Photographer Profiting from Homeless??

Interesting. I think it's alright as long as he makes an effort to find those who he photographed to share some of the earnings. Great photos.
 
He's just the latest in a long line of photographers capitalizing off of the homeless (or poor in general). I'm not going to judge him for it though, he's the one that has to defend it and live with what he is doing. I don't buy the tears part though...
 
To be honest, to get so close and intimate with your subjects as these pictures would indicate, means that they are very much at ease with you taking their picture. Which might well have took some doing. I think this is one of the strongest string of portraits I've seen in ages.
 
Sparrow said:
It says quite clearly in the text that the photographer is an accountant and an amateur photographer, so no he isn't profiting from them ... what makes you ask?
Click to expand...

Or at least he wouldn't show any taxable profits after the cost of his equipment has been deducted. :D
 
anybody else notice how the eyes seem eerily the same in each straight-on shot? the 1,000-yard stare?
the only thing that bothered was cnn playing an ad from at&t, flashing on each portrait from the middle on. but hey, cnn has to sell ads to make money ...
 
CNN profiting from the photographer?

"profiting" made me laugh. anyone who does this sort of work knows there is no money in it.

beyond that, I find the images skilfull but a little sentimental and overly dramatic. Heavy-handed postprocessing objectifies the subjects a bit. They become archetypes rather than people.
 
some of the people he shot have beautiful faces. beauty is where you find it.

and let's remember the homeless generally have public places for their "homes." in the usa, public is public, no matter who you are, no matter your circumstances. who would holler about the rich and powerful being photographed in public places? i suspect no one ...
 
paulfish4570 said:
anybody else notice how the eyes seem eerily the same in each straight-on shot? the 1,000-yard stare?
the only thing that bothered was cnn playing an ad from at&t, flashing on each portrait from the middle on. but hey, cnn has to sell ads to make money ...
Click to expand...

I agree, the advertising popping up, obscuring the pictures was intrusive.

paulfish4570 said:
some of the people he shot have beautiful faces. beauty is where you find it.

and let's remember the homeless generally have public places for their "homes." in the usa, public is public, no matter who you are, no matter your circumstances. who would holler about the rich and powerful being photographed in public places? i suspect no one ...
Click to expand...

I agree with this too. I found them all beautiful. If ever I get depicted, and dare I say immortalised, with such dignity and care I would be happy. I'm not saying these poor souls should be over themselves with joy at being photographed, but they are at least going to be remembered, in a positive sense.
 
3 words ... Social Documentary Photography...

What about Don McCullin... did he pay all the GI's and hobo's that he took pictures of? Jeez... if we had to fill in releases for every person we shot in the street what kind of world would it be?
 
Ezzie said:
I found them all beautiful. If ever I get depicted, and dare I say immortalised, with such dignity and care I would be happy. I'm not saying these poor souls should be over themselves with joy at being photographed, but they are at least going to be remembered, in a positive sense.
Click to expand...

Post processing to make the images look like romantic Rembrandt copies does not necessarily amount to depicting with dignity.
 
You know what folks? I really envy you for the solid truth you sees to have in your opinions.

In fact, I can't really make up my mind about that work, besides thinking that those are stunningly beautiful portraits which obviously show that the subjects trusted the photographer enough to let him into their world.

One the one hand I doubt that photographer will try (or manage) to trace all his subjects and share with them the bucks he's going to make from that book (given the quality of those portraits, it may sell well). Yes, he gave them a few bucks after taking the pix there and then. But those faces revealing signs of a hard life and their more or less touching stories will be just as decisive for the good sale of the book than the photographer's talent. It would seem appropriate to me to either give them more as the book or interviews or exhibitions start producing incomes, or use a significant part of that income to support the cause of the homeless, you find out how.

One the other hand, I do feel empathy, compassion for those people as I look into those masterfully photographed eyes. I do think about their stories and feel even more fortunate with my own life. Maybe I'll be more likely to stop and talk or give a buck to the next homeless I come across, after seeing those photos or reading that book. Am I a better person now? Probably not. But isn't making people think, feel positive feelings and maybe act more generously already a positive contribution to a rather egoistic and materialistic world, if not directly to those specific homeless? Is just ignoring those people a better way to do them or the world good?

That's why I can't make up my mind..
 
OK, granted - People are people... and there are bound to be good and bad. Forgive me, but all I see is some decent portraits - do we know the photographer is 'scamming' them? What evidence is there to prove that this photographer mistreated these people? Who are we to judge? Or did I miss something?

It took the photographer a lot of time, and I'm sure a great expense. Should he stick with taking pictures of landscapes, or some cute puppies? It looks like he talked to them about the photo's, these aren't street shots - they are posed portraits.

I don't buy all this moral high horse stuff. If you take a picture in a public place - it's fair game. People can dispute or request removal (homeless or not), but that's about as far as it goes, these people are 'posing' for the pictures, they aren't looking awkward, or offended - he hasn't snatched them without asking. Personally I'd feel honoured to be part of that gallery, and I'm sure - if you asked one of them, they'd be happy to be in a book.

Who is ultimately responsible for the creation (and what looks like significant post production) of the images? I don't see much point in getting upset with this thread...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom