Photographer Profiting from Homeless??

People are getting too hung up on whether or not the subjects are being taken advantage of. I don't think that's really the issue with this type of photography. They're all adults and I'm sure having their picture taken is the least of their problems.

The real problem with this kind of photography (other than it being overphotoshopped crap) is the way it exploits the idea of hardship and suffering for its aesthetic appeal. It's just the portrait counterpart of photographing ruins (also known as 'ruin porn').
 
His PP technique gets in the way of the images, in my opinion.

That aside, I can't see why people who are already excluded from society in many ways should also be excluded from being photographed.

You can take all the pictures you want of the rich, the homeless or otherwise disadvantaged people, but if none of them are any good, nobody's going to care anyway. In this case, the photos are engaging, close up and personal and clearly taken with consent and participation, so congratulations to him with the book. I wish it were me getting published.
 
Nothing seems to polarise opinions more than Photoshop, save maybe bokeh. As if half the tools aren't derived from the darkroom techniques to begin with.
 
Jamie123 said:
The real problem with this kind of photography (other than it being overphotoshopped crap) is the way it exploits the idea of hardship and suffering for its aesthetic appeal. It's just the portrait counterpart of photographing ruins (also known as 'ruin porn').
Click to expand...

You have a point here. Faces of miners, sailors, crab fishers and any other hard working, weather hardened or just old people may have the same aesthetic appeal. Yet fewer would object such pictures as unethical.
 
This is an interesting thread and conversation. I don't believe that Jeffries is profiteering from this, as it's a flickr set that has gone viral in more ways than one. Petapixel.com had posted on this last week, with the short backstory on how his images came about. Here's the clipped quote:

Photographer Lee Jeffries worked as a sports photographer before having a chance encounter one day with a young homeless girl on a London street. After stealthily photographing the girl huddled in her sleeping bag, Jeffries decided to approach and talk with her rather than disappear with the photograph. That day changed his perception about the homeless, and he then decided to make them the subject of his photography. Jeffries makes portraits of homeless people he meets in Europe and in the US, and makes it a point to get to know them before asking to create the portraits. His photographs are gritty, honest, and haunting. - Michael Zhang of petapixel.com

The photographer puts sincere effort into getting to know his subject, like any good portrait photographer. His approach was governed by a chance encounter, and has led him to emphasize this group of people in his work because his heart goes out to them, and this is the best way for him to make known the struggles of these denizens of the earth.

This isn't just capturing an image of a helpless person and scampering off to sell it as stock or fine art. It's documentary and real and unsettling. Much like Seamus Murphy's set of Afghanistan that recently was highlighted by PDN, his portraits and images of a broken people were not for profit, but for love and compassion. Watch the short documentary produced by him and MediaStorm, and it's unreal how the images speak volumes for people that usually have no voice in the social atmosphere of the world. Here's the link to the video, it's 30 minutes long and worth every second.

These are some of the best examples of this new era of photojournalism. This is intimate and exclusive knowledge more easily shared in this age of information. The other posters have been right that it's become too common place to think that releases need to be served in the public forum, and for work that resembles "fine art" but serves another purpose - public knowledge.

As a note, I don't personally care for Jeffries heavy hand in post, but still enjoy the photos immensely. My favorite was the last one with the guy holding up his syringe. That and the one of the London girl that is only on his flickr and in the petapixel.com article, somehow CNN seemed to omit the image that started it all...
 
I read this thread before looking at the photos.

Based on the comments here I knew exactly the style of post processing that was done on the portraits.

"nice" is about all I can say about the portraits. I have no opinion other than that that I feel is necessary to explain here.

Cheers,
Dave
 
He seems to treat his subjects with great respect and respects their dignity as people. The photos are taken with their full awareness and consent. I'd say that's all you can ask of him, from an ethical standpoint.
 
celluloidprop said:
He seems to treat his subjects with great respect and respects their dignity as people. The photos are taken with their full awareness and consent. I'd say that's all you can ask of him, from an ethical standpoint.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ironic having you comment this way with your "commandment" signature. 🙂
 
Bob Michaels said:
Or could it really be that all people should be treated with the same respect?
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. The topic often revolves around the disadvantaged and downtrodden - for reasons that are not as simple as paternalism or seeing them as the 'other - but dignity should be universal.

FWIW, every time I see the thread pop up here that's "candid pictures of young women in public places," I get a bit grossed out. There's something bothersome about the specificity.
 
Bob Michaels said:
It seems that everyone is implicitly agreeing that "homeless" are a special class of people that require unique consideration. After all, they must not be normal because we are and they are substantially different.

Or could it really be that all people should be treated with the same respect?
Click to expand...

Respect is undoubtedly the key word. Some would say that respecting homeless or any other one in the street means leaving them alone without sticking a camera onto their faces ("if your photo isn't good enough, you weren't close enough"). Others say that respect means treating everyone the same way, also taking that picture one has the right to take of anyone in the public room, no matter how hard a life they may have or how sick they may be. But very intruiguing discussion. Hope no one takes it personally here in the forum when very different opinions collide ;-)
 
I have no problem with it at all. It's impossible to know the state of mind of a photographer when he takes a picture. Is that sweet photo of a child the product of a photographer who is also a pedophile? Photographing homeless people isn't my thing but I certainly appreciate seeing pictures of all types of people, not just the well-to-do. I welcome documents of the human condition.

Count me as another who greatly dislikes the post processing of these images, and would really enjoy seeing the images before he had at them.
 
Profiting (in the exploitative -sense) is just a financial manifestation of apathy.
There are other ways in which we show our indifference, one of which is not to show it.

It always depends on whose standard are we going by, and thinking that human race has one man-made standard to go to, is simply deluding ourselves.

The photographer, publisher, and viewer each has their own decision to make regarding this.

Other than that, those photographs are really, really good.
 
There seems to be an assumption that all homeless people want to end their state of being homeless.

ime of London, for many of the 'homeless' there, it is a lifestyle choice.
 
The Guardian covered this stuff last week.

I personally find it OTT schmaltz which puts me in mind of Anne Geddes' baby photographs. Low-brow but with mass appeal that could make the copyright owner a quid or two in poster sales.

On topic: Is the photographer profiting from the homeless? Probably, but I don't see what's wrong with that, he'll probably get an offer or two of work in the advertising business on the strength of these photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom