Homeless in London

[elmarman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

NO ==it's all TRUE -- if you 'talk' to the 'Homeless' in London they don't even speak English -- Roumanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Urdu or something --at least in New York they have some 'interesting Signs' and are 'real Characters' 

[stuny]

Adam - We mods most certainly do NOT post to stimulate comments or to increase participation. What you see in these longer threads are a natural diversity of opinions, emotions and biases. BTW: About a month ago I spoke with Jeffrey, the homeless man we engaged (along with Sharookh)about 2 1/2 years ago just north of Union Square. He remembers you fondly.

 

All - Adam is good to his word. I've been with him several times when he engaged homeless people, got their agreement to be photographed, and gave them money in return. I've also seen him pass up wonderful similar photo opportunities when he no longer had cash with him.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[elmarman]

yes-- let's get back to the Photography -- or it will get just as bad as the worse of British Camera Clubs --

PS -- I bet they take 'American Express' if the photographer has no 'cash' with him --

Edited November 27, 2015 by elmarman

[A miller]

Adam - We mods most certainly do NOT post to stimulate comments or to increase participation. What you see in these longer threads are a natural diversity of opinions, emotions and biases. BTW: About a month ago I spoke with Jeffrey, the homeless man we engaged (along with Sharookh)about 2 1/2 years ago just north of Union Square. He remembers you fondly.

 

All - Adam is good to his word. I've been with him several times when he engaged homeless people, got their agreement to be photographed, and gave them money in return. I've also seen him pass up wonderful similar photo opportunities when he no longer had cash with him.

Hi Stuart - I appreciate your post and just want to clarify that I would never suspect you, Jaap or any of the other moderators of faking threads or posts. That said, I know that this forum is at the end of the day big business and there is pressure to increase viewership and active dialogue. Sometimes, certain "forum members" say and post things that are so abnormal that it makes me wonder. I'll leave it at that.

 

Hope you are having a pleasant holiday weekend. Let's get together soon.

Adam

[brucegill]

Blimey !! I got many MORE comments here than I ever get on the PENTAX USER forum  ! I must use my  Leica more often ! After 64 years in photography I don'y worry you say -- I put it on -- I contributed the the Forum and mostly Yanks replied -- it is different in London -- you will get punched even if you 'offer' a print -- anyway they are nearly all illegal immigrants who should not have come to UK anyway . 

 

This is just absurd, bigoted, nonsensical rubbish. 

 

NO ==it's all TRUE -- if you 'talk' to the 'Homeless' in London they don't even speak English -- Roumanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Urdu or something --at least in New York they have some 'interesting Signs' and are 'real Characters' 

 

Rubbish again. Yes, some may be from another country, but ALL homeless are foreign and "should not have come to UK anyway" ?!?! 

 

yes-- let's get back to the Photography -- or it will get just as bad as the worse of British Camera Clubs --

PS -- I bet they take 'American Express' if the photographer has no 'cash' with him --

 

 

Your crazy. 

 

I'm lost for words.

 

There is no hope for some people on this earth.

 

If you've been "in photography" for 64 years, making you at least 74 at a guess, you should know better. 

 

now, where's that Ignore button??

Edited November 27, 2015 by brucegill

[brucegill]

 

Hi Jaapv - I agree with everything you've said and commend you for how you said it.  On reflection, the one change that I would make to my post is to replace the word "the" with "then" in the 3 point. 

 

I have taken many photos of the impoverished in NYC.  But I make it a policy to not only ask for permission BEFORE shooting but also to offer compensation to the subject.  Like you said, making a personal connection with these people can be very mutually beneficial.  You get to hear their stories and as a result feel grateful for what you have.  They get a chance to have someone to talk to, which serves as an outlet for them.  

 

I will go one step beyond your niceties and demonstrate with the below examples the results that can be achieved through the use of this etiquette.  ALL subjects depicted consented to being photographed in advance  (even Mr. McFadden, in the B&W near the Canal street subway stop, who is actually very sweet and agreed to let me and our fellow format Sharookh take photos of him for a few minutes last summer) and most received some form of payment (even what we might think of as nominal) 

 

At some point, my collection might get strong enough to form the basis of a series to be more publicly displayed...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sincere happy Thanksgiving to all (and viewing these photos again makes me feel thankful even more...)

 

Adam Miller

 

 

Amazing work Adam. Just fantastic portraits showing personality, humanity and above all, respect for your subjects. 

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow! I won't get personal but really, the OP isn't helping himself much! 

[jaapv]

Ethical critique tends to make people defensive...

As to the follow-up posts of the OP, whatever we may think of the content, they are completely beside the point, as we are not discussing the status of his subject, but the ethics of street photography.

[Neil Macmillan]

Maybe this firestorm could have been less vitriolic if:

The photographer had stepped back maybe five paces and aimed slightly higher while still including the stairwell and all that is within. 

This would have included more of the street level scene, and knowing the exact location, doubtless much frantic movement of people and vehicles. Select a shutter speed to give motion blur to all that frenzy.

That would yield narrative context and contrast: busy Londoners with places to go and things to do in juxtaposition with an unfortunate person with no particular urgency to go anywhere or do anything.

[erl]

I often wonder whether certain of the threads on the forum are made up by the forum's administrators in order to stimulate participation by forum members . I must say that this thread has piqued my suspicion. The OP's comments are just too nonsensical.

This is definitely untrue!

I challenge you to substantiate such a claim.

 

As for the various images in this thread, my opinion is that the OP's image is superior. Nothing to do with competition accolades etc. It simply portrays a reality of life in the raw.

 

Adam, the images you post are fine images, but IMO they are not 'street' images. They are clearly arranged, posed or agreed images. nothing wrong with that whatsoever. They are good pics. But the OP's pic is a different genre from yours. That is all. It is raw 'street'.

 

My view on 'street' stuff is more aligned with the O.P., in that reality must be portrayed, not arranged. The overriding factor is that 'no one must be offended'. If that simple fact can be complied with, then no offence has been committed. I don't set out to get permission for 'street 'pics, but sometimes it is the only way in some situations. Not my preferred style. I would mostly miss the pic than 'set it up'. Just my personal bias, in most cases. To reveal poverty,homelessness and other human failures is not bad. We in the west of 1st world countries may never be aware unless the truth is thrust in front of us by, for example, photographers.

 

Discretion and compassion must be paramount in our photography of such situations, but it must be done if we are serious about dealing with it in a realistic way. Photography is but a small piece in the jigsaw puzzle of understanding the human condition, but it is still an important one.

[EoinC]

The OP has shown a disturbing dislike of his subject in his later comments, which in turn makes the original photograph look like a hunter chasing Bambi. I can understand the perspective of wanting to take an un-posed shot, but this shot was taken in an effort to prevent any interaction, which shows no respect whatsoever.

[erl]

The OP has shown a disturbing dislike of his subject in his later comments, which in turn makes the original photograph look like a hunter chasing Bambi. I can understand the perspective of wanting to take an un-posed shot, but this shot was taken in an effort to prevent any interaction, which shows no respect whatsoever.

I think we should be criticizing images and not personalities here.

 

IMO the OP's image is nothing like 'Bambi being cornered.' Rather it clearly shows a soul seeking minimal shelter figuratively  and literally, below the rest of humanity blithely going about their lives above him. As for the ethics of how it was achieved, I am unaware because I was not there.

 

My understanding from the OP's comments somewhere (I haven't bothered to re-read them) is that he was avoiding interaction rather than preventing. I see a subtle but important difference there. If there is no interaction, there can be no offense.

[A miller]

This is definitely untrue!

I challenge you to substantiate such a claim.

 

As for the various images in this thread, my opinion is that the OP's image is superior. Nothing to do with competition accolades etc. It simply portrays a reality of life in the raw.

 

Adam, the images you post are fine images, but IMO they are not 'street' images. They are clearly arranged, posed or agreed images. nothing wrong with that whatsoever. They are good pics. But the OP's pic is a different genre from yours. That is all. It is raw 'street'.

 

My view on 'street' stuff is more aligned with the O.P., in that reality must be portrayed, not arranged. The overriding factor is that 'no one must be offended'. If that simple fact can be complied with, then no offence has been committed. I don't set out to get permission for 'street 'pics, but sometimes it is the only way in some situations. Not my preferred style. I would mostly miss the pic than 'set it up'. Just my personal bias, in most cases. To reveal poverty,homelessness and other human failures is not bad. We in the west of 1st world countries may never be aware unless the truth is thrust in front of us by, for example, photographers.

 

Discretion and compassion must be paramount in our photography of such situations, but it must be done if we are serious about dealing with it in a realistic way. Photography is but a small piece in the jigsaw puzzle of understanding the human condition, but it is still an important one.

Hi Erl - substantiating my suspicion is like proving a negative.  If it is theoretically possible, then it indeed can happen.  Don't be foolish.  I maintain my suspicion as there is no way anyone other than a fraud or, as an alternative theory, a competitor-troll can make the statements and engage in the type of dialogue that we are witnessing.  Something is up, and we are suckers.

 

As for your take on the OPs image, I have no words, other than:

 

There is no such thing as "street photography."  To think that photographs have to fit some kind of mold is absurd.   Photography is photography.  It is either interesting or it is not.  Period.  There is a time and place for candids; I don't need a lesson on this - but can teach one.  But the scope of situations in which it is appropriate to take a "candid" photography of a severely impoverished person is very tiny indeed.  Anyone who thinks others should be ashamed...

 

With all the modesty that I can muster, my photographs are on a totally different level - both technically, artistically and content-wise - than the OPs.  I can spend literally all day of every day taking photos like the OPs.  There is nothing special about the exposure, subject matter or composition to even bring it into a discussion of an "interesting" photo.  Anyone who finds the OP's shot interesting either is living under a rock or otherwise has a very sadly boring life....

[EoinC]

 

 

I think we should be criticizing images and not personalities here.

 

IMO the OP's image is nothing like 'Bambi being cornered.' Rather it clearly shows a soul seeking minimal shelter figuratively  and literally, below the rest of humanity blithely going about their lives above him. As for the ethics of how it was achieved, I am unaware because I was not there.

 

My understanding from the OP's comments somewhere (I haven't bothered to re-read them) is that he was avoiding interaction rather than preventing. I see a subtle but important difference there. If there is no interaction, there can be no offense.

I understand that point. I could have used better wording such as "preventing interaction from being a part of taking the photo." From the comments, it was clear that there was an expectation that the subject would object to having his photo taken.  My belief is that we have to be very careful in ensuring that our desires to get a shot do not come at the expense of the more vulnerable people in our societies. (I think) the right to bear a camera in public undergoes a subtle change when photographing the homeless, because you are now entering their home. I understand, too, that this is not a court, and that I am just stating an opinion - Others may agree or disagree at will.

 

[Bill Livingston]

"With all the modesty that I can muster, my photographs are on a totally different level - both technically, artistically and content-wise - than the OPs.".

 

Well, that's not an awful lot of modesty that you've managed to muster there, now is it?  

 

Originally I had a little bit of sympathy for the OP, but I'm afraid I lost that when I started reading his xenophobic replies to his thread. 

 

Seems to to me we have a clash between two of the most arrogant cities in the world going on here. 

 

A bit like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look, but...

[erl]

Hi Erl - substantiating my suspicion is like proving a negative.  If it is theoretically possible, then it indeed can happen.  Don't be foolish.  I maintain my suspicion as there is no way anyone other than a fraud or, as an alternative theory, a competitor-troll can make the statements and engage in the type of dialogue that we are witnessing.  Something is up, and we are suckers.

 

As for your take on the OPs image, I have no words, other than:

 

There is no such thing as "street photography."  To think that photographs have to fit some kind of mold is absurd.   Photography is photography.  It is either interesting or it is not.  Period.  There is a time and place for candids; I don't need a lesson on this - but can teach one.  But the scope of situations in which it is appropriate to take a "candid" photography of a severely impoverished person is very tiny indeed.  Anyone who thinks others should be ashamed...

 

With all the modesty that I can muster, my photographs are on a totally different level - both technically, artistically and content-wise - than the OPs.  I can spend literally all day of every day taking photos like the OPs.  There is nothing special about the exposure, subject matter or composition to even bring it into a discussion of an "interesting" photo.  Anyone who finds the OP's shot interesting either is living under a rock or otherwise has a very sadly boring life....

Adam, we must agree to disagree about Mods 'feeding' threads to generate discussion. You are plainly wrong on that point. I am confident there is NO evidence to support such a preposterous thought.

 

Your declaration of modesty seems to contradict itself in the same sentence.

 

Your criticism of the OP's image is your right, but I and others disagree. That too is fine.

 

I do find the OP's image interesting, on a number of levels, but I can assure you I do not live under rock (in fact I live on top of one) and my life is so far from boring and sad that I am the envy of lesser mortals, (their words, not mine!).

 

Adam, I admire some of your work, not all, but I don't believe you are right to criticise work as you have in a denigrating manner. Of course you are free to dislike it, but not declare it valueless as you have.

 

In addition, I think your take on 'candids' and 'street' are somewhat rigid and differ from generally accepted meanings. Of course, I am amongst the first to agree with abolishing such terms and just 'take' pictures. Differing opinions is healthy.

[pico]

This thread is sad. The only thing I would change if I were god of the universe is that the OP present his picture and shut up, write nothing. But now that the door is open, I have criticism of Miller's homeless portraits based upon what he wrote of his own work: it  takes a trivial, topical approach that chooses to make clowns of the subjects rather than a study of the state of the homeless.

 

End of thread? Lock time?

Edited November 29, 2015 by pico

[A miller]

Adam, we must agree to disagree about Mods 'feeding' threads to generate discussion. You are plainly wrong on that point. I am confident there is NO evidence to support such a preposterous thought.

 

YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO DISAGREE WITH ME ON THIS. NO PROBLEM.

 

Your declaration of modesty seems to contradict itself in the same sentence.

 

YES, IT DOES.  I CLEARLY WAS NOT BEING MODEST.

 

Your criticism of the OP's image is your right, but I and others disagree. That too is fine.

 

I do find the OP's image interesting, on a number of levels, but I can assure you I do not live under rock (in fact I live on top of one) and my life is so far from boring and sad that I am the envy of lesser mortals, (their words, not mine!).

 

THE OP'S SHOT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS TAKEN FROM A CCTV ON THE STREET POLE.  IF THIS FLOATS YOUR BOAT, MORE POWER TO YOU.

 

Adam, I admire some of your work, not all, but I don't believe you are right to criticise work as you have in a denigrating manner. Of course you are free to dislike it, but not declare it valueless as you have.

 

LET'S REVIEW THE BIDDING:

 

I TOOK THE TIME TO POST THE SELECTION OF PHOTOS OF VARIOUS NYC STREET RESIDENTS TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THIS IS REALLY HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE GENERAL ARTISTIC NON-REPORTAGE CASE.  EXCEPTIONS CERTAINLY EXIST, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE MY OPINION ON THIS CLEAR WITH EXAMPLES.

YOU THEN CRITICIZED MY PHOTOS AS NOT "STREET" PHOTOS, AS IF I MADE THIS CLAIM.  I NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM)!  YOU JUST MADE IT UP!  AND BY DOING SO YOU ALSO IMPLIED THAT THE OP'S PHOTO WAS SOME FORM OF "STREET" PHOTO.   THIS IS WHERE LIVING UNDER A ROCK CAME IN FROM MY END...

 

In addition, I think your take on 'candids' and 'street' are somewhat rigid and differ from generally accepted meanings.

YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS!  BASED ON SHEAR VOLUME, THE BAZILLION OF PHOTOS LIKE THE OP'S ON THE WEB WOULD BE REGARDED AS NOT ONLY "STREET PHOTOGRAPHY," BUT ALSO GOOD "STREET PHOTOGRAPHY."  I'VE SEEN WORSE THAN THIS ON PEOPLE'S FLICKR PAGE WITH LOTS OF COMMENTS SAYING "GREAT STREET SHOT," OR "MAN, YOU REALLY GOT HIM GOOD."  ONE FORUM POST AT A TIME, I WILL ENDEAVOR TO DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM THIS CRAZY NOTION THAT THIS TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHY (AGAIN, GENERALLY SPEAKING) HAS A PLACE IN THE REALM OF PHOTOGRAPHIC ART.

 

Adam, I admire some of your work, not all, but I don't believe you are right to criticise work as you have in a denigrating manner. Of course you are free to dislike it, but not declare it valueless as you have.

I REALLY DON'T CARE WHETHER YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ADMIRES MY PHOTOGRAPHY.  IT IS REALLY BESIDES THE POINT OF THE REASON FOR ME POSTING THE IMAGES THAT I DID.

 

CLEARLY, OUR TASTES DIFFER, WHICH IS TOTALLY COOL BY ME.  AND IT HAS BEEN THE OVERWHELMING REACTION BY NUMEROUS FORUM MEMBERS TO REACT AS I HAVE.  AND FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, I MOST CERTAINLY FIND IT IN MY RIGHT TO DECLARE THE PHOTO VALUELESS TO THE WORLD OF ARTISTIC NON-REPORTAGE PHOTOGRAPHY.  BECAUSE IT IS.

 

 

[A miller]

 

This thread is sad. The only thing I would change if I were god of the universe is that the OP present his picture and shut up, write nothing. But now that the door is open, I have criticism of Miller's homeless portraits based upon what he wrote of his own work that takes a trivial, topical approach that chooses to make clowns of the subjects rather than a study of the state of the homeless.

 

End of thread? Lock time?

 

lock down should have been long ago, Pico.  And I giggle at your attempted role of elder statesman, as you are usually the one to stir the pot and intentionally tick people off...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Bill Livingston]

Oh my.... could this get any more ridiculous? 

 

 

 

(as he reaches for more popcorn...  )

Edited November 29, 2015 by Bill Livingston