[ihasa]

Living in a third world country, I can't help but shoot third world people. But I do not photograph homeless people. For most of us, the street is a public place: we go out of our homes with an expectation of having to interact with other people, while obviously they don't have that choice. That is, it is precisely the privacy aspect that prevents me from taking pictures of them.

No, I think neither we nor homeless people have any choice but to 'be in public places' some (or most) of the time. None of us go around expecting to be photographed, so it is always preferable to be courteous and thoughtful when photographing people in public (homeless or not), ideally entering into an exchange with them (perhaps just non verbal - a glance, a smile etc..)

Anyway, I've only (knowingly) photographed a homeless person once. Sat for a while with him, talked to him, asked if he minded is I took his picture. He was more than happy to oblige. To me he was a 'street character'... homeless status: irrelevant.

[philbaum]

Kudos to Magkelly for the thread. Its probably better to think about it ahead of time, rather than to make it up as we go along.

I won't photograph gore or gory scenes for the sake of that stimulus - not interested. I don't go to slasher movies for the same reason. I do like moody shadowy scenes, and have wandered through several alleyways to get gritty pictures.

I have reservations about photographing homeless people, as others have expressed.

My wife gives me a lot of freedom to go anywhere and photograph dang near anything. I wouldn't do anything at this point in my life to jeopardize our relationship, so that leaves a lot of nude photography out

A friend and I have an "open hand" in photographing and selecting pictures from a local live performance (plays) theatre to use in decorating the lobby before opening night. Also, we provide pictures for publicity purposes. We're pretty careful to not select pictures that may be potentially embarassing in a public display area. Actors have feelings too (it turns out ). Frankly, this effort is a lot of work, all done for free except for printing costs. But its helped enormously in making me more comfortable photographing people. I was very lucky to wander into this opporutnity!!!

[Ratmagiclady]

No, I think neither we nor homeless people have any choice but to 'be in public places' some (or most) of the time. None of us go around expecting to be photographed, so it is always preferable to be courteous and thoughtful when photographing people in public (homeless or not), ideally entering into an exchange with them (perhaps just non verbal - a glance, a smile etc..)

Anyway, I've only (knowingly) photographed a homeless person once. Sat for a while with him, talked to him, asked if he minded is I took his picture. He was more than happy to oblige. To me he was a 'street character'... homeless status: irrelevant.

Actually, just as someone who's been on both sides, it really depends. You could put me in Gucci or my old cloak and cammies and I'd be just as camera-shy either way, even if quite a character on the street in other ways. You don't stop being a person when you're homeless: while many may well be ashamed of that circumstance, many are just as stridently (or quietly) crying out to be seen or heard... again, just like anyone, maybe more.


Homeless people, (I still almost said 'we,') aren't a vase of flowers or an object or a 'subject,' ....People. If you're photographing any kind of people, anywhere, you have to engage with that. The person. People photography of any kind really is a *social skill.* People don't become passive scenery just cause they're on the street. People. Not categories or statistics: People. Who may react or think any number of things. Find out. Every time.

K?


Cause, to be honest, every time someone asks that question: "What would you do if you could go back in time," it's not the most practical option, but it always comes to mind, "Give past-RML the 1.2, these proper eyeglasses, and all the film in the freezer.' " Cause, you know. If I'd been shooting, I'd have gotten shots.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Besides what law tell us, there will be as many interpretations of what should and should not be shot as there are photographers.

The only thing I'd like to point out is that the final decision is made when I post process pictures. When I street shoot, things sometimes happens too fast to make a decision there and then. Camera is at the eye, finger is on the trigger, and the finger moves faster than I could ever make good decision on the shot or not. For example: We can all look like morons on a picture if we happen to yaw or stick a finger in our nose or similar while the photographer press the trigger. I want to document people, not to make them look like idiots. Often you don't see this until you see the final shot. Most of those shots end up in the bin, or at least stay on the hard disks never to be shown to anyone else. But it is not like I am trying to avoid those shots beforehand, it just don't work. I delete them afterwards.

BTW, considering another thread involving a husband, a camera, a wife and some cats...I hope I will never shoot accidents or similar while they take place if there is anyway I could instead help. I understand new photographers must, but I don't think I could distance myself in that way.

[VisualDarkness]

I never work for free... "**** you pay me" is the response to anybody that asks. Think it's wrong? ask them to do thier jobs for free and see what they tell you! (and don't give me any bs about volunteering for a good cause...if that good cause wants to buy $10,000.00 worth of equipment THEN ask me to volunteer to do a shoot, fine I'll consider offering my time, if I believe in the cause...).

That is a tough one. I've done quite a lot of sports for free as of now but at the same time the ones I shot are "non-commercial" ones as most people on or around the team also work for free. Players mostly pay even for their equipment (and maybe get a tiny symbolic sum) and no-one in the staff besides maybe the coach get anything at all. Is that okay?

Though I've been trying to sell my work to local newspapers but they don't want to pay any photographers besides their own and I find that tough to accept.

[D0n]

That is a tough one. I've done quite a lot of sports for free as of now but at the same time the ones I shot are "non-commercial" ones as most people on or around the team also work for free. Players mostly pay even for their equipment (and maybe get a tiny symbolic sum) and no-one in the staff besides maybe the coach get anything at all. Is that okay?

Though I've been trying to sell my work to local newspapers but they don't want to pay any photographers besides their own and I find that tough to accept.

it is about respect. every free job I ever did wound up biting me one way or another... when people pay, they also pay you some respect.
Nobody ever offers to pay you more than you ask for, so if ask for zero, they'll treat you like a zero.

[luftfluss]

I've done a lot of pro bono work over the years - generally computer-related work & some photography, and some more blue-collar stuff - and have never been treated with anything less than gratitude and respect. You reap what you sow.

---

Last edited by luftfluss; 05-15-2012 at 09:44 PM.

[luftfluss]

Though I've been trying to sell my work to local newspapers but they don't want to pay any photographers besides their own and I find that tough to accept.

That's a shame. If they make money off of it, so should you. Sadly, many pro photogs are a surly & jealous lot.

[luftfluss]

What wouldn't I do as a photographer? I seldom shoot people - even paid - because I'm not especially good at it and I have very little interest in humans as photographic subjects. The two are probably related...

One of my favorite genres of photography is wildlife. I would never bait and then proclaim the photo as "wildlife", although I know of some pros who do. One reason is the term "wildlife" becomes disingenuous; you've begun to teach the animal that humans are a source of food, and this is the beginning of domestication. More importantly, this blurs the line in the human-wild animal relationship, and I've (unfortunately) seen a bad result for the animal when this happens.

[CWyatt]

I object to shooting vagrants and people in third word countries for art rather than raising awareness.
Its a fine line I know but something I couldn't do unless there is something in it for the subject.

It's not just a fine line, but one I would say is almost completely blurred. There's war photography in art museums.

I think you're coming to it from a good moral opinion, but it's problematic. If you ignore these things with your camera are you only taking pictures of happy or nice things? Only of people with some money? This would seem to be disturbing in itself. And you do say it's OK if you're raising awareness, but then not everyone can claim to be 'raising awareness' any time they photograph poverty and show someone the photos. And to make that the only criteria from which you can allow photographing of poorer people seems, to me, to have uncomfortably patronising connotations.

ihasa a few posts later said something about it being part of the social fabric and therefore should be photographed? I'd agree with that. And I do (as per any other street photo) think there's no need to be rude when photographing anyone. But I never ask permission.

One other point is where I live, happily, there aren't many homeless. In fact I'd wager a good chunk of our population think there aren't any homeless. So I think photographing homeless here may be different to in the US.

[eddie1960]

It's not just a fine line, but one I would say is almost completely blurred. There's war photography in art museums.

I think you're coming to it from a good moral opinion, but it's problematic. If you ignore these things with your camera are you only taking pictures of happy or nice things? Only of people with some money? This would seem to be disturbing in itself. And you do say it's OK if you're raising awareness, but then not everyone can claim to be 'raising awareness' any time they photograph poverty and show someone the photos. And to make that the only criteria from which you can allow photographing of poorer people seems, to me, to have uncomfortably patronising connotations.

ihasa a few posts later said something about it being part of the social fabric and therefore should be photographed? I'd agree with that. And I do (as per any other street photo) think there's no need to be rude when photographing anyone. But I never ask permission.

One other point is where I live, happily, there aren't many homeless. In fact I'd wager a good chunk of our population think there aren't any homeless. So I think photographing homeless here may be different to in the US.

this is an excellent point. I've shot a fair bit of street (no where near what javier and bluesman do mind you) I never ask. i just shoot, If someone asks to see what i took i will show it. I may even delete it on request, but I don't ask in advance. Having (like RML) spent some time on the street myself I will shoot street people (many are characters who go out of their way to get you to shoot them) ignoring the fact they exist and not shooting them ignores the social problem. Publicizing the issue and questioning policies surrounding homeless issues is how you effect change. I understand why soeone would feel uncomfortable shooting street people. Thing is if you are comfortable shooting strangers on the street whether they are homeless or not is not a factor. Homeless are people as well.

[magkelly]

I thought about that one too. I mean the war shots. They take pics of people dying on the battlefield. Of people bombed in the streets. Taking pics of the homeless seems almost benign by comparison...

[Parallax]

I thought about that one too. I mean the war shots. They take pics of people dying on the battlefield. Of people bombed in the streets. Taking pics of the homeless seems almost benign by comparison...

It's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" If you take a picture of it, (war, homelessness, etc) you're exploiting it. If you don't take pictures of it you're ignoring the problems in hopes they'll go away.

[eddie1960]

I thought about that one too. I mean the war shots. They take pics of people dying on the battlefield. Of people bombed in the streets. Taking pics of the homeless seems almost benign by comparison...

Exactly. If you view street photography as a form of journalistic photography (and in fact that is where the roots are) then whether you shoot a homeless person is not the issue in fact. the arguement can be made that shooting homeless people is more in line with journalism actually (most street shots would never be placed in journalism, but Homeless shots could easily be used for context within articles and perhaps actually do some good)

[Medium FormatPro]

Though I've been trying to sell my work to local newspapers but they don't want to pay any photographers besides their own and I find that tough to accept.

In america most media outlets; locally and even national news as well - one could almost hire the average high school student and get better results. Give them (an almost average high schooler) a pro-sumer camcorder and they could somehow outdo most of market one with a 100k camera. Sad, but true.

Especially when american media pays their anchors so much basically just to read a teleprompter for a few minutes and to look good while doing it. The american media would rather have a good visual presentation without having any real reporting. Look at Robin Meade.

...And a majorty of their professional photographers could make more by working at the average grocery store.