consider him to be more of a street person then a busker.

You're welcome.

 

[jsrockit]

I saw the whistle. I still would consider him to be more of a street person then a busker.

You're welcome.

Is there a difference between making a photo of a street person and someone on the streets (who lives in a home) if they are both doing the same activity? Why can you photograph one and not the other?

 

[btgc]

But I think giving money to them directly often feeds their addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Oh, and I don't photograph the homeless.

There are bad cases when donating for charity makes middlemen richer 😱

I had taken couple of pictures but haven't really ventured into it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17767363@N00/2617722128/in/set-72157623558839814
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17767363@N00/3924930515/in/set-72157623558839814

 

[kbg32]

Is there a difference between making a photo of a street person and someone on the streets (who lives in a home) if they are both doing the same activity? Why can you photograph one and not the other?

To me, he looks more homeless, then having a home to go to. To others, maybe they know him and he's famous for playing his whistle and lives in a stellar home featured in House and Garden. This is his way of passing the time, practicing, and supplementing his royalty payouts.

Yes, John, there is a difference. I think you know that. It doesn't seem like those bags are holding his lunch.

 

[Sparrow]

... that the middle classes have always been skilled at exposing the undeserving poor is undeniably true

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, John, there is a difference. I think you know that. It doesn't seem like those bags are holding his lunch.

I do think there is a difference too. I'll admit it though. I have photographed the homeless man who plays the flute over by Wall St. sometimes (you probably have seen him).

I didn't photograph him because he was homeless or had charecter. I photographed him because he was playing the flute with gloves on!

Some days though, I wonder what the true difference is. If I photograph a stranger who does not look homeless, but their life is in shambles (and we might not know this), is that any better?

 

[kbg32]

The problem, for some, being middle class - you're just a few steps from the bottom, and it's a long way to the top.

 

[kbg32]

I do think there is a difference too. I'll admit it though. I have photographed the homeless man who plays the flute over by Wall St. sometimes (you probably have seen him).

I didn't photograph him because he was homeless or had charecter. I photographed him because he was playing the flute with gloves on!

Some days though, I wonder what the true difference is. If I photograph a stranger who does not look homeless, but their life is in shambles (and we might not know this), is that any better?

That's hard to say. Some people's lives might be easier to discern than others. Unless we get into the lives of everyone we photograph on the street, we just have our own intuition and knowledge to go on.

Without really knowing what those ladies might have said, or their attitudes, who pulled out their cell phones to photograph the men and their signs.... still, it's tragic.

 

[seakayaker1]

Were they photographing the homeless or three guys with obscene signs?

In Seattle we have a large population of homeless people on the streets. Some ask for money, some hold out their hat, some hold a sign with a request, some make signs with funny statements, like "need money for beer!".

Perhaps the young ladies choose to photograph the signs more then the men holding them. Irregardless they made a choice to to take a photograph on a public street of men who were seeking attention, the article stated they were 'begging' for money and the women payed a price.

As a country we pay billions if not trillions of dollars a year to protect us from terrorists. Yet we pay next to nothing to solve/resolve the problem of homelessness and addiction. The byproduct is citizens having to curtail their rights just to walk city streets.