Homeless in Seattle #1

[bideford]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is probably a forum topic on its own where it would be interesting to discuss the use of vulnerable subjects within popular photography. I use this term (perhaps wrongly) to attempt to differentiate between serious social commentary/photo journalism and images posted into forums such as these. Images to highlight the plight of the homeless (and other vulnerable people) are better served in a media that reaches a wider audience.

 

Whilst wishing not to censor, there are moral obligations that I do think we should consider. All of us that are in a position to take such photographs (and given current circumstances - that probably applies to everyone with a camera in public places) ought to reflect on whether they are respecting the dignity of their subjects. Perhaps this is even more so when the photographer is using expensive equipment like Leica - as this can only accentuate the juxtaposition of the situation.

 

I had to explain my views on this to my own daughter in a trip to Venice recently. She was taking images of a unfortunate soul begging (no doubt under the control of a gang). Once she thought about and understood the actual scene in front of her, she took some thought provoking shots of other photographers, frankly, looking rather stupid and taking their own "beggar shot".

 

I last brought this up on another popular Leica forum and suspect I have not yet been forgiven. It does give me some solace that other users are also brave enough to raise a voice of concern - whilst not wishing to denegrate the work of either the OP or subsequent member posts.

 

James

[paulsydaus]

Just curious, so don't get defensive.

What has the size of the audience or place of publication got to do with the various issues/topics being discussed here?

That seems elitist to me. It's not like the OP went and used it in advertising or anything like that. It's clear that this is a complex debate, but it's also clear the OP did not intend to harm the dignity of the individual, and was trying to highlight a problem. The original poster has followed up with various comments about learning about and helping the homeless with his photography.

I think the only people who can really judge this debate are the homeless themselves, or perhaps the hard-working social and volunteer workers that try help could also possibly give a a closer insight.

I'm definitely not smart enough to make a judgement call on this. Interesting debate all round.

 

 

It is probably a forum topic on its own where it would be interesting to discuss the use of vulnerable subjects within popular photography. I use this term (perhaps wrongly) to attempt to differentiate between serious social commentary/photo journalism and images posted into forums such as these. Images to highlight the plight of the homeless (and other vulnerable people) are better served in a media that reaches a wider audience.

 

Whilst wishing not to censor, there are moral obligations that I do think we should consider. All of us that are in a position to take such photographs (and given current circumstances - that probably applies to everyone with a camera in public places) ought to reflect on whether they are respecting the dignity of their subjects. Perhaps this is even more so when the photographer is using expensive equipment like Leica - as this can only accentuate the juxtaposition of the situation.

 

I had to explain my views on this to my own daughter in a trip to Venice recently. She was taking images of a unfortunate soul begging (no doubt under the control of a gang). Once she thought about and understood the actual scene in front of her, she took some thought provoking shots of other photographers, frankly, looking rather stupid and taking their own "beggar shot".

 

I last brought this up on another popular Leica forum and suspect I have not yet been forgiven. It does give me some solace that other users are also brave enough to raise a voice of concern - whilst not wishing to denegrate the work of either the OP or subsequent member posts.

 

James

[flyalf]

Its a very good photo, but I have to admit having mixed feeling about photos of homeless people, beggars, drunks and such.

 

I try to ask myself before posting; If subject can be recognized, would the subject agree to have the photo posted? Perhaps after being explained about purpose, but then you need a dialogue with model.

[Les Paul]

It looks to me that the OP saw this homeless person and was so upset by what he saw that he wanted to bring the plight of this person to the attention of other people.

 

"Look at this man there must be something that can be done to help him"

 

Photographs have always been the method by which events are made known.

 

Not everyone puts pictures on forums to massage their ego or to improve their chances of becoming a famous photographer.

 

I say go for it OP. Arrange your photo shoot and bring the sorry position of these people to public attention. Perhaps making your own photo blog would be a good way to make this known.

[Les Paul]

I try to ask myself before posting; If subject can be recognized, would the subject agree to have the photo posted?

 

Maybe the same can be said about ALL photos of strangers. Do you not upload street scenes made up of people you do not know. Do you worry that they may see that picture online.

[Hank Taylor]

After re-looking at your picture, which is quite good, the more I think about it I'm not sure this guy is homeless. He looks like he may have had too much to drinking on something and sleeping it off.

Regardless, disregard what some feel about taking these kind of pictures. Its part of our culture, I personally feel you are not taking advantage of his situation.

Best regards,

Hank

[dickgrafixstop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It hasn't been established that the subject is homeless. He may just be resting from

carrying his bag full of Leica equipment to "document the plight of the poor unfortunate

souls that can't find work under the Obama administration.

[Hank Taylor]

It hasn't been established that the subject is homeless. He may just be resting from

carrying his bag full of Leica equipment to "document the plight of the poor unfortunate

souls that can't find work under the Obama administration.

 

Dick that's really quite funny and I thought I was in trouble, but then again Obama Liberals aren't known for having a sense of humor.

 

Hank

[bideford]

Just curious, so don't get defensive.

What has the size of the audience or place of publication got to do with the various issues/topics being discussed here?

That seems elitist to me. It's not like the OP went and used it in advertising or anything like that. It's clear that this is a complex debate, but it's also clear the OP did not intend to harm the dignity of the individual, and was trying to highlight a problem. The original poster has followed up with various comments about learning about and helping the homeless with his photography.

I think the only people who can really judge this debate are the homeless themselves, or perhaps the hard-working social and volunteer workers that try help could also possibly give a a closer insight.

I'm definitely not smart enough to make a judgement call on this. Interesting debate all round.

 

Hi paulsydaus,

 

Apologies for not responding sooner.

 

To try to answer your question, the point I was trying to make is that perhaps the L.Camera Forum is not the most effective place in which these images can generate any meaningful social change. Perhaps there are both better media and commentators that are better placed to do this.

 

Where the subject is not in a position to express his/her views on being used as a muse in less than desirable circumstances, then the photographer has a duty to ensure the image has a meaning. Otherwise it can quickly become simply voyeuristic or (perhaps even worse) the muse can be forgotten and the image can be viewed from simply an artistic/composition perspective.

 

I am pleased that this does create debate and would re-iterate my earlier post that I do not wish to denigrate the work of either the OP or subsequent member posts.

 

I can, however, see how people feel either way.

 

I do hope I have not been too defensive in my response (not entirely clear why I would be) and I'm happy to let others discuss the issues here further.

 

James

[jimofnyc]

I have also had this sort of criticism of images I have posted in the past. It is easy to say that the individuals shown in these types of pictures are - for whatever reason - unable to stop photographers from portraying them in less than flattering situations, or revealing insight into their private mental hell and are therefor being exploited but there can be more meaning to these types of pictures.

 

On a superficial level it can be called exploitation but it can also be construed as a window upon larger issues of how humanity treats a portion of its own and how we think and feel about that humanity. That is how I think we should look at these types of images...

[tookaphotoof]

So, we actually can appreciate photos taken in the slums of India or people in war zones, but when it comes to taking picutres of a homeless guy than that wouldn't be correct? Or maybe you could take a photo of him, but it would be inappropriate to post it on this forum?

Personally I find it great a camera can capture anything a photographer wants to. Sometimes you see the good and sometimes the bad things in life.

[bideford]

So, we actually can appreciate photos taken in the slums of India or people in war zones, but when it comes to taking picutres of a homeless guy than that wouldn't be correct? Or maybe you could take a photo of him, but it would be inappropriate to post it on this forum?

Personally I find it great a camera can capture anything a photographer wants to. Sometimes you see the good and sometimes the bad things in life.

 

As I said tookaphotoof, I am merely expressing my view and fully appreciate how others may feel different. My post is not instructing you as to what you can/cannot photograph.

 

Each situation presents its own issues to consider for a photographer. For me the juxtaposition (or is it irony?) of a well healed Leica photographer in the circumstances here is worthy of debate. Clearly in a war zone the photographer has submitted him/herself to some risk and perhaps is entitled to record the events.

 

James

[tookaphotoof]

Bideford, that's why I wrote "personally". So, while I do respect your opinion, I still do have my own.

[bideford]

I was simply responding to the conclusion that you raised in your first sentence - and as I have emphasized, I fully accept that others may have differing opinions.

 

My humble apologies if this caused offense.

 

James

[tookaphotoof]

No need to apologize as no offense taken at all.

English isn't my native language, so maybe I expressed myself a bit too harsh.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Gilgamesh]

Neil.

Having read your Home page you term yourself, and I paraphrase, "hobbyist street photographer".

 

Then there are the two things that most certainly count against you, you like life in the very slow lane (a darn great,fat, ugly Harley Davidson) & the biggest no-no of all, an overpriced monster of a lens such as you use, the Nocilux, thus in one stroke deconstructing one of the magical elements of the M system, it's relatively small size. Well done you!

 

Nowhere in your repertoire do you mention the classic street lenses, namely the 50mm f1.4 or the 35mm f2 or f1.4.

 

All of which points to you not really understanding much about street photography. Which in tern, rather de-values your observation that you don't care for images of people living on the street, yet you say that "..now it (street photography) has become a huge part of my life" yet you ignore the people living there. How is your myopia these days?

 

The image itself is just about okay. But it lacks any real punch, it lacks any gravitas or élan. Sorry - but it's no more than okay in a sea awash with far stronger images.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Neil.

Having read your Home page you term yourself, and I paraphrase, "hobbyist street photographer".

 

Then there are the two things that most certainly count against you, you like life in the very slow lane (a darn great,fat, ugly Harley Davidson) & the biggest no-no of all, an overpriced monster of a lens such as you use, the Nocilux, thus in one stroke deconstructing one of the magical elements of the M system, it's relatively small size. Well done you!

 

Nowhere in your repertoire do you mention the classic street lenses, namely the 50mm f1.4 or the 35mm f2 or f1.4.

 

All of which points to you not really understanding much about street photography. Which in tern, rather de-values your observation that you don't care for images of people living on the street, yet you say that "..now it (street photography) has become a huge part of my life" yet you ignore the people living there. How is your myopia these days?

 

The image itself is just about okay. But it lacks any real punch, it lacks any gravitas or élan. Sorry - but it's no more than okay in a sea awash with far stronger images.

Are you on drugs or something pal:mad:

WTF has Harley Davidson and a Noctilux got to do with taking pictures of homeless people......................

I will stop at that before I really tell you what I feel

[azzo]

Are you on drugs or something pal:mad:

...

 

 

Nah! It's probably just jealousy, nothing more.

[bideford]

Neil.

Having read your Home page .........

 

Blimey, don't know where that came from.....

 

James

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

[...]He looks like he may have had too much to drinking on something and sleeping it off.

 

You have no clue, the disposed know who they are.