What is your definition of Exploitation?

B

BigSteveG

Well-known
Local time
7:12 AM
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
618
In reading a review in Focus Magazine, I noticed the reviewer made the following remark about his subject. "Despite their excurciating intimacy, these photographs don't ever hint at exploitation."
The remark has me thinking about my standards as a photographer. I like doing street photography a great deal. I never ask permission and do not plan on doing so. Sometimes I consider myself a thief of moments. I "take" pictures of complete strangers in the street, in stores, restaurants. I take pictures of couples being romantic. Children showing their wonder at life. If I watch long enough (or am quick enough), people reveal themselves in un-guarded moments. These are the "gems" in my collection.
I've not sold any prints. I've no intention of becoming a professional photographer. I have this vague dream of having or showing my gems in an exhibition someday.
Am I exploiting others for my pleasure or artistic aspirations?
 
Frank.....

Frank.....

Glad I'm not the only one. I love a great portrait, landscape or studio shot. But I don't want to do that kind of work on a serious level. Street/candid photography is a strangely magnetic beast.
 
"That's exploitation"

Or recording contemporary life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't know Focus charges for

I didn't know Focus charges for

exposure. I did think the reviews were soft. They didn't really promote or criticize the photographer. And I think they should do that either way. That is the purpose of an art review.
"Doing my subjects justice" is exactly my intention. The leader of my 1st workshop (he studied w/ many photo luminaries,) made the comment "It's easy to show suffering and misery in the world. It's far more difficult to show beauty." Another member here (His name currently escapes me,) signs off with "Thou shalt not photograph the homeless." Both statements express the need for a "standard" in the photographer's choice of subject matter.
The best I can do is to follow my instinct.....and try to create the kind images that exhibit a vision of beauty as banal as they may seem to others.
 
RML said:
Or recording contemporary life.
Click to expand...

And now it all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? :)

But that's the root of the problem--exploitation can't be straightforwardly defined, it instead is matched uniquely to each individual viewer of the photograph.
 
I do "sneak" street pics many times. What will happen the day I am catched in the process ? Provided I am not beaten, and I believe I will never be, but asked for what am I doing or why, I am ready to engage in a cool talk, starting with the sentence "Photography is Art and you have been part of it through my camera..."

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I stopped taking pictures of people I don't know unless I'm somehow involved with them I asked myself why I wanted a particular picture-a pretty girl? Vicarious pleasure? No more. If I have no relationship with the subject, and it isn't noteworthy in some other way, I pass.

Pretty much gave up sharing photos on the web, too. Just my own feelings.
 
aad said:
I stopped taking pictures of people I don't know unless I'm somehow involved with them I asked myself why I wanted a particular picture-a pretty girl? Vicarious pleasure? No more. If I have no relationship with the subject, and it isn't noteworthy in some other way, I pass.

Pretty much gave up sharing photos on the web, too. Just my own feelings.
Click to expand...

I agree. The last time I shot strangers they were taking picturer as in "shoot the shooters". They usually, if they even noticed me, turned and shot me.

Without the web, photo sharing sites or RFF they have no point, IMHO. Unless you can post and say, "hey guys, check out this expression, butt, bosum(s), etc, what's the point. You would not frame the shot.

The hey-day of street photography ended with Life magazine and the many fine photographers of the day. You can't turn back the clock, not even with a 50's camera and 50's film.

As far as an exhibition someday, you will need releases if any money is charged.

Just my .02 cents worth.
 
"The hey-day of street photography ended

"The hey-day of street photography ended

with Life magazine and the many fine photographers of the day". What's wrong with keeping the tradition alive?
 
Joe is right - public is public.


I really enjoyed Portobello market, I was snapping photo's of people, and sometimes they look directly at the camera. Same happened on Chinese New Year.

So long as you haven't caught somebody at an awkward or embarrassing moment and then seek to further embarrass by publishing the shot, you have nothing to worry about. Paparrazzi exploit. Photographers photograph.



Besides.....If you aren't caught, you can't get in trouble. :D
 
Ducky said:
............The hey-day of street photography ended with Life magazine and the many fine photographers of the day. You can't turn back the clock, not even with a 50's camera and 50's film.
...........
Click to expand...


If your definition of "hey-day" is intended to mean the days in which pros were paid due money, I may agree and congratulate the dis-linking of photography and money. We were made rather a favour.

But if you are talking about public attention to a group of images, nothing has changed. It all depends on the quality of the images, both form and contents. The intrinsic power of Photography is still there, in the basic fact that the only required thing is the right photographer at the right moment or situation.

Shoot a series of "stills" on Bin Laden's life at his cave, and you will have again the power of Photography felt worldwide, with all TV channels showing these pics.

It is not the medium but the contents. The only "hey-day" photography lost was it shares in the monopoly of visual comunication, and some possibities of high level income attached. With the income, much of the trend is gone, but the breath stopping power of a good pic, is still there. Waiting for us.

Now there is another aspect related to money and us. If you agree that money is a means and not the end goal, then you may have to make a very serious self questioning about wether non paid photography still can make the hey day for you.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot also depends on not just your feelings but on what is culturally accepted. I recently spent a week in Istanbul and was shooting in market places without any fear or trepidation. When I'm shooting in a similar environment here in Amsterdam, I'm much more conscious that I'm stepping on cultural so-so's (if not no-no's).
 
100 years down the road...

100 years down the road...

...People will than you for taking the pictures that you did, especially if they capture the essence of human existence at that time. Historians and anthropologist in particular. However, I have always found that my pictures are always better if I am connected with my subject in some way or another. People like to have their picture taken by a stranger who asks permission, most of the time anyway.
 
ruben said:
Selling the prints or not, still the homeless and other misfortunate people need the high quality photographer and his gallery show, and other means of communication, to promote their cause. Taking a clear counscious side against human explotation by humans by any photographer is the opposite of exploitation.
Ruben
Click to expand...

I agree with Ruben here. I spend a lot of time photographing those who are in very distressing and unfortunate circumstances. Nothing is taken without their consent but to be able to explain the those i photograph how my taking of a picture of them can improve their life is a very difficult one to answer. I believe to raise awareness and advocate change is the small part i can play as a photographer and i choose do this instead of nothing at all.
 
So Simon, Ruben and others - I've often wondered this - when you ask permission to take a photo rather than take the photo more stealthily, are you skewing it in some way - i.e. is the subject aware and therefore posing?

Or does interacting with your intended subject allow you to understand a little more of them and their circumstances and allow them to relax and trust you?

I 'm not very experienced in street photography because I have viewed it as a candid , stealthy medium.

Maybe the answer is that the stealth method yields one or two "natural" images before the subject becomes aware of the camera, whereas the "interactive" method allows a raport to develop, break through any posed moments and get to a relaxed "natural" portrait....

Comments from the experienced welcome....
 
My view is that people don't have the right to expect privacy if they're in a public place and if you want to take their picture with or without their consent there's no law stopping you.
 
jmilkins said:
So Simon, Ruben and others - I've often wondered this - when you ask permission to take a photo rather than take the photo more stealthily, are you skewing it in some way - i.e. is the subject aware and therefore posing?

Or does interacting with your intended subject allow you to understand a little more of them and their circumstances and allow them to relax and trust you?

I 'm not very experienced in street photography because I have viewed it as a candid , stealthy medium.

Maybe the answer is that the stealth method yields one or two "natural" images before the subject becomes aware of the camera, whereas the "interactive" method allows a raport to develop, break through any posed moments and get to a relaxed "natural" portrait....

Comments from the experienced welcome....
Click to expand...

I would say for me, it's your second point regarding trust and them being more relaxed in one's presence. However i don't think my photography can be so easily defined as to be "street photography" as it normally takes place inside people's home's or at least their environment. For certain i have found the use of RF cameras allows for a less noticeable presence within their surroundings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom