Street photography and the homeless

hausen said:
Is often hard to tell who the truly homeless are here in NZ. It seems some of the supposed homeless come in on the trains from the suburbs to beg during the day and take the train home in the evening. They make $100-200 per day supposedly. For me it isn't an ethical issue but I generally ask myself whether what I am looking at is something I would print before I trip the shutter, so a homeless person wouldn't make the cut so I don't trip the shutter.
Click to expand...
Dear David,

Maybe some do. But how many? One in a hundred? A thousand? This one has been circulating since at least Roman times (minus the trains, obviously). Either way, it IS an ethical issue. The genuinely poor are an ethical issue. The lazy and greedy (a far smaller number) are an ethical issue. Taking exploitative pictures is an ethical issue. Have you ever talked to any of them? Do you know any genuinely poor people?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yeah, great. Sit back and laugh at the homeless, or at anyone who gives a damn about them. Enjoy your popcorn.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, as I said earlier, this topic has too many complex layers to be dealt with properly here.

In mathematics, as much as people want it to be possible, it is impossible to solve a complex set of simultaneous equations, one equation at a time. You MUST address and solve ALL the equations simultaneously ( a much harder task), but that's it's reality.

Dealing with the present topic in two sentence forum quips is equally absurd. Cannot be done. Simple as that.
There are some well informed and thoughtful postings here, but it's too too easy for most people to drop a dime, scream into the phone and hang up, you know.
 
Jesus Christ, life is not math. Helen, if you were homeless, would you want to have your picture taken candidly without your knowledge, and posted to some photo gear forum? Would you want your photo taken WITH your knowledge, but without your consent, and be unable to stop the aging pedant from taking it?

I mean, hey, "personal involvement is optional"
 
emraphoto said:
why should the 'homeless' have a different classification than the rest of the folk walking the streets? a very strange classification. photograph people... talk to them. get to know their name. you might be surprised, folks of all stripes like to talk.
Click to expand...

Thanks, John, for this reminder. People are more than symbols, ciphers, demographic stats. Each person is a story with a name, and a repository for many other names and stories, precious and dreadful; very little of this is yielded up in any single image, whether it's a candid or a portrait. It's Maya, yes, But it's also life, worth seeking and showing in all forms.
 
I don't know if it's ethical, but when I go street shooting, i always bring a wallet full of dollar bills...so I'm ready to pay my "street tax" to various homeless folks who approach me.

Are they using the cash for food? Who knows. But if I was stuck living in the cold, I guess i'd need a strong bottle of liquor or a dose of meth. So, who am I to judge?

Either way, I don't feel that I have anything new to say with my images of homeless folks, that hasn't been better said by giants who came before me, so I don't photograph them.

Robt.
 
The math thing was for anthor poster. Sorry, it was my fault for not making that clearer.

helenhill said:
So a candid photo on the Sly is NOT what i had in mind

As for people judging Photography of the homeless
Its a rather puritanical righteous behaviour
Click to expand...

I'm talking specifically about candids of the homeless. I thought you were defending that, hence my questions, which by the way are open for anyone to answer..
 
How photogenic are your local homeless people? How clear is their misery? How satisfied will you be with your empathic sensitivity when you gaze at them? That one looks kind of stupid though doesn't he?

It's so interesting to get everyone's different opinions about the homeless, isn't it?
 
emraphoto said:
why should the 'homeless' have a different classification than the rest of the folk walking the streets? a very strange classification. photograph people... talk to them. get to know their name. you might be surprised, folks of all stripes like to talk.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
I never understood why people try to classify the homeless into a category of anything other than photographing people.
It reminds me of a photo I took and later submitted to a contest for human rights.
It caused quite a stir with the judges.
"Chris Weeks replies that "We won't have any homeless pictures in this competition. They are so useless. A photo of a homeless person shouldn't even be considered".
I found the comment ironic since it was for a "human rights" photo contest.

28.jpg
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('http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh273/benmacphoto87/28.jpg');" border="0">

Are there distasteful homeless photographs?
Sure there are, the same way there are bad photographs in any category of photography.
 
People who lack privacy due to homelessness should not be considered fair game for street photography, especially with bribes of money and food, that is sentimental voyeurism and it is unethical, like all forms of voyeurism.

That is the simple ethical argument. Those who disagree, then they should remember that their very safety while doing street photography is thanks to the ethical nature of other people, otherwise if it was some other country, people will kill for a watch, let alone a nice shiny camera.

Without ethics there is no street photography. If you think that is wrong, then try going to some cities where ethics are not practiced.
 
I think that some of us may be looking into the subject too deeply - I believe that 90% of the street shots of Homeless People are basically a 'free pass' into "look, I'm evoking emotion from the viewer!" by non-creative People.
 
So then, if you have a right to take their photo without their consent, then they have the right to take your handout without yours?

ZuikoAndHisM3 said:
I think that some of us may be looking into the subject too deeply - I believe that 90% of the street shots of Homeless People are basically a 'free pass' into "look, I'm evoking emotion from the viewer!" by non-creative People.
Click to expand...

You're right.
 
Then what's the truth?

Helen, if you were homeless, would you want to have your picture taken candidly without your knowledge, and posted to some photo gear forum? Would you want your photo taken WITH your knowledge, but without your consent, and be unable to stop them from taking it?
 
helenhill said:
I find your way of Thinking so dry & abrasive ....
Your constant 'Set of Rules'
We must shoot and live by ...
your Theory of Ethics , its rather absurd ;)
Perhaps You can start a New Fundamentalist Religion with your Correct Book of Reasoning eek:
Click to expand...

Its not a rule, its just that I think people who lack privacy should be left alone.

The homeless are there for everyone to see, its not that they're hidden from public view.
 
Usually I do not shoot photos of the homeless, unless I find a really compelling scene or image that I think would document this terrible social condition. In the past few decades, I can probably count on one hand the amount of photos I have shot of the homeless and destitute that populate our cities. These unfortunate people are systematically exploited enough without some with a camera coming along and snapping pictures of them.

I don't know if my view is right on this matter, but this is my guiding light when shooting in the streets.
 
That's great, heroic even, but you didn't really answer what I asked you.

"If you were homeless, would you want to have your picture taken candidly without your knowledge, and posted to some photo gear forum?"

YES or NO?

"Would you want your photo taken WITH your knowledge, but without your consent, and be unable to stop the aging pedant from taking it?"

YES or NO?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom