Photographing the Homeless.
- Thread starter samoksner
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 161
- Views 6K
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
M6,collapsible cron, neopan 1600...
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Last edited:
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
M2, 21SA,neopan1600
PaulRicciardi
Established
People are people regardless of life circumstances. I like photographing people, I like "characters." I don't find it rude to photograph the homeless-they're just like me, but without a home. In the end, it doesn't really matter who I photograph and I don't really think true street photography has an boundaries. If they're interesting, I snap the shutter.
With that said, I've gotten to know more than a few of my subjects (both homeless and not). I've given away more than a few prints to subjects as well. If I tell a homeless person that I'll give them a print, I make a copy, stick it in my bag, and carry it with me until I see them again. Columbia is not a big city, you're bound to eventually run into someone again if you spend enough time photographing in the streets.
If I tell a "homed" person I'll give them a print, I either ask for an address or email address and mail it to them.
Here are a few shots of homeless people here in Columbia:
Benny-he's a Korean War vet, currently homeless. After his deployment he stayed in the military and worked as an MP at a nuclear reactor site, in Virginia I believe. He can often be found on Main St. feeding the pigeons and squirrels. Whenever I see him he shouts at me and waves, I come over and we talk.
Troy-He worked as a butcher for 20 years, he's missing a finger. I'm not entirely sure why he's homeless, but fact of the matter is that he is. He wants to learn photography.
Verna-Met her outside of a cafe where someone had given her a bag of potato chips. She talked to me for a bit while munching on them. I think I gave her some change to catch a bus. Never saw her again.
Marvis-I had just photographed two men on the street, they hassled me about it saying I owed them money. I told them that it's perfectly legal for me to photograph a person on a public street. They started to get a bit aggressive when Marvis stepped in and told them to leave me alone. He brought me back to his stoop where he sits most days drinking sweet tea or coffee that one of the local churches gives out. He says he keeps to himself most days and thinks that people today are too self absorbed. I've seen him around more than once, he calls me "camera man."
Finally this is a picture of a security guard taken by Bruce, a homeless man. Bruce and I met August of 2008 and got to be friends. He's in his mid 20's and was in prison for 8 years. Taught himself to sing and actually has a good voice. He got interested in photography after hanging out with me a few times. So one day I loaded up the Leica with some film, and Bruce and I spent a day together walking around the city taking pictures together. He figured out how to use the Leica pretty quickly and liked the idea of street photography after I explained to him that street photography, for me, is about "characters" and "life." He managed to get a job at a local music store and found a little house to rent along with his girlfriend Danielle who works at McDonalds.
Moral of these stories? Homeless people are people too, they have lives, stories, feelings and emotions. At least one of them can work a Leica. Most of my street photography is the traditional method of photographing a stranger at random and not getting to know them. However I have spent time getting to know both homed and homeless people who I have photographed.
I don't do it much, I generally just shoot and then move on. However spending some time to actually get to know the subjects of your photos can be rewarding.
With that said, I've gotten to know more than a few of my subjects (both homeless and not). I've given away more than a few prints to subjects as well. If I tell a homeless person that I'll give them a print, I make a copy, stick it in my bag, and carry it with me until I see them again. Columbia is not a big city, you're bound to eventually run into someone again if you spend enough time photographing in the streets.
If I tell a "homed" person I'll give them a print, I either ask for an address or email address and mail it to them.
Here are a few shots of homeless people here in Columbia:
Benny-he's a Korean War vet, currently homeless. After his deployment he stayed in the military and worked as an MP at a nuclear reactor site, in Virginia I believe. He can often be found on Main St. feeding the pigeons and squirrels. Whenever I see him he shouts at me and waves, I come over and we talk.
Troy-He worked as a butcher for 20 years, he's missing a finger. I'm not entirely sure why he's homeless, but fact of the matter is that he is. He wants to learn photography.
Verna-Met her outside of a cafe where someone had given her a bag of potato chips. She talked to me for a bit while munching on them. I think I gave her some change to catch a bus. Never saw her again.
Marvis-I had just photographed two men on the street, they hassled me about it saying I owed them money. I told them that it's perfectly legal for me to photograph a person on a public street. They started to get a bit aggressive when Marvis stepped in and told them to leave me alone. He brought me back to his stoop where he sits most days drinking sweet tea or coffee that one of the local churches gives out. He says he keeps to himself most days and thinks that people today are too self absorbed. I've seen him around more than once, he calls me "camera man."
Finally this is a picture of a security guard taken by Bruce, a homeless man. Bruce and I met August of 2008 and got to be friends. He's in his mid 20's and was in prison for 8 years. Taught himself to sing and actually has a good voice. He got interested in photography after hanging out with me a few times. So one day I loaded up the Leica with some film, and Bruce and I spent a day together walking around the city taking pictures together. He figured out how to use the Leica pretty quickly and liked the idea of street photography after I explained to him that street photography, for me, is about "characters" and "life." He managed to get a job at a local music store and found a little house to rent along with his girlfriend Danielle who works at McDonalds.
Moral of these stories? Homeless people are people too, they have lives, stories, feelings and emotions. At least one of them can work a Leica. Most of my street photography is the traditional method of photographing a stranger at random and not getting to know them. However I have spent time getting to know both homed and homeless people who I have photographed.
I don't do it much, I generally just shoot and then move on. However spending some time to actually get to know the subjects of your photos can be rewarding.
Last edited:
PaulRicciardi
Established
Agree completely
lynnb
Veteran
This article is about the ethics of journalists covering the aftermath of a natural disaster, but it has relevance to photographic coverage of people in distress - which might describe some (but not necessarily all) homeless.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/how-much-does-the-public-need-to-know-20100115-mbqm.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/how-much-does-the-public-need-to-know-20100115-mbqm.html
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
on my way home...another Fallen
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Here is one from the shoot I was referring to earlier. Turns out I did have it in the gallery here and spaced it off. I have very mixed feelings about doing this shoot.
ca. 1970. Larger image in the gallery if anybody cares.
ca. 1970. Larger image in the gallery if anybody cares.
Koni Kowa
Well-known
Nor often, but of course I do : why not ?
Turtle
Veteran
The issue is the same for photographing anyone for whom life is terrible and you could be seen as exploiting rather than mechanically helping. The examples often used are war photographers that 'could have helped save a captives life' or similar.
What does a PJ do photographing a project involving homeless drug addicts and meets one who is unlikely to survive long in winter weather without blankets for the night.... when the addict directly asks for blankets?
Its the age old argument of whether the photographer should put the camera away and 'actually help.' If the photographer helped every time he or she saw something worthy of help, then photography would not be possible. Does that matter? How does the photographer maintain a clear conscience and walk away from the addict knowing that a $2 blanket might have saved a life, but where there are 100 more addicts living in a bombed out building also asking? The shop round the corner does not have blankets. Does the photographer leave and go try to find some and abandon the project int eh knowledge that every scene has someone crying out for help? What about notifying various agencies that can help... but without being sure they will or that help will be in time. Is it that the photographer is the silent witness that otherwise would not be there and so is invisible, touching nothing, changing nothing rather like wildlife camera crews that watch a baby animal die of dehydration or from being caught in a mud hole?
I don't think there is an answer and it perhaps does not matter as long as you can answer any nagging doubts you have inside your own head. I certainly don't know, but have asked these questions of myself and feel reasonably at peace with the decisions I have made. They are not consistent, but then again we are all human.
What does a PJ do photographing a project involving homeless drug addicts and meets one who is unlikely to survive long in winter weather without blankets for the night.... when the addict directly asks for blankets?
Its the age old argument of whether the photographer should put the camera away and 'actually help.' If the photographer helped every time he or she saw something worthy of help, then photography would not be possible. Does that matter? How does the photographer maintain a clear conscience and walk away from the addict knowing that a $2 blanket might have saved a life, but where there are 100 more addicts living in a bombed out building also asking? The shop round the corner does not have blankets. Does the photographer leave and go try to find some and abandon the project int eh knowledge that every scene has someone crying out for help? What about notifying various agencies that can help... but without being sure they will or that help will be in time. Is it that the photographer is the silent witness that otherwise would not be there and so is invisible, touching nothing, changing nothing rather like wildlife camera crews that watch a baby animal die of dehydration or from being caught in a mud hole?
I don't think there is an answer and it perhaps does not matter as long as you can answer any nagging doubts you have inside your own head. I certainly don't know, but have asked these questions of myself and feel reasonably at peace with the decisions I have made. They are not consistent, but then again we are all human.
elude
Some photographer
Seeing this guy's work settled the question for me a long time ago :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14663382@N03/sets/72157602297366870/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14663382@N03/sets/72157602297366870/
DGA
Well-known
Helen,
Although I voted against this subject, I think this picture is fantastic.
Here, you see the situation, you feel the atmosphere of despair
but with not showing the homeless's face, you spare him from disgrace.
Very nice image.
Although I voted against this subject, I think this picture is fantastic.
Here, you see the situation, you feel the atmosphere of despair
but with not showing the homeless's face, you spare him from disgrace.
Very nice image.
M2,21 Super Angulon,neopan1600
P
Pico
Guest
The homeless are different. They are homeless! I've never seen a photograph that tells their stories. I've known some homeless persons here in the wintery north of middle America, and each one was homeless by choice, and each had a different story.
I came to know them through years of association with a local fellow who was on a steady decline in his mental health. In his case being homeless, refusing shelter and help was his last possible willful act, his last freedom and shred of dignity that he believed he could exercise. While I had hundreds of opportunities to photograph him, I never saw one situation that would describe the depth and profundity of his personal experience.
Making a photograph of a homeless person doesn't help them any more than making a photograph of a tree helps the tree.
I came to know them through years of association with a local fellow who was on a steady decline in his mental health. In his case being homeless, refusing shelter and help was his last possible willful act, his last freedom and shred of dignity that he believed he could exercise. While I had hundreds of opportunities to photograph him, I never saw one situation that would describe the depth and profundity of his personal experience.
Making a photograph of a homeless person doesn't help them any more than making a photograph of a tree helps the tree.
_mark__
Well-known
on my way home...another Fallen
Masterful! I am absolutely blown away by this one.
Last edited:
kuvvy
Well-known
Saw this guy reaching to collect coins which had been thrown through the wire fence surrounding the Ground Zero site.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
_mark__; said:
just saw your Comment Mark...😎
Greatly Appreciated, Thank You !!
to my 'EYE" it speaks so Intensely ...Sad yet there is a Beauty to Human Endurance
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
The homeless fall under the same category as mannequins and statues for so-called "street photographers"... Easy, no threat (generally) of push back, except it's also disrespectful, "E"xploitive, and B O R I N G. What are you trying to say with this picture? Anything at all? Or is shooting someone sleeping on the street in utter despair just "easy" and about as challenging and threatening as shooting mannequins and statues - 'cept they're human beings? After learning the rule of thirds, the next "rule of threes" for "better pictures" in the 10 Secrets of How to be a Better Street Photographer free eBook should be these three subjects that are off-limits to street photographers:
1. mannequins
2. statues
3. homeless people
I find "3" especially vile (far and away - 1 and 2 are just wasted frames...) Apart from being gutless and boring and violating my new "Rule of Threes" (three things not to take pictures of, to make better pictures...) it violates the "golden rule" too. If you were in that position of utter despair would you want some a-hole, as part of their hobby or profession, snapping pictures of you as you lay, unwashed - probably with all kinds of health and mental issues, in a gutter? ...especially if they sold the print (reminds me of that film "Pecker" in this case) and made even $1.00 off it? Would you want that picture of you at rock bottom posted all over Flickr and other photography sites for strangers to gawk at?
What can be more disgusting than some clown with too much expendable income with his pricey $5,000 "M9" toy running around shooting the homeless, chimping and thinking, "Wow, mahn, what a great shot!" Uggh.... just threw up in my mouth a little.
When you shoot pictures of the homeless, you are doing so for exactly the same reason you shoot mannequins and statues - you're too gutless to do actual "street photography" of human subjects that might object, too lazy, and worst of all - you're treating these poor people the same way as statues and mannequins - that is, they're not human beings to you. Immoral, unethical, "cheap" short cut to evoke emotion, uncreative, exploitive, disgusting, boring... uggh. It's everything art shouldn't strive to be.
I have spoken. The extent to which you disagree with these assertions is the extent to which you are incorrect in your position. And some of the worst, most vile and boring pictures I have seen on this forum, by the way, are on this thread. For the love of Pete, STOP IT!
1. mannequins
2. statues
3. homeless people
I find "3" especially vile (far and away - 1 and 2 are just wasted frames...) Apart from being gutless and boring and violating my new "Rule of Threes" (three things not to take pictures of, to make better pictures...) it violates the "golden rule" too. If you were in that position of utter despair would you want some a-hole, as part of their hobby or profession, snapping pictures of you as you lay, unwashed - probably with all kinds of health and mental issues, in a gutter? ...especially if they sold the print (reminds me of that film "Pecker" in this case) and made even $1.00 off it? Would you want that picture of you at rock bottom posted all over Flickr and other photography sites for strangers to gawk at?
What can be more disgusting than some clown with too much expendable income with his pricey $5,000 "M9" toy running around shooting the homeless, chimping and thinking, "Wow, mahn, what a great shot!" Uggh.... just threw up in my mouth a little.
When you shoot pictures of the homeless, you are doing so for exactly the same reason you shoot mannequins and statues - you're too gutless to do actual "street photography" of human subjects that might object, too lazy, and worst of all - you're treating these poor people the same way as statues and mannequins - that is, they're not human beings to you. Immoral, unethical, "cheap" short cut to evoke emotion, uncreative, exploitive, disgusting, boring... uggh. It's everything art shouldn't strive to be.
I have spoken. The extent to which you disagree with these assertions is the extent to which you are incorrect in your position. And some of the worst, most vile and boring pictures I have seen on this forum, by the way, are on this thread. For the love of Pete, STOP IT!
Last edited:
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Boring, usually; cliche; overdone.
I've no personal ethical dilemma to photographing those in public, regardless of their status in life. And I don't question the ethics of capturing images that include the seemingly homeless, any more than I don't question the ethics of the unfortunate middle class that may be coming out of a theater in the evening, onto the streets.
You can't always tell who really is homeless. The guy with a handwritten cardboard sign that says "Please help, God bless" might actually have a home, and could be making lots of tax-free income doing so. Conversely, the ordinary looking guy taking the bus to work might be living on someone's couch, one step away from the streets. So I don't resume.
Ultimately, the image has to stand on its own merits, regardless of whose character is captured. And I mean the word "character" literally; all the world's a stage, etc.
~Joe
I've no personal ethical dilemma to photographing those in public, regardless of their status in life. And I don't question the ethics of capturing images that include the seemingly homeless, any more than I don't question the ethics of the unfortunate middle class that may be coming out of a theater in the evening, onto the streets.
You can't always tell who really is homeless. The guy with a handwritten cardboard sign that says "Please help, God bless" might actually have a home, and could be making lots of tax-free income doing so. Conversely, the ordinary looking guy taking the bus to work might be living on someone's couch, one step away from the streets. So I don't resume.
Ultimately, the image has to stand on its own merits, regardless of whose character is captured. And I mean the word "character" literally; all the world's a stage, etc.
~Joe
NickTrop
Veteran
I hope those homeless folks gang up on you as you wander into depressed urban areas to create your "art", steal your M9, and use it to buy food and a change of clothes.