Originally posted by Mareket I can see what you're saying, and agree in some sort of sense. People love looking at pictures like this because they're dramatic and emotional. People love seeing other people suffering for some weird reason. I agree that taking a photo of a guy with his head in his hands sat on a street seems to be ignoring the fact that the subject is human too. I would NOT want to be photographed in that situation. Then again my unwillingness to capture moments like these makes me an extremely poor street photographer.
If you want good photographs, you basically have to ignore the fact that your subject is human and not care if they don't want their photo taken.
That said, it's a fantastically well composed shot, and no doubt scores of people will like seeing how dire this guy's situation is. The question is, if slackercruster hasn't earned anything from it and the photo will never affect the guy in any way, why is it bad? It made slackercruster happy to get such a good shot, so this photo has only made people happy or entertained, it didn't ruin the guys life or anything.
Yes, I guess that is how it is. You gave a good summation Mareket.
Actually I didn't think all that much when I was street shooting in L.A. back in the 70's. My only thought was "will this subject make a good photo." I guess I would shoot first and think later in the darkroom.
I would be wandering the street and alleys of downtown L.A. There would be a guy sleeping on the sidewalk and I shot him. The next block some old buildings caught my eye. I looked up and a pigeon flew off a ledge, so I shot it. A few steps away a rusty lock was attached to a chain link fence and I shot it. I crossed the street and a little girl peeked out from her car window and I shot her. Some guy is hanging out the window from his skid row apartment. I call up to him and ask if I can shoot him. He invites me up and I shoot him.
This is how it is on the street, you wander around and shoot whatever catches your eye. Hopefully you get some keepers. But the vast majority of what you may produce is trash. If I would get 1 keeper from a roll of 36 I was very happy. Sometimes roll after roll of shots were trash. All these shots I mentioned above were actual photographs I took and are in my portfolio. But there were taken over a long period of time and not all on the same day as I make it out to be in this post.
Ruining someones life is where I would draw the line. Most of the people I post here are dead by now. But I always consider how my photos would affect the subject if I post them online. I especially gave that question a lot of thought with a neo nazi photo I am going to put in my upcoming 'L.A. 1970's' thread.
I was thinking the most exploiting of togs are the newbie / poor quality togs. They grab a family member or a person to shoot with the selfish hopes of learning to be a good tog. They do not produce anything worthwhile or their experiments fail. And the subject has had their time wasted by the exploitative efforts of the tog. But...togs have to learn someplace, so we all have exploited our poor subjects one time or another trying to be better togs.
Shooting homeless people is one of the least exploiting of all genre's of people photography there is. With homeless people, they have nothing else to do. They are on the street, I am not wasting their time. And such photos may also bring attention to the homeless and help send some chartiable $$ to that area of social need. So, homeless photographs exploit the subject less than the newbie tog does with their family and friends they corral to experiment on.
If you want to be a better street tog, go out and practice Mareket. Toughen up, hit the streets, shoot first think later. You will get used to it.
Good Luck!
P.S....am packing up and taking off shortly. Will not have net access very well. Sorry I can't get back to any other replies for a while. Will be back early July. Keep blasting away guys!