Photographing the Homeless.

Photographing the Homeless.

  • Yes, I photograph anything on the street, why not?

    Votes: 56 30.4%

  • Yes, but I intereact with them before or after I photograph them.

    Votes: 38 20.7%

  • Yes, but I try to not be seen or I do not go up to them to let them know I photographed them.

    Votes: 27 14.7%

  • No, I'm too shy to photograph them.

    Votes: 21 11.4%

  • No, I beleive it's disrespectful to photograph them under any conditions.

    Votes: 37 20.1%

  • Other opinion? Please share!

    Votes: 21 11.4%
  • Total voters
    184
Wow Nick, I think you are positive proof that mental conditions do exist. You have presented a remarkably one dimensional rant; probably the most impressive I have seen in a long time. While I would agree that wandering the street with a $10K camera marvelling at how 'real' than man living in a cardboard box appears (while taking time out from your expensive tennis club at which you showed off your 0.95 asph Noct) there are many, many shades of grey you seem to ignore when it comes to the motive and intent on the part of many photographers.

And no, if there were no homeless and no wars, there would still be plenty of fascinating things to photograph. However the unpleasant side of life does exist and it always will. Just because we do not like it, or feel a sense of guilt or blame, does not mean it should be off limits IMHO. Next you will be telling us that the only proper way to photograph wealthy people would be in a manner intended to ridicule them for their evident sins. I personally try to have a much more open approach to life in general. This is not just about photography is it....
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
My ethics would never allow me to get involved in earning money shooting the blood of wars.

I've seen some of those photographers wanting that blood to keep their jobs. I am not saying it is always a conscious bahaviour, but you understand me... I don't agree when a photographer says that his crude shot of a man already torn to pieces will help the whole situation. I am not sure they are doing something... Even if they want to... Wars are growing and growing and there are thousands of those photographers. This is sad and hard to discuss, also...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Help me to understand this. Are you merely objecting to the for-profit nature of documenting conflicts? Would you be willing to do this for gratis, giving your images to a nonprofit organization who could use your work to shine the light upon some situation that needs the world's attention?

Would you have been willing to photograph the atrocities in Rwanda, for instance, assuming you had access, or let the west go about its cultural frivolity while millions died?

I don't like to see the unfortunate situations of others be used merely to sell copy, profiting the media barons at the expense of others; but I can also foresee the possibilities of "hidden conflict", kept purposefully out of sight and mind, so that business as usual can proceed. Like the oil and mineral exploitation in central Africa, where western corporations paid off the western media to turn a blind eye.

I think at some point you have to realize that not speaking up is a worse sin than exploiting images of the unfortunate for profit.

~Joe
 
JoeV said:
Help me to understand this. Are you merely objecting to the for-profit nature of documenting conflicts? Would you be willing to do this for gratis, giving your images to a nonprofit organization who could use your work to shine the light upon some situation that needs the world's attention?

Would you have been willing to photograph the atrocities in Rwanda, for instance, assuming you had access, or let the west go about its cultural frivolity while millions died?

I don't like to see the unfortunate situations of others be used merely to sell copy, profiting the media barons at the expense of others; but I can also foresee the possibilities of "hidden conflict", kept purposefully out of sight and mind, so that business as usual can proceed. Like the oil and mineral exploitation in central Africa, where western corporations paid off the western media to turn a blind eye.

I think at some point you have to realize that not speaking up is a worse sin than exploiting images of the unfortunate for profit.

~Joe
Click to expand...

Joe,


I'll gladly repeat, or try to explain my position to you. I have no interest in making yours closer or equal to mine, though.


I said that precisely the argument you just wrote (is silence better than shooting blood?) doesn't make me feel I should go shoot blood instead of remaining quiet. At all.


I said that even though 50,000 or 100,000 sad hearted photographers are there looking for their visual blood dose, trying honestly to change the world to a better one, they haven't been so very successful at that, as the real world grows in conflicts and the power and corruption is a complicated subject based on vanity and desire, which are at different levels common to human nature and us all.


I said that I don't share some other people's enjoying of photography as a way to say visually what we already know centuries ago... Did I say no one should cover a conflict? No, I didn't. I said I think I couldn't help resolve it with my camera.


I said that the real power of, for example, the companies that make the weapons for USA invasions and oil thirst, and their need to give use and end to that batch of weapons is a bit bigger than the power of Capa or Salgado to stop those crimes... Did I say I appreciate the Bush family more than Salgado? No, I didn't. I said some people need to feel they are being good in some way and end up doing nothing real against the problem, but feeling hey, I'm not that bad...


I said that better education and better schools and better families and better values can make better people who care about who they're voting for, and I said I believe in better ways to reach a point of higher justice than pointing with my finger at dead bodies or with my camera at crying innocent people. Did I say I'm glad about them crying? No, I didn't.


Did you understand my point? If you want more help or explanation I'll be glad to give it to you. Understanding is different from feeling the same way. Some of the photographers covering the crimes made by US army based on unexistent massive destruction weapons thought their army had the right to do all that. Some other photographers didn't. Some people in the USA feel they are in part guilty because of some crime wars after voting Bush, and some don't. Did I say Saddam wasn't really bad? No, I didn't. I said almost no photographer covered his crimes before the invasion...


There's another field involved: any image can be used out of its context for political interests far from the photographer's real intention once the image is public and repeated out of its original scene... If your feeling is that you could go to a war and stop it with your camera showing pain, go. If you think you shouldn't do it for free, go and get money for it. If you feel the best way to do it is finding more intense and horrible scenes that make you recognized in that field, go.


Did I say I don't appreciate photographies involving pain because I can't see new information on them? Yes, I did. Did I say I consider some photographers and viewers irreal and light? Yes, I did. Did I say love and joy in photography can help make a better world? Yes, I did.


Cheers,


Juan
 
Turtle said:
(1)Wow Nick, I think you are positive proof that mental conditions do exist. (2)You have presented a remarkably one dimensional rant; probably the most impressive I have seen in a long time. (3) While I would agree that wandering the street with a $10K camera marvelling at how 'real' than man living in a cardboard box appears (while taking time out from your expensive tennis club at which you showed off your 0.95 asph Noct) (4) there are many, many shades of grey you seem to ignore when it comes to the motive and intent on the part of many photographers.

And no, if there were no homeless and no wars, there would still be plenty of fascinating things to photograph. However the unpleasant side of life does exist and it always will. Just because we do not like it, or feel a sense of guilt or blame, (5) does not mean it should be off limits IMHO. (6) Next you will be telling us that the only proper way to photograph wealthy people would be in a manner intended to ridicule them for their evident sins. (7) I personally try to have a much more open approach to life in general. This is not just about photography is it....
Click to expand...

1. On "mental conditions" - ad hominem attack, you lose the debate. And, yes, they do exist, was that ever in question? 2. On "one dimensional rants" - clear arguments against things that are obviously morally and ethically wrong need not be nuanced, it's boolean, T/F, right/wrong - no need for other dimensions. Photographing the homeless falls into this category. 3. So we agree? - and you called into question my "mental condition" - most curious. 4. No there aren't, not when it comes to photographing/exploiting homeless people. And if there were? You failed to provide any examples. Nary a one. You therefore fail to prove your case, obvs. Could it be that there aren't any examples? That's what I'm thinking. 5. Yes, it should. Why shouldn't it? You didn't make your case in "4", therefore "5" - it follows, is a non-starter. There are many "ugly sides of life" that if you photograph could land you in jail for a long time. Obviously there are legal boundaries, and there are also ethical boundries. Photographing the homeless crosses the ethical line 6. Nope, didn't say that, wouldn't say that - faulty unfounded assumption, not to mention obvious "straw man" argument. 7. "Open" - except with those whose opinion you disagree with, it seems. I would reevaluate just how "open" you claim to be as your very own post doesn't jibe with your self-evaluation. Circular logic? Ad hominem attacks? Straw man arguments? I hope your skills at photography are superior to your critical thinking skills.
 
Last edited:
There but for fortune/Go you, go I...

On the evidence of this thread, this seems to apply as much to the photographers as to the photographed.

Cheers,

R.
 
Wow I read all 6 pages. Let's make this interesting by changing the question:

Do you photograph the stray cat?
Do you photograph fire hydrants?
Do you photograph strangers' legs?
Do you photograph police cars?
Do you photograph office workers?
Do you photograph poisonous snakes?

Any of these questions could spawn another 6 pages in exactly the same way. I am not here to help stop the war. I am too chicken **** to do it. But I like to shoot it, what's wrong with that? For those that said you can't help the situation by shooting it, you shouldn't even talk about then because talking about it isn't helping either.
 
Thanks Brian!

Thanks Brian!

I haven't had much patience for this thread. I fractured my tibia a week back. On Sunday I walked 3 blocks through the snow to where my truck was parked. It was drifted in 3-4 feet deep and 75 feet away from the nearest plow pass. After two hours of shoveling a homeless and/or down on his luck guy noticed I had a cast on under my workpants. He had been shoveling the sidewalk of the local pizza joint in trade for lunch. Busted his ass helping me get my truck out for an hour or so even though he knew I was broke. His name is Brian. I had a camera and didn't take his picture. I should go back after the weather lets up and take him out for a few slices and a pint or two. Once I know him I might even have something to say about him that's worth trying to put on film.
 
All I know based on this discussion is that emraphoto is a great photographer. Wow. Excellent documentary photos.
 
what blows my Mind is how most people don' t notice
and just carry on as if this person does NOT exist....1.5 nokton/triX
4349485251_fd37de5662_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
benmacphoto said:
Well said. This is my approach to photographing anyone on the street. People are just people.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but also: photographic images of people will be always most interesting to other people. All the sunrises/sunsets, all the enimals in the zoo or from the truck in african safari are great, but People is what interests People.
You can come up with all kind of excuses, but the simple truth is: not every person has a courage to approach another human being with the camera.

But, if you are photographing a homeless person, or any other person for that matter, you have to approach and treat your subject with respect. No telephoto lenses from behind the tree. If you want the positive response, of course. As simple as that.

0250-reallysmall.jpg


0248-reallysmall.jpg
 
Last edited:
You know the thing about people without a home is that they do a lot of other things besides push shopping carts around, lay on grates and drink.

I think that's where the bulk of folks start to get critical including the people working on solutions and the homeless themselves. They are cliche images and do nothing to help promote a better understanding of key issues.

I am loathe to criticize anyone else's efforts but I have to admit I understand when folks say "enough images of folks sleeping on sidewalks and drinking/passing out in the park". These images paint a myopic vision of the issue and are counterproductive really.
 
I made an interesting observation regarding the topic today. Taking candids with cell phone cameras seems to become a new sport.

A homeless guy at a subway station spotted a woman taking his picture and he was outraged. "Do I have to be photographed by you like a piece of cattle?" The lady replied something rude, you can imagine what.

I guess the man felt dehumanized.

Somewhere I read: "Leica photographers are rich people with expensive cameras taking fuzzy photos of poor people and claim that it's art." Embarrassing. Maybe a reason for taping?
 
I just want to add, I do not have anything against photographing homeless people per se, if done in a respectful manner and in mutual agreement. Carrying a camera can also be a responsibility.
 
So-called "street photographers" photograph the homeless - because, like mannequins, like shooting someone's back, they're "safe"... someone sleeping on a grate is unlikely to become annoyed or give you any guff. Plus, homeless people in an urban setting looks great in gritty, grainy Tri-X! It's "art".
 
I'm tired of photos with homeless people sleeping on the pavement, but I do photos of them when they are happy, doing something uncommon etc. The point is to show that they are like everyone else, not worst as usually people think.
img098.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom