Street photography and the homeless

Its just as ethical as taking pictures of a rich person, a middle income person, a tall person, a short person, an ugly person, a pretty person, a clean shaven person, a bearded person, did I leave anyone out..??? ALL these people have feelings that may get hurt.
Like I said, except for fish..

Why single out the homeless people. Are you taking their feelings into account when you leave them out..?
 
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...

This is what it looks like to me.
 
finguanzo said:
Its just as ethical as taking pictures of a rich person, a middle income person, a tall person, a short person, an ugly person, a pretty perso...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ranchu said:
It's not, these people can escape to their homes, cars or stores. As a photographer, a homeless person is much easier to exploit, as they can't fight back. 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.
Click to expand...
And they're jolly picturesque!

I confess to taking pictures of "picturesque" tramps when I was much younger (late 1960s/early 1970s). But then I realized that they deserve at least as much respect as anyone else. Maybe rather more, because they get so little from the vast majority of people. And they have so little else.

Maybe 20 years ago I gave a dollar (yes, a US dollar -- they're acceptable in many places, much as euros are today) to a beggar in Prague. An American I didn't know chided me: "He'll only spend it on drink."

"It's his dollar," I said. "He can spend it on whatever he likes. In his situation, I'd probably spend it on drink too."

Her eyes widened: "That is SO wise."

I like to think I made a small difference that day. With a dollar, not a picture (I didn't photograph him). And a difference for her, not him.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sony sent a fashion photographer that they have sponsored, because he switched from Nikon to Sony, to Ethiopia along with a video crew to test two Sony cameras... Now this is the sort of subjects that Magnum members used to work with, now Sony uses poverty in poor countries as advertisement for its cameras.

Make whatever you will out of this video but this is the reality of photography today... Its all about selling gear - and even if you have to go to Ethiopia to show low ISO capability, so be it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80gVjvrQlEw
 
The Poor will always be us....
Someone famous said this during his one year ministry

Why do some elevate the poor as having "more" feelings than the person walking by that was just photographed by any photographer as they passed by?

Those that would exclude from photographing the poor, and yet elevate the poor's feelings, all in one breath seems a bit of a contradiction..

All people (not just the well-to-do-looking) have a story to tell, if the photographer is willing to find it.
Then, that image will share it with others... wither good, or sad... that is life... we all have good and sad times.... and both times can tell a story.
Why exclude sad stories? That is not being honest with the precepts of what Street Photography is about.



2014 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib STREET, on Flickr

I had permission to take her photo, I have many, many times stopped and talked with her, she is crying because her Dr. (through social services for the homeless)
said that she a terminal cancer...... YES, this is sad day for her.... but, she also knew that I had a story to tell with this photo.
I am saddened that she is no longer with us, She wanted to enjoy life, She had family that could house her, but, they refused to..
That broke her heart! The few people that did stop and talk with her, found a warm person that felt like she was dealt bad hand in life.
She had children, but, they never visited her on the street, or helped her out!

Will this photo alone tell her story? NO...
I must, share her story so others can see that even the homeless are homeless for many reasons.
I think if her family had taken her in, she would of lived her last days in the love of her family and may have been a much happier person in her situation.
 
Ranchu said:
I'm just trying to get someone to tell me why it's ethical to take candid pictures of homeless people, or pictures without their consent. It's the topic of the OP, not fish.
Click to expand...


..the fact that you don't think its ethical is enough reason for me that its ok. who are you to tell me it isn't ethical? mind your own business, you do what you think is ethical and ill do the same. I shoot all kinds of people in different situations...sometimes i speak to them, sometimes I don't.
 
pesphoto said:
..the fact that you don't think its ethical is enough reason for me that its ok. who are you to tell me it isn't ethical? mind your own business, you do what you think is ethical and ill do the same. I shoot all kinds of people in different situations...sometimes i speak to them, sometimes I don't.
Click to expand...


Pretty edgy, exploiting homeless people for some random emotional satisfaction. You must be so proud to stand so tall against the oppression.

:)
 
Could you really. How is trying to lighten the load of people without shelter edgy? How is it about ME ME ME at all?

Blah.
 
Hsg said:
Homeless people are one of the recurrent subjects in street photography and they have been photographed extensively. Considering such attention to homeless people by street photographers one could expect social awareness and efforts to address the problem of homelessness in the major cities and yet on the contrary the homeless problem has remind the same and in some cases it has increased. For example in New York City there are 60,000 homeless people.


But in this thread I don't wish to discuss why there is homelessness and the social issues related to it, I simply want to discuss the relationship between street photographers and their homeless subjects.

My first question is, why is it that some street photographers find the homeless people on the streets such a compelling subject?

My second question is, what do street photographers who photograph the homeless are try to achieve?

And my third question is, is it ethically right to photograph the homeless people?
Click to expand...

1: Perhaps because they don't look like
http://www.gap.com/browse/subDivision.do?cid=5646&mlink=39813,8846349,MainNav_W&clink=8846349
and http://www.bananarepublic.com/products/mens-clothing.jsp
and http://shop.nordstrom.com/c/women
and https://www.jcrew.com/mens-clothing.jsp
and http://successimg.com/the-sorority-...pesgirlsmeetlongisland*attachment*sorority2*/
and http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2013/09/UofA-Sorority-Racism-Tri-Delta.jpg ??

2: Each photographer has different intentions.

3: The act of making a photograph is what it is; there is no inherent "right" or "wrong" in making a photograph of a homeless person or a street person. How the photograph is utilized after the shutter clicks can be either ethical or unethical.
 
noisycheese said:
3: The act of making a photograph is what it is; there is no inherent "right" or "wrong" in making a photograph of a homeless person or a street person. How the photograph is utilized after the shutter clicks can be either ethical or unethical.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ranchu said:
It doesn't matter, helen. The points are the same no matter who says them, or what they do. If you can't refute them, you can't. That is not my real interest.
Click to expand...

Since you are so hung up about that word ethics, tell us how much money you have and are giving to help the plight of the homeless? It helps to know how ethical you are.
 
This is interesting! You can't justify exploiting people at your mercy, so you turn to attacking me, and MY ethics?

Laughable, but I guess I'm not surprised after all that. Thanks for the effort!

:D

(helen, sorry about the edit. I asked the question so that you would see how little a person's advocacy for the homeless matters to these questions of ethics. I deleted it because I didn't need to be that personal with you, to say what I had to say.)
 
Ranchu said:
This is interesting! You can't justify exploiting people at your mercy, so you turn to attacking me, and MY ethics?

Laughable, but I guess I'm not surprised after all that. Thanks for the effort!
Click to expand...

No, its not laughable, actually quite sickening when you see homeless children under the age of 10 being used as sex objects....so Ranchu, how ethical are you with your money, thats right..MONEY...it does solve homelessness, its just how you use it....how much?...and i do speak boldly.
BTW...I take photos of homeless people without their permission.
 
I don't find you bold, fireblade. I'm laughing at your little gambit there, and what it says about you. But be sure to let me know when you want to talk about something other than me and my money, ok?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top