Thardy
Mentor
Other ... not much interest in photographing anyone on the street.
Al Kaplan
Mentor
Some of the "homeless" aren't all that homeless. There's a 1940's vintage trailer park near here. The rundown trailers, all rentals now, aren't set all that far behind an upscale strip mall with a Starbucks and outdoor seating. There's one "homeless" woman, Dawn, who comes around with a story about how she sleeps in the nearby woods and hasn't eaten since yesterday. Dawn is a fairly good looking blonde in her late thirties I'd guess, but one leg is several inches shorter than the the other so she walks with a pronounced limp and gets lots of sympathy. I see people hand her ten and twenty dollar bills. She makes the rounds three or for times a day. She doesn't mention her disability check or food stamps or that Medicaid pays her medical bills. She actually lives in one of those trailers with her boyfriend. I'm sure that she makes more money than I do but it all goes for drugs. I don't photograph her but on a slow night she's an interesting person to talk with and have a cup of coffee. There are a lot of "homeless" with similar stories.
ferider
Mentor
Same here.
It's one thing to do a documentary, get subjects involved and try to have some impact. I've seen some very good ones that I respect.
Quite another to photograph home-less as part of your hobby and share the results as "street" on flickr. Too easy and disrespectful.
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Years ago I did a paper for a "Problems In Society" course where I documented some of the hardcore homeless and wandering poor, including several photographs. For one part I did visit some very harrowing areas of town (I had my brother and one of his friends along just in case) and took some photos which I would never even consider taking again. (Yes, I got an "A" on my presentation.)
Yes, as I think back I think I was being quite disrespectful. I was invading their turf and yes, violating their privacy. I was very purpose-driven that morning, and I was really focusing on getting in there and doing the shoot. It really took a while for things to sink in, regarding what I had seen and photographed.
I've never done anything like that since.
(If you're curious, I have posted a few photos from that shoot here over the years. Search and I'm sure you will find.)
Yes, as I think back I think I was being quite disrespectful. I was invading their turf and yes, violating their privacy. I was very purpose-driven that morning, and I was really focusing on getting in there and doing the shoot. It really took a while for things to sink in, regarding what I had seen and photographed.
I've never done anything like that since.
(If you're curious, I have posted a few photos from that shoot here over the years. Search and I'm sure you will find.)
silverbullet
Well-known
I agree 100%
For me it's fun and mostly hard work to get the 'hook' of a situation in which people are involved.
But homeless people? Never.
Same with victims of accidents or similar.
Bernd
Rune
Member
Allow me to post this example, where two images were used to show two different versions of "street life". They were used (together) in an article quite a few years back (I think approx 20 years, so unfortunately things have not improved that much...). I chose to use the image of the begging woman, exactly because she did hide her face.
Sorry for the scan quality, but I just picked the images from my proofsheet scans, so they're not that technically good.
Sorry for the scan quality, but I just picked the images from my proofsheet scans, so they're not that technically good.
Attachments
TWoK
-
There are so many vagrants where I live I just cannot avoid them. I take plenty of pictures of them. I am cordial with most of them and I try not to be disrespectful. I take pictures of everything that piques my interests. Homelessness is unfortunate, but it's there so I document it? Do I give them money, no. Do my pictures help them, certainly not, do I empathize with their situation, yes, but here where I live many are exploiting kids naivety by begging.
Go somewhere like the Philippines where homelessness and street kids are rampant and you can't point your camera in any direction without catching one of them.
Before I really started looking at the signs I never realized just how many homeless my area of Japan has. Most parks is filled with bums, passed out drunks, tents and filth.
Go somewhere like the Philippines where homelessness and street kids are rampant and you can't point your camera in any direction without catching one of them.
Before I really started looking at the signs I never realized just how many homeless my area of Japan has. Most parks is filled with bums, passed out drunks, tents and filth.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Mentor
Photographing the homeless...where one party (the photographer) receives something of value and the other party receives nothing.
It is not something I would do without compensating the homeless person(s) for their image. And I don't mean giving them a penny or something token. We, all of us, are too uncaring about other people. I am too close to being homeless myself and have been there before, so, no, I think it is not proper without some compassion for them.
YMMV.
dave
It is not something I would do without compensating the homeless person(s) for their image. And I don't mean giving them a penny or something token. We, all of us, are too uncaring about other people. I am too close to being homeless myself and have been there before, so, no, I think it is not proper without some compassion for them.
YMMV.
dave
emraphoto
Mentor
chrishayton
Well-known
there you go ... not that interesting actually
ps m2, rigid summicron, hp5, id11
pps i feel uncomfortable taking photos of poor people with expensive cameras
Manchester outside primark?
This man was so unbelievably drunk i think he forfeited the right to privacy by snoring on a pavement in london
Last edited:
gb hill
Mentor
I photograph just to see what a homeless person looks like photographed!
So I guess Garry Winogrand was just as rude & disrespectful to photograph strange women, as it is for someone to take a photograph of a homeless person walking down my city street. But really Bob Michaels is right, if you go to a homeless person & converse with them a bit, buy them a cup of coffee, or offer something, they will pretty much let you take there photo. To completely shun them & look the other way or to be afraid of them, then your wrong! Remember those little WWJD braclets that came out a few years ago? Thats a good advice to follow whatever your beliefs are.
So I guess Garry Winogrand was just as rude & disrespectful to photograph strange women, as it is for someone to take a photograph of a homeless person walking down my city street. But really Bob Michaels is right, if you go to a homeless person & converse with them a bit, buy them a cup of coffee, or offer something, they will pretty much let you take there photo. To completely shun them & look the other way or to be afraid of them, then your wrong! Remember those little WWJD braclets that came out a few years ago? Thats a good advice to follow whatever your beliefs are.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
It's interesting that a couple of the posters in favor of photographing the homeless seem contemptuous or calloused toward them: "vagrants", "filth" etc. A defense tactic? Some hidden guilt?
It is exploitation, plain and simple. We accept exploitation if it makes good art (Diane Arbus, e.g. or Weegee), but if the art is mundane the exploiter is just another heel.
It is exploitation, plain and simple. We accept exploitation if it makes good art (Diane Arbus, e.g. or Weegee), but if the art is mundane the exploiter is just another heel.
emraphoto
Mentor
i take issue with this comment. i have spent a GREAT deal of time within the homeless community and through what i do we have managed to raise both awareness and funds. to be painted out as an exploiter or 'heel' is insulting at best.
not everyone who 'photographs the homeless' does so with similar intent.
dave lackey
Mentor
The difference is in our compassion for others or not. If someone is in need, we should help. A stranger in a restaurant or out for the night does not necessarily meet that as of a homeless person.
How many of us have been or ARE homeless? I suspect opinions would change drastically if someone aimed a camera at US in the same situation.
dave
back alley
IMAGES
i suspect the more basic question would be...is it ok to BE photographed by the homeless?
gb hill
Mentor
Apparently you read no farther than the first sentence. You should go back & read it again!...all of it! especially pay close attention about the statement I made after I said Bob Michaels is right! BTW I used to drive a taxi around Atlanta back in the 80's I wish I had a camera back then to photograph the nurses I used to pick up leaving their 2nd shift nursing job at Cobb County Hospital to carry to their 3rd shift job down on Buford Hwy where the strip clubs were. Lot's of 'can I change here in the back seat' but that was in a past life.
Last edited:
yanidel
Well-known
ah ah ah, great way to put it, fully agree.
Too easy, overdone.
Doesn't mean I never do, but there must be something compelling in the frame other than the homeless to do so. No portraits.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
On one of my visits to "the Bend" I came across a particularly ragged and disreputable tramp, who sat smoking his pipe on the rung of a ladder with such evident philosophic contentment in the busy labor of a score of rag-pickers all about him, that I bade him sit for a picture, offering him ten cents for the job. He accepted the offer with hardly a nod, and sat patiently watching me from his perch until I got ready for work. Then he took the pipe out of his mouth and put it in his pocket, calmly declaring that it was not included in the contract, and that it was worth a quarter to have it go in the picture.
Jacob Riis, How The Other Half Lives, 1890. That picture (in New York City, of course) might be a lot more interesting today, near enough 120 years on. What might our own pictures be worth (emotionally, not financially) in 2130?
Tashi delek ('May it be auspicious'),
R.
Jacob Riis, How The Other Half Lives, 1890. That picture (in New York City, of course) might be a lot more interesting today, near enough 120 years on. What might our own pictures be worth (emotionally, not financially) in 2130?
Tashi delek ('May it be auspicious'),
R.
TWoK
-
Vagrant is often the proper definition of many of these people. It is also the translation of the word the Japanese use to describe them.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Other. I'm somewhere in between the first choice and the last choice. I won't avert the camera if a homeless person is in the VF and part of a composition, but I feel it is disrespectful to photograph those who are outwardly on the down and out—especially if they are not panhandling. No, I do not seek out and photograph the homeless, but yes, there have been a few times when I have photographed a homeless person. (BTW, I think that street musicians, performers, (and on occasion) some panhandlers—regardless of their status—are fair game.)
/
/
Last edited: