Homeless in London

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Further comment from me would be unwise at this point and I certainly don't want to get into a SHOUTING MATCH.

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

Erl, the OP clearly shows contempt and ignorance of his subject. I don't think that's healthy behaviour for any subject matter.

 

It's not just the photo, but the story around it which I took offense to.

 

I'm not sure he needs defending by you, he's obviously a thick skinned individual.

[erl]

James, I understand and respect your POV on this.

I can easily agree with the comments about his comments as well, but I feel it is improper the way some posters have slated his image as 'wrong'.

I understand some people have a problem with images such as the OP's. In my view, that is too bad!

 

What should and does concern me is the effect on the subject. Any subject of this nature. It is a very delicate balance between reportage and invasion. IMO the subject appears to be oblivious to being photographed. He/she is totally anonymous, therefore I can see that no offense has been taken by the subject.

One of my mantras is 'If no offense is taken, none has been committed'. I use that, and others, all the time when I photograph on the street or in public.

 

I see many so called street photographs where the subject is clearly at least surprised by the photographer and often questioning or offended. You see it in their eyes. These regularly get posted on the Forum and probably elsewhere. Mostly they attract praise. I fail to see why.

 

On that basis I do defend the OP's image. Not his comments.

[larsv]

 

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.

 

 

 

Adam,

 

Really, what happened to you?

[rpopescu]

Adam, your insistence on the modicum payment made to the homeless for taking their photograph is as misguided as the OP's comments on the London homeless.

 

While the OP is just a garden variety xenophobe and obviously very open and unashamed in owning it up, you are clearly unaware of being bigoted and deluded in your belief that your monetary "gesture" and certainly life-changingly insightful conversation made a positive difference to these people's lives, and thus a fair transaction was achieved, any possible guilt surely banished forever.

 

If one of these "ethical" photos of yours won a contest and you received as a prize a Leica Q or a 240, how much money exactly would you have had to give him to feel at peace?

Please, put a price on it for me.

 

 

Here's another question, to drive the point further, albeit differently.

If instead of a homeless person you'd have taken photographs of members of a different, relatively small group of people that would trigger equal interest of the viewer as the homeless. Perhaps piano tuners at work, or people cleaning high-rise windows, or train conductors, or hipsters without a beard.

Would you have offered payment in these cases?

You wouldn't have dreamed of offering - in exchange for taking a photo or two - a tuning fork or assorted piano wire, eco washing liquid or your personal tips on cleaning windows, driving shoes or razor blades to any of these people.

Your different upfront "policy" with the homeless devalues them as human beings through the assumption that they need to be paid in order to do something that others would not require payment for.

And let's remember for a second that this something is as simple as not being offended that your photo was taken, and moving on with your life.

[earleygallery]

Piano tuners and window cleaners can probably afford a coffee or burger and therefore might be offended with the offer of a few quid/dollars, don't you think?

 

Yes maybe it will be spent on beer instead. Can't blame 'em, I'd probably prefer to be pissed in that situation!

 

Sorry but your arguments fall flat IMO.

[rpopescu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Piano tuners and window cleaners can probably afford a coffee or burger and therefore might be offended with the offer of a few quid/dollars, don't you think?

 

Yes maybe it will be spent on beer instead. Can't blame 'em, I'd probably prefer to be pissed in that situation!

 

Sorry but your arguments fall flat IMO.

 

No, they don't - you actually repeated a part of them. I'm just saying that by criticising others for not offering payment for taking a photo contains an inherent judgement call / bias of the subject; they're not treated as just another person.

My argument was perhaps made in a convoluted manner, as apparently it was lost on both you and Adam.

[rpopescu]

Adam, I'm afraid I don't see why you're making such a fuss around some undefined "compromising situations" - I most certainly wasn't talking about that, nor was the OP.

I also wasn't putting NYC or the society on trial, so give that a rest, don't build strawmen to easily tear them down, it doesn't work.

This has nothing do to with public awareness campaigns, tax dollars and whatnot.

 

What I did say though is that giving away a cup of coffee or a whole lunch even seems to buy you peace of mind and clearly makes you morally superior, as can be seen from the righteousness with which you criticise those that don't do that when they take photos of a particular kind of strangers.

I was only protesting the mercantile standards of morality that you impose on the situation.

Morally speaking, we either have to pay everyone we take a photo of, or nobody.

Anything else is a private contract between the photographer and their subject, and therefore not a moral standard to use to bash others about the head with, or feel superior for enforcing.

 

As far as I know there are ethical standards to which journalists are or at least should be held, and although a very interesting topic, it's not the one here.

[Manoleica]

Surely if you see an image You do not like - Leave a comment""   (whoever took the image probably does not care what You think anyways)..  In the particular case of the said photograph, I think the photographer was just trying to say - I saw this - I'm real smart & a great photographer!  ....

[A miller]

. As far as I know there are ethical standards to which journalists are or at least should be held, and although a very interesting topic, it's not the one here.

Wow, that is the most naive viewpoint ive heard in a long time. If you dont get the joke on that, you cant begin to get where i am coming from.

 

You are blowing the compensatory aspect of what i have said above way out of proportion. Again, it is enough to get knowing consent. You seem to be suggesting that payment after the fact is worse than no payment at all? Payment has nothing to do with how I feel. Hell, i would preder not to pay anything! It is all about creating a mutually beneficial situation. The value of $5-$20 is wholly relative to the person. Whether i am asking the person to help carry my shopping bags down the street for me, or to wash my car windows, or to pose for the photo, this is a free market society and the person can always say no - and many do!! B

[rpopescu]

I couldn't care less what your impression of how naive I am is. I happen to live in a place where there is such a thing as journalism ethics. If you don't, too bad for you. The world is bigger than the US, so your naiveté standards are relative.

 

You came down hard, waving a moral flag and sporting a mighty holier than though attitude, all based on the fact that you request permission and usually pay, unlike the vile OP.

As far as I am aware, no permission asking is required, and certainly there's no moral majority that agrees to such an unwritten rule. So that one's down.

Furthermore, I think that money changing hands actually transforms the very usual situation of taking a random photo on the street of a person into an exploitation situation, although normally I would use such harsh words.

[A miller]

I couldn't care less what your impression of how naive I am is. I happen to live in a place where there is such a thing as journalism ethics. If you don't, too bad for you. The world is bigger than the US, so your naiveté standards are relative.

 

DO YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK, TOO? (HA, HA, SORRY COULDN'T RESIST THAT)

 

You came down hard, waving a moral flag and sporting a mighty holier than though attitude, all based on the fact that you request permission and usually pay, unlike the vile OP.

 

YES I DID AND I AM STILL WAVING IT...

 

As far as I am aware, no permission asking is required, and certainly there's no moral majority that agrees to such an unwritten rule. So that one's down.

 

HORSES FOR COURSES.  BUT I AM FREE TO CRITICIZE AS BAD FORM.

 

Furthermore, I think that money changing hands actually transforms the very usual situation of taking a random photo on the street of a person into an exploitation situation, although normally I would use such harsh words.

 

REALLY?  WOW...

[A miller]

Hey Mr. Rpopescu:

 

Due to the circumstances at hand, I did not obtain advance permission to take these photos, nor did I make any payment.  So these fall outside of the other photos that I mentioned and are morally better. right??

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

 

 

But wait, I had no cash on me on the day that I took this one, but made small talk with the homeless guy (who is part of the 'investment fund' gang that I mentioned before, but is actually very friendly) and within a few days sought him out (this is near where I work) and gave him $20.  I guess that puts me back in the dog-house, right?

 

 

[rpopescu]

You're rambling...

End of conversation for me, I think I have made my point, despite the initially baroque argumentation on my part.

[A miller]

You're rambling...

End of conversation for me, I think I have made my point, despite the initially baroque argumentation on my part.

this entire thread is a ramble. your posts included.  Nothing accomplished, nothing gained...

[rpopescu]

Sure, whatever makes you feel good about yourself.