Shoot the Homeless!

[Memnon]

RJ I'm located in germany... and ofcourse it will get more hits this way... ... ... But indecent it is more so than photographing the homeless...

 

[RJBender]

I don't think that the originator of this thread was offering the title as advice.

It may well have been written to provoke interest. Which it has.

The discussion taking place in this thread is, as a result,politicaland social. lately this would have degenerated into insults annamecalling. But the participants have been pretty level headed thistimeout. Which is great.

It's a decent thread built on a sensitive question or concern.

I think most understood the bit of tonque and (considerable) cheekinthe title George created. Apparently the dark humor in it caught alotof eyes.

It's too easy to look away from society's problems. I finditinteresting that in spite participant's differing views, there isabaseline concern for people who are less fortunate.

Bob H

R.J.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Has any body else noticed that editing a post actually creates more typos?

And that you can't correct more than one?

 

[peterc]

starting a thread with "Shoot the Homeless" is pretty sick

Since this is a photography board and not that of a group dedicated to gunning down the homeless, I took "shoot" in the photographic sense (to take a picture of as in "I'm going on a shoot", "shooting a wedding" etc.).
In that context, not sick at all.

Peter

 

[Memnon]

So tell me .... we are talking about homeless people now, would a thread title as "shoot the homeless" do them more harm as taking their picture once every while, considering all that has been said and mentioned in this thread.

Pitty homeless people do not have dsl connections I would like to see their views on the whole matter of this thread ...

 

[RJBender]

RJ I'm located in germany... and ofcourse it will get more hits this way... ... ... But indecent it is more so than photographing the homeless...

Bertram2, who is also in Germany, wrote:

It is not explicitely forbidden to photograph somebody out on the street as long as you keep this pic at home in a drawer and leave it there.

Nonetheless, if the photographed person tho (from what good reason ever) does not want to get photographed and wants the film to see if there is a neg with her / him on it , it could get dangerous anyway.
She/he could call the police, let the police confiscate the film as an evidence and to check if there is a neg on it with her/him on it . Then you would be asked to give this neg back. If you'd refuse it is likely you woud lose the trial at a court, mainly because of the fact that you have an internet access btw and it cannot be excluded that you pass on the pic this way.

More on this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=236405#post236405

R.J.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Frank - you are quoting the great master.

 

[Rich Silfver]

I think photographing or not photographing ANY 'availalable' subject is mostly a personal decision. When I lived in Chicago and started out playing around with cameras and photography I took some photos of homeless people and thought nothing about it.

Years later I - once again just my own thoughts - realized that the only reason I had included homeless people as subjects had been to improve MY photography and to take photos that made ME feel good about the composition, scene, etc that I captured.
I had no real way of ever using those photos to better the situation of the subjects I had captured (and God knows that there are enough photos of homeless people posted all over the place so my photos wouldn't had 'opened the eyes', or 'made people think' more than fifty million other photos already available) or even a clear intent of doing so.

So - my decision was that these subjects were often so tired/drugged out/embarassed/numb that they would/could not object to having their photo taken in the same way as many other people can - and do. I felt that this made the whole photography unfair and without any value for them or for me and it would be hard for me to do it again.

 

[Memnon]

Bertram wrote>:

It is not explicitely forbidden to photograph somebody out on the street as long as you keep this pic at home in a drawer and leave it there.

True, this is the case

Nonetheless, if the photographed person tho (from what good reason ever) does not want to get photographed and wants the film to see if there is a neg with her / him on it , it could get dangerous anyway.
She/he could call the police, let the police confiscate the film as an evidence and to check if there is a neg on it with her/him on it . Then you would be asked to give this neg back. If you'd refuse it is likely you woud lose the trial at a court, mainly because of the fact that you have an internet access btw and it cannot be excluded that you pass on the pic this way.

Not true, they don't have the right to confiscate film unless miss use of the negative or film has been proven by court of law.


I am extremely lucky being a non-german photographer, taking pictures in Germany with a German wife who by chance is also a succesfull lawyer.... This has really benefitted me over the past years, and whatever I have photographed, it has never come to a court case, allthough indeed I have been "jailed" quite a number of times... only for taking photographs.

Furthermore I don't know what you mean by posting bertrams thread here

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Hi memnon, RJ was only trying to relate another member's POV on thetopic. Bertram2, also a German citizen, had a point of view that fitsthis context. As my son says "no biggy."

 

[RJBender]

Bertram wrote>:

It is not explicitely forbidden to photograph somebody out on the street as long as you keep this pic at home in a drawer and leave it there.

True, this is the case

Nonetheless, if the photographed person tho (from what good reason ever) does not want to get photographed and wants the film to see if there is a neg with her / him on it , it could get dangerous anyway.
She/he could call the police, let the police confiscate the film as an evidence and to check if there is a neg on it with her/him on it . Then you would be asked to give this neg back. If you'd refuse it is likely you woud lose the trial at a court, mainly because of the fact that you have an internet access btw and it cannot be excluded that you pass on the pic this way.

Not true, they don't have the right to confiscate film unless miss use of the negative or film has been proven by court of law.


I am extremely lucky being a non-german photographer, taking pictures in Germany with a German wife who by chance is also a succesfull lawyer.... This has really benefitted me over the past years, and whatever I have photographed, it has never come to a court case, allthough indeed I have been "jailed" quite a number of times... only for taking photographs.

Furthermore I don't know what you mean by posting bertrams thread here

It's my understanding that if you had people living on the street in Germany, German law would prevent you from photographing these people.

BTW, this thread was started by a lawyer who works for a German bank in New York.

R.J.

 

[yossarian]

Umm....Everybody's aware that this began as a satire by Mike Johnston on his blog
site....right?

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

yep, saw an earlier post stating that.

It made for an interesting thread though.

 

[BrianShaw]

Umm....Everybody's aware that this began as a satire by Mike Johnston on his blog
site....right?

I don't believe in satire, or any other form of communication that masquerades as humour. I want to take this seriously... after all, homelessness is a sseriouss issue. Think about it, friends... without a home, we'd all be homeless -- you, me, him, her... all of us -- American, Canadian, German, Humgarian...yes, all of us. Have you thought about it? Okay, then thank you. I'll now return to my cozy mattress under the bridge.

 

[Todd Frederick]

I agree with Brian. Rather than photograph the homeless, let's find was to help them. We can easily be in their place.

When I do street photography, I try to find positive city-scapes, and I don't prey on the homeless or the dark-side for my photo-jollies.

Let's get involved in city projects to improve conditions and photograph the positive.

 

[rover]

Umm....Everybody's aware that this began as a satire by Mike Johnston on his blog
site....right?

Yesterday's thread pointing to Mike Johnston's article lead to this thread's posting with the purpose of discussing a serious topic which is on point in our forum. This has been a provocative conversation.

 

[RJBender]

I agree with Brian. Rather than photograph the homeless, let's find was to help them. We can easily be in their place.

When I do street photography, I try to find positive city-scapes, and I don't prey on the homeless or the dark-side for my photo-jollies.

Let's get involved in city projects to improve conditions and photograph the positive.

By documenting their plight with photographs you can help them, IMO. When was the last time CBS news did a story on the homeless in America? 20 years ago?

I'm not saying sneak a shot and walk away. Rather, talk to the people who want to talk, listen to them and take a few photos if they give you permission. If they ask for a few dollars to buy something to eat, give it to them.

R.J.

 

[slinke]

Needs new thread title!

Needs new thread title!

Ah ... "Shoot the Homeless!" is not the best choice for a title, is it? "Photograph
the Homeless" would be appropriate and not prone to satire and sarcasm by some.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Ah ... "Shoot the Homeless" is not the best choice for a title, is it? "Photograph
the Homeless" would be appropriate and not prone to satire and sarcasm by some.

I saw you - you peeked.

The sarcasm and satire have been very limited. We have plenty of cynics . Most posters have been fairly restrained.

Still, a worthwhile topic.

 

[Nikon Bob]

After following this thread it is interesting to see that the people who don't take photos of homeless people do so for similar reasons. There also seems to be general agreement on when it is appropriate to do so.

Nikon Bob