When people photograph homeless people are they bringing the plight to the public's attention, or do you find these photos exploitative? Or perhaps both?

You tell us.

Read 1,154 times

Reply 

From robertwallis/Robert (12,854) on May 31, 2012 12:58:37 PM CDT The photos aren't any more exploitive than the ones guys do of good looking women on the street. In other words, both are exploitive. My own feel is that it shouldn't be done. The closest I came to that sort of thing was a few years ago when I was waiting on my daughter to finish up her SAT exams at Butler University. I was waiting in the car, and was snoozing behind the wheel, head back and probably snoring. I woke up for some reason and saw some guy pointing a camera at me. I called him a son of a bitch and came out of the car at him. The prick ran off. I resented having my photo taken at a moment when I wasn't expecting it and without my permission. I would imagine the homeless resent it also. A recent photo of a sleeping homeless guy was posted, and the OP mentioned it was with permission, and the guy was paid for the effort. That's equitable, in my opinion. Reply

From johnbasterfield1/John (854) on May 31, 2012 1:43:00 PM CDT Homelessness is a fact of life. We are faced with it in our cities from day to day. Photographing the homeless can bring a sense of what their life is, and to use it as a window on the the world. I would see using the images commercially without authorization and remuneration to be exploitive. But consider the images in publications like Time Magazine, National Geographic etc. The question is, were all these individuals compensated for their photos? I doubt it. The average photographer, will see the world, formulate an exposure, and take the shot. If the individual feels it necessary to get authorization then it is done. With the internet now making the distribution of our images almost immediate and unlimited, it is perhaps more compelling to have that authorization to distribute ANY individual's photo online and beyond. Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,786) on May 31, 2012 2:17:06 PM CDT this is a tough subject, I ask permission and give a donation, and also, some homeless are extremely sensitive about getting their picture taken, some have criminal records or are mentally unstable, so might even become aggressive, so approach the issue carefully. a valid subject, yes, the blight of the homeless is not something to be swept under the table, maybe too much might have the opposite effect, and think of the double standard, how many highly rated photos of other regions of the world have been taken, and highly praised for capturing the other culture, well, one can argue that the homeless is part of the collective culture. In general street photography raises lots of interesting points, I have seen national published photos where I know the photographer did not have permission of the person, and yet since on an open street, the photo was published without qualms, and I suspect the photographer compensated. also, a shot can be taken that shows the inner strength, humanity etc of the person, or their interaction with their dog, surroundings, etc. Reply

From loiswakeman/Lois (16,386) on May 31, 2012 3:48:38 PM CDT Good point Sebastian about double standards - how many doe-eyed Middle Eastern child brick workers get huge accolades here whilst a Western homeless person might not? Reply

From ssal/Alex (27,090) on May 31, 2012 3:29:46 PM CDT To take a picture of a subject is to present it for other to see. I personally do not like presenting fellows who's down and out of their luck. Unless, I have a need to do a subject on that matter of homelessness or a documentary, I would just leave them alone. There is also a few unpleasant things about being homeless. Personal hygiene and cleanliness are concerns. People in that situation may not want you to capture that dire moment of their life too. Reply

From suearez/Rick (5,785) on May 31, 2012 4:01:39 PM CDT I think there have been some very valid and intelligent points raised in this thread already, and for me the key aspect is consent. For those who have not seen the critique thread, it was myself who took the shot, and in my original post made it clear that the shot was taken with the consent of the chap in the shot. Consent is key. The same argument can be made of other equally difficult situations in life, as made clear earlier with expamples of children working in sweat shops, or people living in squalid livign conditions in third world countries. I have been to India a few times and see countless people clicking away shots of people begging on the streets or living in slums etc. Does the same ethical and moral groudn apply there? If the person in the shot is compensated as he was in my case, does that not change things. I know for a fact that both the chap and his dog in my shot were very greatful for the money I gave them as it would have probably bought breakfast that just would not have happened otherwise. Essentially, I feel that if you have consent and can compensate a little, there's no harm in it, as long as you don't make thousands from selling the image! Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on May 31, 2012 4:35:33 PM CDT To be honest Rick, I was not referring to your photo. The common issue of photographing homeless people is frequently brought up on photos here and elsewhere. I thought it would make an interesting discussion. Personally I never ask for consent if the subject is in a public place. I don't think getting consent (what exactly are they consenting to?), or giving money, gives one any more moral high ground than anyone else who takes a photo of someone in public. I'm starting to think all photography may be somewhat exploitative as in "to make use of selfishly". Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,854) on May 31, 2012 5:10:37 PM CDT Your image was the one I cited as the ethical example. It was gratifying to see the surprise in the eyes of the guy attempting to take my shot, so in a sense he paid for the experience ;-) Reply

From ssal/Alex (27,090) on May 31, 2012 5:27:55 PM CDT Asking for consent? Giving money? Considering people who are financially desperate and maybe mentally unstable, are you sure you, yourself, are operating with a full deck of cards? Why don't you just exercise the golden rule, "Do unto others as you'd like to have done to yourself". Ask yourself, if you've been sleeping on the street for months and the last time to took a shower was when it rained. You have ugly stuff running from your nose, and you are hungry. Would you take money, for whatever reeson? No doubt, it is YES. Would you like your picture taken and presented? Well, you tell me . . . To me, the justification of "I donated" and "I got consent" is totally ridiculous and naive! Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,786) on May 31, 2012 6:46:10 PM CDT and than,, do you never take pictures of homeless, or take them and take your own benefit? what is your policy? Reply

From ssal/Alex (27,090) on May 31, 2012 7:34:51 PM CDT NO! Never took any picture of homeless people. I have some pictures of street performers, but not people down on their luck. It is not a policy. It is my own principle. Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,786) on May 31, 2012 7:48:15 PM CDT I don't know, I know a picture I once took of a young man and his dog, he loved havng his picture taken, not sure why that is such a problem. They are people too, give people respect, and they enjoy the conversation. Reply

From ssal/Alex (27,090) on May 31, 2012 8:06:59 PM CDT I am a volunteer of Operation Portrait. Every year, we (our club) go to the community center and set up portrait session and printing. We would take pictures of the less advantage and print the picture for them. It is our way of giving back to the community. We do hundreds of pictures of kids and families each year. But that is very different from taking pictures of people down on their luck and use it for my benefit. Reply

From alicialbc/Alicia (142) on May 31, 2012 9:31:41 PM CDT I completely agree with you, consent is definitely needed whether its here or in a third world country. At the end of the day that person is still a person and has a say in whether or not they want to be shown like that. Photos like that are beautiful and you can really capture captivating moments when that person is unaware of the situation and all though its tempting they deserve to have a say. Reply

From pete/Pete (3,552) on May 31, 2012 9:58:59 PM CDT It also depends on your intentions and results. I did a lot of this in my town and the pictures raised a ton of interest which resulted in being printed in the paper. From there local interest groups contacted me and in giving them info to location etc much help was given and provided to these folks. The homeless received clothing, food, shelter,medical attention. Any regrets or harm done......not at all. It's not always what or why you do something it's what you do with it. Reply

From beegirl/Mieka (2,879) on June 1, 2012 6:02:11 AM CDT i think it makes a difference if one earns money with the photo. and i think it makes a difference if you write an article that speaks up for those people and then ask poeple if they would like to be picture taken but payed realistic for it. i think they should first read the article and then deside. on the other hand we all look for the real authentic thing especially when it comes to portrait. i am so bored of all these girls photographed with the right make up under the right conditions in the right pose. they all don't touch me. i want to see real faces with scars wrinkles swollen eyes from a hang over or totally wild hair from the wind. i want to see that they close their eyes a bit too much because the wind was so hard. i want to see fear, love, anger whatever but not a pose. i want to see the real life. of course i look for those moments. and yes sometimes it's the love a homeless has with a dog. because no one else would go close to him. i have pictures with homeless people. i talked to them in los angeles and they agreed to be picture taken. i uploaded one here, and prompt got into the crossfire of opinions. there was three thumbs up and accusations. i deleted the picture. because i had not asked the guy if he agreed in me uploading his picture on the internet. he had allowed me to take a memory shot. that's all. but thinking about this i think it is the same with taking pictures of normal people in the street. those pictures should be seen as personal studies but should not be published without the agreement of the person. since we can not proove the agreement here, we should maybe not publish those pictures at all. on the other hand we will miss very many great photos. this is so difficult.when i see a picture like this, like a working child in iran i am deeply touched and feel like everybody should see this, because only if we show it it will change one day. Reply

From blackcat/Luis (26,318) on June 1, 2012 6:13:59 AM CDT A Photographer's task is to reflect reality or 'altering' reality by using photo-shop for example for the purpose of bringing attention to poverty in an artistic way. In this particular case "Homelessness" is a difficult subject to make public, but it exists, these people are real people, not objects down on the ground. For them some of it is violation of privacy, even though they show in public, asking permission is the best attitude to have. The awareness of deprivation and misery and the inequality of human reality show right there. the photographer of war times is there to show how men deal with their own political or fanatical history. The Journalist photographer has the hard task also of showing something that most want to ignore or refuse to see and accept that others are in for a life of suffering while others are out for a showiness of riches and want and like to make it to the public eye as a show off in the Media if you want, because celebrities are the raw example of success and accomplishment which of course is the American Way dream. But what are these if it is at the cost of others having nothing (but nightmares) and nobody in the world, but a dog? If we want to talk 'Social Justice' it’s an eye opener that misery exists like leprosy in our world across the planet and it needs to be addressed. These photos are far from exploitative, because poverty and deprivation don't sell. on the other hand Lindsay Lohan case is quite exploitative because it sells but not anymore. Paris Hilton wanted to expose herself and it used to sell till they turned their backs at these empty rich shells. Misery does not sell; people don't even want to look at it. It is time that these people get the right to exist in a dignified manner. Who brings that up? The photographer, who is looking in the eye at this sore in society. Why luxury and success are the most searched for? Being poor is seen as a disgrace. For some radicals, they don't even want to see it and others extremists would like to eliminate it by literally killing it. So, my answer is no, there is no exploitation, just revelation, exposure, like an open wound that needs healing not eradication. Reply

From jroessler/John (14,149) on June 1, 2012 8:59:39 AM CDT I'm always reminded of the photo taken of the young girl in Vietnam who had been horribly burned by napalm, running down the road. The journalist who took her photo did in fact get very involved. He got her to a hospital, insisted she be cared for and she lived. Eventually she became a doctor and I believe she now lives in Toronto. Had that photo not been taken she probably would have died and the world would have lost a valuable person. Obviously, some photojournalists are insensitive clods seeking their own promotion. One is reminded of the journalist who when taking a photo of a homeless person asked what they had given them replied, "f8". I think being sensitive to the subject and still telling their story is the answer. Reply

From smoke11/Patrick (3,100) on June 1, 2012 9:04:47 AM CDT Homeless people are especially vulnerable and it feels exploitative. If the photos are to document, report conditions then it may be different case. But my standards would be high here. It would have to in conjunction with a news report or study, and not just to hang photos on a Web site under a pretense of raising "awareness." That serves the photographer more than the homeless; it's just PR. Reply

From lurchi/Ulrich (61,232) on June 1, 2012 10:02:40 AM CDT Consent is key. Agreed. Compensation or rather donation may be an additional good thing afterwards, but I would avoid making someone desperate "sell" a piece of their dignity - that is agree with me shooting because they need the money. Reply

From donschaeffer/Don (12,839) on June 1, 2012 10:15:25 AM CDT I've always gone by the assumption that photography is just seeing--or maybe visually contemplating is a better definition. The only time that can be exploitative is if the the images are sold or the photographer gains materially from someone else's suffering. Even then it's a minor and forgivable kind of exploitation compared to the forces that caused the suffering in the first place. Reply

From ekans4460/Patrice (7,664) on June 1, 2012 10:58:58 AM CDT I never take pictures of poor people. I just cant do it. Reply

From pandaportraits/Caroline (20,905) on June 1, 2012 10:56:31 AM CDT When it comes to this topic I am reminded of the work of Dorothea Lange. Most of her images show people that are in very bad situations based on the depression. Had she not shot these images we would now not have a visual record of that time period. As far as I am aware, Mrs. Lange, did not compensate her subjects. Mind you, those were different times. Ultimately her images brought relief to those who needed it. So then in the end these subjects did gain by having their photo taken. I feel that it is okay to photograph the homeless in a tasteful manner. But as already mentioned this should be done in a more documentary style. Otherwise it would be tasteless. Reply

From ssal/Alex (27,090) on June 1, 2012 12:07:50 PM CDT For those who argue that it is OK because "you gave money" and you'd got "consent", let me offer an analogy that proves that it is not necessary right . . . prostitution! No doubt that there was consent. No doubt that the John paid for the service. But in most of the civilized countries, we have John's law making your consent and payment part of the illegal acts. I don't dispute the value of documentary. But taking pictures of homeless because you can get some "great pictures", either for profit or personal consumption, is exploitation of the weak and disadvantage. Personally I'd find it tasteless. Reply

From silverball/Sean (1,262) on June 1, 2012 1:14:33 PM CDT ...in many countries where prostitution is illegal, it IS legal if you photograph it. We call it pornography. Reply

From ssal/Alex (27,090) on June 1, 2012 3:18:35 PM CDT What's your point? Reply

From silverball/Sean (1,262) on June 1, 2012 4:46:09 PM CDT My point is that your analogy omits many mitigating factors. In situations/scenarios where sex for money is legal it's usually to benefit a third party, be it a pimp or a government (two of the same?). Not exactly the same situation with the homeless. There are videographers exploiting the homeless (Google; bum fights), that I can't condone. Photographing the ugly reality of society... well, it is what it is. Sometimes it bothers me, other times it's enlightening. I suppose there may be a question of context here as well. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on June 1, 2012 4:27:51 PM CDT Homeless or street folks as I prefer to call them, are fair game. I wouldnt, however, take an image to expolit them in any way, more likely to document something I saw in my own little corner of the world. We have them here, and some are a photogs dream as they appear on the street. Theres an older gent with a meirshaum (sp?) pipe and little NAVY CAPT coat that stands downtown like a statue...Im not sure any person has ever walked by with camera in hand and not taken that image. He seems to be more a natural part of the landscape than homeless..an attraction if you will. Oh and btw...he poses for folks and has never asked for money...but has taken donations. Reply

From lurchi/Ulrich (61,232) on June 3, 2012 10:05:48 AM CDT Meerschaum Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on June 4, 2012 4:10:25 PM CDT Thanks ULRICH..sometimes I have mind melds and just get it wrong.... Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on June 2, 2012 12:14:45 AM CDT Thanks everyone! Interesting responses. Reply

Return to forum