| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2007 05:41:02 PM · #76 |
Steve I left this comment on one of  bucket's images a few days ago and I think it is relevent here.
Its interesting you put it like that Rob, I am constantly confronted with the same situations and decisions (if I am understanding you correctly). Sometimes I feel if I was to press the shutter I would be taking advantage of the disadvantaged, I think one of the only images I have taken of a "street" person is this one. I paused before taking but then continued because it shows the nature of the man and how society ignores him without degrading him in doing so.
I think people need to ask themselves why they are taking photographs and are they just choosing the subjects they are shooting because they are easy targets and knowing that it will strike some kind of guaranteed emotion with the viewer.
I think the main point here is WHY?
Message edited by author 2007-08-07 17:42:10. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 05:55:05 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Steve I left this comment on one of bucket's images a few days ago and I think it is relevent here.
I think the main point here is WHY? |
I think both his comments and yours nail down very well what I'm trying to say. I should add you two said it better than I did, so I hope people read them.
I think it's the dizzying flood of homeless shots that have hit the internet over that last year or so that's getting to me. And worse that it seems to be the new direction of Street Photography, or what people equate with SP.
Why is the biggest question and if you know or understand why, then go for it. I guess that applies to almost anything you shoot.
Now, why am I blurring this image???? |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 06:07:42 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Why is the biggest question and if you know or understand why, then go for it.
|
Exactly, for example Joey knows why he shoots the homeless, and I know why I dont.
Well actually I am not completely clear why I dont, but I dont know why I would. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 06:11:12 PM · #79 |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 07:55:47 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I prefer to vote on the quality of the images on a technical and compositional level without biasing based on personal feelings regarding the subject matter. Of course you are free to vote in any way you wish.
Based on this, I could take a picture of a mutilated human corpse, and if its technically pleasing Ill get high votes? |
Yes, quite possibly. If all the elements line up and I can see some reason the shutter was tripped then I could easily vote it high.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Art is also about knowing what looks good and what people want to see (or what you want them to see) coupled with the technical skill to achieve that. |
Exactly. But if I had a deep paranoid fear of dogs, would it be fair to the photographer to vote the great image of a dog a 1 just because I don't like dogs? I say no. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to allow my personal issues to affect his or her score on a good image. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 08:01:53 PM · #81 |
A few months ago I had a desire to take some "gritty, real life" photos. My boyfriend drove me down to the soup kitchen here in Phoenix. It was an eye opening experience, with lots od potential for homeless photography.
I found it impossible to even take my camera out of its case.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2007 08:07:06 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I'm Petarted!
 |
Isn't that the scientist from Back To The Future? |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 09:46:14 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
to the best of my knowledge NO picture in any challenge on this site is entered with the intent to create public awareness |
Incorrect, in at least one case, and I'd bet I could find others.
Anyhoo ... I'll just ring in that I do think there's a moral edge to shooting anyone who's down - homeless, just been beaten up, just had their car stolen, just had a child die, etc. I'm not really comfortable with shooting them purely for the photographer's advantage, but if it's done compassionately and to help the subject, then sure. How that ties into photojournalism for me is tricky, and I'm not sure I could even articulate a guiding principle.
Message edited by author 2007-08-07 21:46:31.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2007 09:59:34 PM · #84 |
| I am very weary about shoting any shots of people that I do not have their permission or that are part of an event. Here in Quebec you can be sued if the person has not given their written release, unless the photo is of a news event, ie protest, car accident etc. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 10:22:27 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by goc:
 |
This is an unedited version of a deleted image that had 3-6 favorites (fwiw) and the funny thing is that I left these images up because people had them as faves. Pretty silly reason to leave stuff up that you don't like...no?
This guy took his weenie out waved it at me and growled (with a very intimidating Spanish accent. see: Al Pacino)
"You wan a peechah...take a peechah uh dis muthahhh fu****"
It was very exciting and challenging to get this shot. He was a moving target not sitting down or laying down begging and I knew people would react.
For me, it was "Faux Photojournalism"...pure baloney...I was testing something...but nothing worth compromising him. If he was asleep and I popped this shot and then posted it that would have been as bad as what I did.
I'll dig up the other three that I deleted and think were bullsh** if I can find them.
I only re-posted these for the sake of discussion.
Message edited by author 2007-08-07 23:24:26. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 10:34:56 PM · #86 |
Absolutely well stated. Heck Look at all the "woodies" , now that really takes some insight and skill to photograph someone elses wooden model doesn't it. Heck pawdrix isn't even honest enough to put his age or an accurate bio on dpc, how could we possibly believe someone who is over 80 years old and probably homeless himself? So let's all vote down homeless, purple skies, woodies, cats, flowers and photos that have photos in them, over processed pics and naked women photos. Oh don't forget the gore and blood ones ... they deserve to be burried anyway. This is what maked dpc so "enjoyable"
Originally posted by mk:
What is the deal with people wanting to control everything everyone else shoots? I just don't get it. Just because we share a common hobby doesn't mean our interests, goals, pursuits, etc. are the same. So you're above and beyond shooting bugs, macros, flowers and homeless people? Bully for you, then don't do it. Don't want to see other people's shots of the same? Then look elsewhere or keep gazing at your own navels. But encouraging other people to stop shooting something because you stopped or never had any interest to start is crap and I just don't understand these constant requests for it. |
|
|
|
|
08/07/2007 10:48:49 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Absolutely well stated. Heck Look at all the "woodies" , now that really takes some insight and skill to photograph someone elses wooden model doesn't it. Heck pawdrix isn't even honest enough to put his age or an accurate bio on dpc, how could we possibly believe someone who is over 80 years old and probably homeless himself? So let's all vote down homeless, purple skies, woodies, cats, flowers and photos that have photos in them, over processed pics and naked women photos. Oh don't forget the gore and blood ones ... they deserve to be burried anyway. This is what maked dpc so "enjoyable"
|
Well, I'm 44 if that helps?
Anyway...
Here's another that I deleted that pulled some heartstrings (I assume based on faves) where I think I took advantage of this guys sad eyes. My only reason to take this shot was to get practice asking tough to ask people if they minded me taking a shot and because he had an this odd vacant look and it was live practice. I bet more people fall into one of those categories whether they know it or not...or will admit.
 |
Message edited by author 2007-08-07 22:55:28. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 10:54:46 PM · #88 |
...
Message edited by author 2007-08-07 22:55:15. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:03:37 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I dont know anything about Joey, but just from looking at those pictures, they arent any different content wise then any other homeless picture. |
Wow....
I'm stunned!
Did you really look at the face on the man in "Ignore"?
Did you look at all the interplay, or lack of it and the emotion that conveys, in that shot?
That's one of the most amazing shots I have ever seen in my life as far as capturing the total sense of desperation.....and reality.
His "Toronto" shot certainly conveys an image that both rivets and appalls me at the same time.
His style in shooting the homeless is exquisite in the way that he captures what he does.
And he doesn't go right for the B&W bleakness edge, either.
And if you consider that he's just a youngster that shouldn't necessarily have lived enough life to be able to capture that image and emotion in his head much less with a camera, he's even more phenomenal.
That is one talented, perceptive, compassionate, and aware young man.
No different content? Please!
Personally, I think we should all shoot what we want to shoot if we feel that we tell our story our way to meet a challenge.
I know I've done everything from going up two full points from nowhere, to dropping shots in the gutter and everything in between.
What I do is to try and do things differently, and I do, than last week, last month, and last year.
For me, street photography has nothing to do with the homeless at all.
It's much more of a challenge for me to take a freeze frame of real urban life......and I'm not very good at it.
The people I've been trying to emulate don't do homeless, either.
So don't shoot homeless, don't vote for homeless shots, but don't bust anyone's chops for doing so, either.
ESPECIALLY someone like Joey who has insight and clarity for their plight like some of us can't even imagine.
Or......here's a thought. REALLY look at his stuff.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:12:44 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
I dont know anything about Joey, but just from looking at those pictures, they arent any different content wise then any other homeless picture. |
Wow....
I'm stunned!
Did you really look at the face on the man in "Ignore"?
Did you look at all the interplay, or lack of it and the emotion that conveys, in that shot?
That's one of the most amazing shots I have ever seen in my life as far as capturing the total sense of desperation.....and reality.
.........
Or......here's a thought. REALLY look at his stuff. |
Thanx Jeb. I was biting my tongue...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:24:37 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Steve I left this comment on one of bucket's images a few days ago and I think it is relevent here.
I think the main point here is WHY? |
I think both his comments and yours nail down very well what I'm trying to say. I should add you two said it better than I did, so I hope people read them.
I think it's the dizzying flood of homeless shots that have hit the internet over that last year or so that's getting to me. And worse that it seems to be the new direction of Street Photography, or what people equate with SP.
Why is the biggest question and if you know or understand why, then go for it. I guess that applies to almost anything you shoot.
Now, why am I blurring this image???? |
I just found this thread and realized that this is the very subject I was dealing with...and really it is a personal one, and I don't have the answers for myself let alone anyone else.
This shot was the one that started it for me:
I have had this feeling for awhile now, and I think in some ways it extends beyond the homeless. I find myself needing to shoot with some sense of meaning...that may be a brief interaction, or perhaps by immersing myself in some aspect of society. Shooting this man in Arusha certainly was done with respect and permission, but I couldn't place a real value on the shot in terms of what story it really told. Did it help raise awareness (of what, that I coldn't figure out). It felt out of context for me, and so the real question becomes what is in context, what is the value of a photo, specifically relating or pertaining to those of people. A question that is personal, but must be asked by not only the photographer and subject but eventually society/the viewer as well. A photograph of a person always raises the question of point of view and the relationship between the photographer and the subject. I suppose this is what intrigues me most, and why a shot of 'the homless' is generally difficult for me if the only relationship is to strike up a conversation with the idea of getting a good shot in mind. The crippled, deformed, horribly ugly or stunningly beautiful all draw my eye and therefore my camera, and it is only the ethics of the moment that rule for me. Only later do I know if it resonates or has a more clearly defined meaning.
This shot is taken in a village, I do not know this child, but can place it in a moment, a moment where I felt that I was truly communicating and interacting and while still drawn to take the shot, I know that there is a context, and I was not simply taking the shot.
This is perhaps my most invasive shot..not only did I try to be sneaky and 'candid' while sitting next to these men, I also listened in to their conversation. And so why does this not affect my personal radar? The conversation was one that spoke to me, and I felt that while private it opened a door for me , a moment of reflection. I felt respectful, and I suppose this is always the key, the question of being mindful when using my camera. And of course this is not for everyone, but I hope it is a way of seeing things that others can respect.
I certainly respect  pawdrix for the way he sees things.
Message edited by author 2007-08-08 02:38:09. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:31:25 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Heck pawdrix isn't even honest enough to put his age or an accurate bio on dpc, how could we possibly believe someone who is over 80 years old and probably homeless himself? |
I'm not sure how this is funny...that his being homeless would really show what a fool he is, or that his being homeless would somehow prove to be a point of irony for you? Or maybe the very idea of anyone suggesting the homeless are worthy of respect makes them...ok think what would be really funny here...
I get it..homeless. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:53:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
I think the main point here is WHY? |
Why? Well, it seems that many feel that the word "homeless" defines the subject. Some of the comments in the thread, such as "I dont know anything about Joey, but just from looking at those pictures, they arent any different content wise then any other homeless picture" give me the impression that the homeless are viewed almost like another species altogether, and all pretty much alike. (Try inserting any animal name in place of the word "homeless" and see what I mean.)
These are human beings, the same as you and I. The reasons why they're where and what they are are as varied as the reasons for any of our positions in society. Some people seem to need reminding of this, and some are interested in documenting this.
For me, that's "why" enough. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:56:51 PM · #94 |
| Unfortunately, most people treat the homeless like ghosts, something to see through or past without acknowledgement. |
|
|
|
08/07/2007 11:57:08 PM · #95 |
I'm interested in this concept of "exploiting" the homeless.
It seems to me that, if you feel that the subject of the photo is somehow being exploited, the photo has engendered or elicited feelings of compassion for the unfortunate, and perhaps a sense of (moral?) outrage that in a world with such wealth and waste, that people can still end up in the gutter.
Isn't that exactly the kind of expression of concern and consciousness-raising effort which is always promoted in contrast to so-called "exploitation?" I fail to see how posting a photo which makes people feel concern for those less well-off than themselves is a a bad thing.
Now, perhaps if people were promoting their gallery sales of $10,000 prints of homeless people I'd feel differently, but I've always used DPC as a place where I could post for reaction photos which have "meaning" to me and/or society. I've even dealt with this particular issue here a couple of times myself. I've worked for over 30 years in community non-profit health programs which deal with "the homeless" every day. I don't have a problem with it, except perhaps taking a decent photo ...
  |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 12:06:16 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
I think the main point here is WHY? |
Why? Well, it seems that many feel that the word "homeless" defines the subject. Some of the comments in the thread, such as "I dont know anything about Joey, but just from looking at those pictures, they arent any different content wise then any other homeless picture" give me the impression that the homeless are viewed almost like another species altogether, and all pretty much alike. (Try inserting any animal name in place of the word "homeless" and see what I mean.)
These are human beings, the same as you and I. The reasons why they're where and what they are are as varied as the reasons for any of our positions in society. Some people seem to need reminding of this, and some are interested in documenting this.
For me, that's "why" enough. |
I think your "why" certainly is enough...and that is what makes this so very personal.
What is your "why"? |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 12:17:16 AM · #97 |
Tell me a story.
Make me ponder as to why I am so blessed when I certainly don't deserve it. Show me to be thankful for the simple things that I have and not envious of the material things that I do not. Teach me to have pity on those who are far less fortunate. Remind me that I have no right to say, "Why me God?". Make me cry.
Help me be a better man.
That is why. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 03:13:14 AM · #98 |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 03:37:07 AM · #99 |
Now that there is a new challenge "Urban Landscapes II", I wonder how many "dwelling challanged" folks will appear in such an urban theme?
.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2007 07:27:22 AM · #100 |
Interesting post, Steve.
I think that you call into question some deep questions concerning the relationship between photographer and subject. Apologies for a long post now.
Photography involves technical skills, creativity and artistry, but it is essentially dependent on the existence of subject matter (abstractions excepted). The act of taking a photo creates something of value (small or great – not necessarily monetary) out of that subject matter.
For reasons considered below, while a photographer can obtain permission in respect of the subject matter, in many situations he does not need to do so. When we are taking photos without permission of things such as buildings or industrially designed products, we rarely think twice about the skill, work and effort of the architect or designer, without which we could not create our image and by which we are therefore profiting. When it comes to taking photographs of people, the issues are both more significant (people have a more direct interest in their own body than their work) and more apparent (the photographer and subject come into direct contact).
A person̢۪s image is a very significant thing because it governs other̢۪s perceptions of them, and is used as a primary means to identify them. When someone else takes a photo, the photographer gains control over the portrayal of the subject̢۪s image and the photograph is a type of evidence concerning the subject̢۪s image/location/actions.
It should never be assumed that a photographer has a “right†(like a constitutional right) to take photographs. Permitting photography is a practical matter: people like to take photos, it creates wealth and has historical significance, and so as a general rule permitting photography in public spaces outweighs the interests of people to decide when and how their public image may be recorded/displayed. Exceptions arise in relation to commercial use/advertising, and in some countries where a degree of privacy is reasonably expected.
When it comes to homeless people, these issues collide.
With a homeless person, the tendency is to capture a person in an unflattering situation (both in relation to their image and their location/position/actions). The subject may have a better than usual reason to not want to be photographed.
By definition, homeless people do not have the option of leaving the public space. The rules that are an effective compromise for those who choose to be in the public space, do not work in the same way for homeless people who have no other option.
People who are homeless have very fewer avenues than normal people in order to enforce their rights. The idea of them enforcing a right to privacy is unrealistic, so what rights they might have are often trampled upon.
I conclude that you “can†take photos of homeless people, and it is unlikely that they will be able to do much about it. But this does not solve the moral question of whether you “should†do so.
My opinion of that is that one “should†obtain genuine permission, or take photos of those people at a time when they would not expect a degree of privacy (subjective decision – but if they look like they do not want their photo taken, that means they want privacy). If you have a more altruistic reason than personal gain (not limited to monetary gain) for taking the photo, such as photojournalism to highlight someone’s plight, then maybe that works as a justification.
On obtaining permission, I would say that it may well be cheap to buy permission, but IMO that is exploitation close to prostitution. If you are going to get permission, IMO, obtain it properly, and make sure that any money passing hands reflects your commercial intents, or is gifted unconditionally.
|
|
