Photographing the Homeless.

[Pablito]

I will photograph "The Homeless" only if they are "Picturesque Homeless." Usually that means they must also be a member of some other vaguely related group such as "The Crazy" or "The Alcoholic" or "The Eccentric." Or at least appear that way. Especially appealing are Homeless Males with long beards, preferably smoking. They make a very good picture. Well-dressed Homeless people aren't very eye-catching.

The core of the question, I suppose, is WHY photograph "The Homeless?" The best of all possible reasons, as far as I'm concerned, is because they are so "Colorful." This does not mean one should not photograph them in black and white. It simply means that few other subjects can provide the "Concerned Photographer" with such a great opportunity to satisfy his "Compassionate" need to produce "Humanitarian" images. Ultimately, it's about "Self Expression."

Now, how should one approach "Them?" One method, the "Wideangle Gonzo Method," is to engage in friendly banter and lend a "Sympathetic Ear," maybe buy "Them" a meal, share a cig with "Them" (this demonstrates you're not afraid of catching the cooties or whatever other dread disease "They" are harboring) or "Lend" "Them" a few dollars. Then shoot really close with a really wide lens to produce compelling "In Your Face" images. Shoot wide open for plenty of "Bokeh" (it's artistic). Oh, and promise copies of the photos because you know you'll never see them again. You'll come away feeling really good about yourself, trust me.

Then there's the "Timid-Respectful Method." Don't think I need to describe that other than it involves a very long lens and a good dose of fear. But don't think that's a put-down, the "Timid Respectful Method" can provide excellent results, or at least some good thrills.

Now, here are some things to aim for in your photos of "The Homeless:"

1. Wild gesturing arms.
2. Disheveled appearance, hair.
3. Missing teeth
4. (Male) Long unkempt beard, preferably with "things" in it.
5. (Female); no brassiere
6. Unseasonal clothing
7. Nice selection of props for "Atmosphere"
8. Atmosphere: make sure the is plenty of trash around

Finally, the critical question of what lens, what camera, digital or film; if film which film/developer combo works best to really "Capture" "The Essence" of "The Homeless." Alas, I'll save that for Chapter Two.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I used to do it in Chicago, until one time I felt as if I were exploiting their image, especially when I was about to photograph an old man who was asleep on an area near Millenium Park. After that, I decided not to: they're not animals in a zoo.

However, I do photograph street performers, and leave them some money as well.

 

[antiquark]

If my wife went to walmart to pick up my latest batch of prints, and it was a bunch of homeless people... I do believe she would be making a phone call to the local insane asylum. 🙂

In reality though, for various reasons I don't like photographing strangers, including homeless strangers.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I just keepo on shooting 15mm pix of myself around town. My ex is always telling me to shave and/or get a haircut because "You look just like a street person! A BUM!" she says, "...and you have HOLES in your jeans!"

How come nobody ever comments about that poor destitute photographer? The one who can't afford a pack of disposeable razors? His jeans are ripped and faded. His Leicas are brassed and dented. Is he exploiting himself?

"Hey Rangefinderforum member! Can you spare me five bucks so I can buy myself a roll of Tri-X?"

 

[benmacphoto]

Are not homeless people just "people" like everyone else? Some people are male, some are female. Some people have money, some don't. Some are straight, some are gay. Some are white, some are black. Some have homes, some do not. And all the variations in between.

But once you set aside all your preconceived notions, people are just people.

Well said. This is my approach to photographing anyone on the street. People are just people.

 

[retnull]

I believe that what makes a photograph good is that the photographer has some strong relationship with his/her subject, or at least wishes he/she had a strong relationship.

I find the homeless fascinating (here in downtown NYC), but since I don't have relationship with them, I don't photograph them: the results would be uninteresting.

 

[thambar]

This issue came up several years ago on the Leica Users Group forum. At the time, I was assembling the first (of what has become an annual tradition) of LUG yearbooks (available on blurb.com). So, I decided to add a $5 surcharge to the yearbooks, with the proceeds going to Project H.O.M.E. in Philadelphia (an organization which provides housing, medical care, and job training for homeless individuals). So far the LUG books have produced more than $1000 in donations to Project H.O.M.E., which isn't bad for an ongoing vanity project.

I hope others use the opportunity to devise their own programs to help homeless individuals.

 

[not_in_good_order]

I voted "other opinion": I don't photograph the homeless because it doesn't interest me artistically. I see it as sort of a photographic cliche.

 

[aizan]

it's the fast food of photography.

 

[Kristopher]

I agree with Patrick

I take pictures of absolutely anything or anyone in the streets, except homeless. Why? Because it's a cliché, it's a way for weekend photographers from middle-class or rich suburbs to have a glance at misery, to have the feeling of capturing a dramatic shot. And this, witout having the trouble of doing serious work of research and/or to really get to know these persons' reality.

Don't get me wrong : if one's intention is to produce a very well done BODY of work on homeless persons, with photojournalistic research, interviews etc. That's fine. There even was a book locally produced on a particular guy, and the job was well done.

I just feel that most (don't answer me yes but not all please, we all know that. ) people that do take shots want to get easy dramatic pictures by taking pictures of homeless persons.

It happened to me by mistake on diverse occasions to take shots of homeless persons, I will never print any of them. Never. The only time I did, the guy asked me to take the shot.

The only case where I would feel allright to take a picture, would be if I was to see a situation where these persons are trated with dignity, to show something else than drama. To show something else than the usual cliché.

And don't tell me that posting a single shot of Flickr is going to raise social awarness to the problem. BS.

Give them a penny instead, pay them a coffee, treat them with dignity. Don't ignore them, say hello. There are human and do not, reduce their quality as a human being to a simple opportunity for an image of tragedy.

I am sorry if that post may seem rude.

Peace.

 

[leighmarrin]

Yes, I photograph homeless people, usually with their permission. I'm slightly acquainted with several local homeless folks.

Attached is a photo I took several years ago of a homeless man on the Promenade street mall in Santa Monica, Calif. He asked for money; I gave him a dollar and asked to take his photograph. (9x12cm Certo "BeeBee" plate camera + Efke sheet film.)

--Leigh in Santa Barbara, Calif.

 

[jarski]

I dont turn the camera off or away if I see homeless or side tracked people, but dont go out looking for them neither.

if there is something interesting in the scene, and feel of not offending anybody, I just snap away.

 

[nico]

I agree with Patrick
I take pictures of absolutely anything or anyone in the streets, except homeless. Why? Because it's a cliché, it's a way for weekend photographers from middle-class or rich suburbs to have a glance at misery, to have the feeling of capturing a dramatic shot. And this, witout having the trouble of doing serious work of research and/or to really get to know these persons' reality.

Don't get me wrong : if one's intention is to produce a very well done BODY of work on homeless persons, with photojournalistic research, interviews etc. That's fine....

I just feel that most (don't answer me yes but not all please, we all know that. ) people that do take shots want to get easy dramatic pictures by taking pictures of homeless persons.
...
And don't tell me that posting a single shot of Flickr is going to raise social awarness to the problem. BS.

Give them a penny instead, pay them a coffee, treat them with dignity. Don't ignore them, say hello. There are human and do not, reduce their quality as a human being to a simple opportunity for an image of tragedy.

I feel exactly the same.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not that I won't do it, it's just that I don't do it. I think the last time was 7 or 8 years ago in Canterbury: a young man with the inevitable dog on a bit of string. It was a good dog so I asked if I could take a picture of the two of them together (I'd already given him a pound). No problem.

An interesting thing happened in Arles a couple of years ago, though. I gave a beggar a couple of euros late at night and we were 'the best of friends'. Next day, both sober, we ran into one another in a park, where he was washing under a pump. He didn't even recognize me. All he saw was the camera. Which was hanging around my neck, not pointing at him. His whole attitude, when I said hello, was distinctly hostile. Silly, really, as I was going to give him a couple more euros.

So, as others have pointed out, they're people, just like the rest of us. All sentient beings desire happiness and the causes of happiness, and to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering. It's just that some people are better at it, or just plain luckier, than others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

I would have no hesitation if I had a reason to, but don't because I don't (except very rarely). While I think that most photos of the homeless often fill the same void as photos of howling wolves and kittens in baskets (but at the opposite similarly un-stimulating ends of the scale), they can also be novel/surprising/interesting/moving. As someone said earlier, they are nothing more or less than 'people' and so the same opportunities exist. Just don't take the cliches and call it either art or social documentary work!

I can honestly say that one of the most memorable moments in my entire life, aside from the usual ones, was spending an hour with a chap called Charlie in Manhattan as a result of a chance encounter. Cheesy, but true. Its not something I go out to repeat (then again I am not doing a project on the issue), but if something happens that moves/interests me, then why not? I just won't go out looking for individual context free pieces of 'heart wrenching eye candy' because I don't see the point. Its been done a zillion times before.

I also think the argument that you should not because it is 'disrespectful' is unwarranted and somewhat simplistic. The same argument could hold for many things. Social documentary work would not exist without a little more flexibility.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Homelessness is a complex problem that all the tens of thousands of "social documentary" photos have failed to solve. Just as war photographers haven't stopped or prevented wars (yes, I remember Vietnam), social documentary hasn't erased homelessness. Any impact this kind of photography once had in the early 20th century has been blunted by our relentless exposure to images of pain and misery.

Photographers should really think about why they are photographing before pointing a camera. IMHO, of course.

 

[morgan]

I'm with Patrick and Nico as well. Their poverty is not your photo-op.

The bit about giving food, coffee, etc I'd like to comment on. I live in a section of town that has a lot of homeless people (I see basically the same people day after day after day). They mostly sleep at a local YMCA. But I stopped giving them money after seeing where it went to - alcohol, drugs, the lottery. Obviously this is a generalization, but more often than not, for this particular group/area this is where the money went. The result is that they're very destructive, to themselves and others. I've seen countless fights (homeless on homeless), seen and experienced serious verbal harassment (stuff so vile and frankly frightening I couldn't write it here). So instead I started buying a newspaper that's written, produced, and sold by homeless/former homeless (it's called Spare Change). You can also give directly to shelters.

 

[Turtle]

Homelessness is a complex problem that all the tens of thousands of "social documentary" photos have failed to solve. Just as war photographers haven't stopped or prevented wars (yes, I remember Vietnam), social documentary hasn't erased homelessness. Any impact this kind of photography once had in the early 20th century has been blunted by our relentless exposure to images of pain and misery....

You are quite right, but does that mean that those attempting to seriously address these issues should not bother? If they all stopped what would happen. Perhaps there is some merit in keeping them in the public consciousness?

I would also suggest that (while the eradication of war/homelessness etc is not going to happen) it would be incorrect to suggest that such images, when done well, have not affected public perceptions and to a degree, policy (hence various NATO govts' fixations with controlling photos in combat zones!). Just because the world is full of all forms of misery does not mean there has been no impact. Maybe it would be a lot worse?

Think of the affect that the images of the Iranian teen shot during the demonstrations had on domestic and international perceptions and policy/PR. I know this was 'real time' media coverage, but still, the point stands.

Its easy to think that the general public is de-sensitised to images of war or poverty, but I think therein lie the demands place on the current crop of photographers - they have to keep people thinking and thats not easy. I still give a lot of thought to some of the images I see, so why should I assume that I am the only one? I know that I am not of course! At least if there are people genuinely trying to make a difference - this is the crux of it - there is a chance of slow painful progress. If everyone gives up and moves on 'because there is no point' then only one things is guaranteed and that is no progress. Lets also remember the time frames.

Images we see as youngsters and teens are reflected on as we become adults, gain life experience and context. This is passed onto our children and shared between friends and colleagues. It takes a loooong time to change things - think in evolutionary terms - and we should be patient. Believe me when I say I am one of the biggest cynics I have met and in part my current photo project is about ones expectations of change.

The issue is not just about 'not having wars', that would be horribly naive, but about why, when, where and how (and with what expectations) these decisions are made. The same goes for poverty. For people, including policy makers, to be able to rationalise the issues properly they have to understand and feel the human dimension to them and this is where I believe photography still plays a powerful role.

 

[btgc]

If someone makes a shy snap, it's one thing. If one is obsessed with idea of homeless, it's another. Look around at his sets - I'm not linking particular ones, because he is organizing pictures on themes not putting homeless into one pot.

 

[chris00nj]

I voted "other opinion": I don't photograph the homeless because it doesn't interest me artistically. I see it as sort of a photographic cliche.

I second that opinion.