Street photography and the homeless

[back alley]

just saying that something is not ethical doesn't make it so.
you have not proven anything here...just repeated your belief over and over.

 

[Ranchu]

I have not been refuted, Joe, just weaseled at and attacked. I had to keep repeating it because no one would answer, just make excuses or deflect attention to some other issue.

I consider it proven.

 

[back alley]

I have not been refuted, Joe, just weaseled at and attacked. I had to keep repeating it because no one would answer, just make excuses or deflect attention to some other issue.

I consider it proven.

i think something more substantial than 'considering it proven' is needed if you want people to engage with you seriously.

myself and my belief system says it's fine to photograph the homeless but i find it distasteful to do so and so i don't.
of course i do photograph street people and have no idea if they are homeless or just very poor or whatever...i don't have folks fill out a questionnaire or anything.

 

[Ranchu]

Do you want me to quote them for you?

 

[back alley]

Do you want me to quote them for you?

talking to me?
quote who?

.

 

[Ranchu]

I'm about all talked out on this subject. I think it's time to listen to Big Log.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvcvgftr_FE

 

[bence8810]

While not totally relating to the topic it still is somehow similar. Also will be good to take some of that heat away from the above...

Came across this one night on my way home - the man taken away was in trouble but I am unsure why as things happened really fast. Without thinking I just looked and as I had the camera around my neck I clicked. Chances are he was perhaps drunk (such cases happen often in Tokyo) or was having some medical problem.

As I developed the photo and saw the scan - I was confused myself if it's ethical to use to begin with. I like the photo otherwise, please let me know what you think!

Ben

 

[NY_Dan]

While not totally relating to the topic it still is somehow similar. Also will be good to take some of that heat away from the above...

Came across this one night on my way home - the man taken away was in trouble but I am unsure why as things happened really fast. Without thinking I just looked and as I had the camera around my neck I clicked. Chances are he was perhaps drunk (such cases happen often in Tokyo) or was having some medical problem.

As I developed the photo and saw the scan - I was confused myself if it's ethical to use to begin with. I like the photo otherwise, please let me know what you think!

Ben

1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8721/16164608503_df9fae21df_c.jpg');" border="0">

Anything you can see with your eyes is fair game to photograph. It should always be encouraged. For by "re-seeing" what we've seen we may learn more. Every photographer is at a different stage of their visual journey. Some people want to tell others how to live. That's what it boils down to. They couch their desire to dominate with words like morality and ethics, but is they who are lacking in these virtues. Every photograph we shoot is hopefully a stepping stone to our improvement as photographers. Telling someone they shouldn't "step" on a particular stone is equivalent to book burning.

 

[J.Paul]

To begin with, presuming that photographers in general have some malicious or disordered intent when they photograph homeless or what are termed as "street people" says much more about the accuser than the accused. Why would someone have such a skewed and unkind opinion of his colleagues. I can only think that they have internalized the whole social justice meme where almost everyone is a victim of something or other.
Ascribing such generalized evil intent to fellow photographers is bizarre, at best, as most true photographers love the craft and making a good photograph is more akin to an act of love than to an act of oppression or exploitation. As well, most photographers will usually have sympathetic feeling toward those who are of lesser means, and who struggle with daily survival.
What seems to be being exploited is this forum, in the service of promoting an overly sentimental political correctness.

Photographers make photographs, that is what they do, and the majority of them do not harbor nefarious intentions towards their subjects. The few bad apples do their exploiting after the shutter is snapped by what they do with the image that they have captured.

Climb down from the soapbox and stop trying to regulate your fellow photographers into the popular socially engineered narrative.
Please assume, as you should, that most are of good will, and are both reasonably moral and ethical in their actions.

 

[DNG]

Anything you can see with your eyes is fair game to photograph. It should always be encouraged. For by "re-seeing" what we've seen we may learn more. Every photographer is at a different stage of their visual journey. Some people want to tell others how to live. That's what it boils down to. They couch their desire to dominate with words like morality and ethics, but is they who are lacking in these virtues. Every photograph we shoot is hopefully a stepping stone to our improvement as photographers. Telling someone they shouldn't "step" on a particular stone is equivalent to book burning.

To begin with, presuming that photographers in general have some malicious or disordered intent when they photograph homeless or what are termed as "street people" says much more about the accuser than the accused. Why would someone have such a skewed and unkind opinion of his colleagues. I can only think that they have internalized the whole social justice meme where almost everyone is a victim of something or other.
Ascribing such generalized evil intent to fellow photographers is bizarre, at best, as most true photographers love the craft and making a good photograph is more akin to an act of love than to an act of oppression or exploitation. As well, most photographers will usually have sympathetic feeling toward those who are of lesser means, and who struggle with daily survival.
What seems to be being exploited is this forum, in the service of promoting an overly sentimental political correctness.

Photographers make photographs, that is what they do, and the majority of them do not harbor nefarious intentions towards their subjects. The few bad apples do their exploiting after the shutter is snapped by what they do with the image that they have captured.

Climb down from the soapbox and stop trying to regulate your fellow photographers into the popular socially engineered narrative.
Please assume, as you should, that most are of good will, and are both reasonably moral and ethical in their actions.

Totally agree.

 

[Ranchu]

I am speaking specifically of the taking of candids and pictures taken without the consent of a homeless person, as being both exploitative, and inhuman. I have made this distinction several times, but it keeps getting conflated with photos of homeless people in general.

It is interesting to be presented with the compromises people make, just so they can photograph people who are having trouble and so can't stop them. I guess it's mainly convenience, right? Readily available pathos sitting on the sidewalk looking out of place?

 

[goamules]

Personally, and having never taken a photo of a homeless person, I think any type of street photography has the same ethical problems as "homeless street photography". For examples:

- A person across a subway track is easy to shoot, they can't cross to ask you why you did it.
- A pretty girl that is walking away doesn't know you're capturing an image of her body.
- An old person on a park bench feeding pigeons doesn't like you shooting him, but he's too polite to say anything.
- The Tarahumara Indian believes your photo taking is disrespectful, but the language and culture barrier prohibit him from stopping the you.
- A child playing with a jump rope has no life skills to approach an adult with a camera and ask them to stop.

....and on...and on...and on.... Street photography can be done more respectfully, and tactfully, but basically you are capturing a moment in a stranger's life, without their permission. They did not expect that moment to be preserved, forever.

So I'll post my own question: Is Street Photography Ethical? (Hint: I just answered the question)

 

[Ranchu]

And now it's conflated with other things too.

 

[DNG]

no it isn't...

Homeless on public street
Business man on public street
Skate boarder on public street
Family walking on public street
Police on public street
Girl on public street

all are "IN" the public domain w/o any expectation of privacy? (Yes, is answer)

THAT IS THE ISSUE....that all we are trying to show you...
Your logic is wrong.... you must apply your ethic to ALL CANDID photography... not just one sector.

So, you saying that all street photographers are UN-ethical, because we take photos off all peoples, in the same manor.
No street photographer is going to ask everyone. Each person is a different situation, and deserves an individual approach. Though 95% or so will be totally candid.

Why do want to make one group of the society "OFF LIMITS" in the public domain?

Why do you want to dictate YOUR ethics on others around you so they can be a Clone of you as an individual?

It is fine to have YOUR ETHICS.... But, it not Okay to demand, or suggest we follow your opinions...

are these un-ethical?



2015 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib STREET, on Flickr




2015 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib STREET, on Flickr




2014 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib STREET, on Flickr



2014 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib STREET, on Flickr

 

[goamules]

Let's all start saying things like "now it's conflated! and ...you're not answering MY question! and....that's what I thought (said smugly)...and .... this is not what I WANT to talk about!"

Yeah....that's the way to debate, say the same thing over, and over, and over, and over and .... to any reply, thought, or question.

Sheeze....I waited WAY too long to ignore Ranchu, but I'm sick of seeing his posts.....
Standby to Ignore.....Execute.

 

[fireblade]

This is interesting! You can't justify exploiting people at your mercy, so you turn to attacking me, and MY ethics?

No one has attacked you, so stop being a drama queen and grow up, and you don't have ethics, as all man have none, just because you may do one good thing, don't be deluded.

no it isn't...

Homeless on public street
Business man on public street
Skate boarder on public street
Family walking on public street
Police on public street
Girl on public street

all are "IN" the public domain w/o any expectation of privacy? (Yes, is answer)
THAT IS THE ISSUE....that all we are trying to show you...
Your logic is wrong.... you must apply your ethic to ALL CANDID photography... not just one sector.
So, you saying that all street photographers are UN-ethical, because we take photos off all peoples, in the same manor.
No street photographer is going to ask everyone. Each person is a different situation, and deserves an individual approach. Though 95% or so will be totally candid.
Why do want to make one group of the society "OFF LIMITS" in the public domain?
Why do you want to dictate YOUR ethics on others around you so they can be a Clone of you as an individual?
It is fine to have YOUR ETHICS.... But, it not Okay to demand, or suggest we follow your opinions...

Bravo....but unfortunately your logic may fly over his head.

 

[jsrockit]

There is no one size fits all answer to this... it's kind of like film vs. digital.

 

[back alley]

just what are the ethics of digital?
or film for that matter?

 

[yesaroos]

apparently, many says it tasteless..

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/09/vog...stagram-shot-of-homeless-woman-reading-vogue/
<mytubeelement data="{"bundle":{"label_delimitor":":","percentage":"%","smart_buffer":"Smart Buffer","start_playing_when_buffered":"Start playing when buffered","sound":"Sound","desktop_notification":"Desktop Notification","continuation_on_next_line":"-","loop":"Loop","only_notify":"Only Notify","estimated_time":"Estimated Time","global_preferences":"Global Preferences","no_notification_supported_on_your_browser":"No notification style supported on your browser version","video_buffered":"Video Buffered","buffered":"Buffered","hyphen":"-","buffered_message":"The video has been buffered as requested and is ready to play.","not_supported":"Not Supported","on":"On","off":"Off","click_to_enable_for_this_site":"Click to enable for this site","desktop_notification_denied":"You have denied permission for desktop notification for this site","notification_status_delimitor":";","error":"Error","adblock_interferance_message":"Adblock (or similar extension) is known to interfere with SmartVideo. Please add this url to adblock whitelist.","calculating":"Calculating","waiting":"Waiting","will_start_buffering_when_initialized":"Will start buffering when initialized","will_start_playing_when_initialized":"Will start playing when initialized","completed":"Completed","buffering_stalled":"Buffering is stalled. Will stop.","stopped":"Stopped","hr":"Hr","min":"Min","sec":"Sec","any_moment":"Any Moment","popup_donate_to":"Donate to","extension_id":null},"prefs":{"desktopNotification":true,"soundNotification":true,"logLevel":0,"enable":true,"loop":false,"hidePopup":true,"autoPlay":false,"autoBuffer":false,"autoPlayOnBuffer":false,"autoPlayOnBufferPercentage":42,"autoPlayOnSmartBuffer":true,"quality":"small","fshd":false,"onlyNotification":false,"enableFullScreen":true,"saveBandwidth":true,"hideAnnotations":false,"turnOffPagedBuffering":false}}" event="preferencesUpdated" id="myTubeRelayElementToPage"></mytubeelement><mytubeelement data="{"loadBundle":true}" event="relayPrefs" id="myTubeRelayElementToTab"></mytubeelement>

 

[Ranchu]

Here I am making the distiction between

Here I am making the distiction between

candids of homeless people, and candids of people with a home. Several times. Other people have made a distiction too. Several times.

I forgot reliance on caste power differences for protection. That's key, I think. I see no empathy, just the indulgence in it. The exploitation of the suffering and powerless for an emotional need.

Because the act of taking photos of a homeless person exploits their vulnerability and powerlessness to manufacture a fetish object for the use of the better situated, for contemplation and reflection at leisure. They are kept from objecting to being used in this manner by the threat of violence by the state. There is an enforced inequality which the photographer is taking advantage of - indulging in, in fact.

It's not. These people can escape to their homes, cars or stores. They can object, they can take your camera with a reasonable expectation of no jail and few consequences. As a photographer, a homeless person is much easier to exploit than people of your class, as they can't object, or fight back as freely. Unless they fight back, and you and they both know they'll be punished for it.

So you're taking advantage of their situation for your own needs, when they have nothing and no one.

That's not ethical, that's gutless and inhuman. This is not difficult.

It's unethical if it's candid or without permission, because it exploits the fact that homeless people have less power in society than the photographer does. They have nowhere to hide, at the most basic.

I have not been refuted, Joe, just weaseled at and attacked. I had to keep repeating it because no one would answer, just make excuses or deflect attention to some other issue.

I consider it proven.