Who said anyone is fixated on photographing homeless people??? Or even claimed that it is a huge problem with the genre. It is a thing that exists, however and is presented just as an example of a way street photography can be exploitative.
Is 'street photography' exploitative?
- Thread starter droj
- Start date
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed. Even less "urgent" projects, like the afore-mentioned diCorcia... isn't going to be responsible for any social change, but his candid shots of faces in NY is socially interesting, as the whole point is to celebrate diversity and depicting the community in a way no one else had done before. It wasn't just to put on Flickr to get likes or impress people with his skills at a camera club.
I've nothing against street photography... I just find the type that invades people's privacy and dignity for no other reason than to bolster the photographer's reputation reprehensible.
All I say is.. defend your work... if you can. If you can... fine.. if you can't... what the **** are you doing exploiting people to score points?
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just finished reading about Henry Spender and the Worktown project just before the second world war.
We were called spies, pryers, mass-eavesdroppers, nosey parkers, peeping-toms, lopers, snoopers, envelop-steamers, keyhole artists, sex maniacs, sissies, society playboys
They even wrote down conversations overheard. Some interesting social history though: http://boltonworktown.co.uk/
We were called spies, pryers, mass-eavesdroppers, nosey parkers, peeping-toms, lopers, snoopers, envelop-steamers, keyhole artists, sex maniacs, sissies, society playboys
They even wrote down conversations overheard. Some interesting social history though: http://boltonworktown.co.uk/
Rhodese
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,154
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have taken many many street pictures going back to the 50s and yes some have invaded people’s private space and I have actually felt guilty for taking them.
One in particular haunts me, it was 2004 tea time on a hot summers day on Jersey. There is this old couple in their seventies sitting in a bus shelter. She was short and a little plump wearing a lightweight summer dress and bonnet, gold rimmed specks on the end of her nose, her legs tucked under the bench her hands were clenched on her lap holding a handbag, he was quite tall rugged looking with a lived in face, his shirt sleeves rolled up, his legs outstretched and crossed. He wore a red cotton cap.
I approached and sat on a wall facing them, I was about five or six feet away, it would be ten minutes before the bus would arrive.
I put the camera on the wall and took a blind shot.
What’s wrong with that, well the problem was they where asleep, their heads drooped slightly forward, along day in the sun I guess.
The picture was an absolute winner, I keep looking at it, but feeling oh so guilty.
I have never shown it to anyone else, but maybe one day when I’m in my dotage and they are long gone.
I don’t know what I would do if I put it out there for all to see and they where recognised, I keep it to remind me not everything is fair game.
Rhodese
Last edited:
boliston
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,959
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd say shooting homeless people is pretty exploitative and you will not find many established street photographers who tend to shoot them as the street is their home - same goes with shooting disabled people as that just seems "wrong". Even shooting a busker is a sort of exploitation as they are just there doing their job and I would not like someone to come into my workplace and start shooting me. I'd say apart from Homeless, Disabled and Buskers then anything else is "fair game" without any element of exploitation.
to the OP
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,780
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
A question that I'm curious about: is candid street photography consdered 'wrong' because it doesn't have consent from the subject(s)? Shooting candids seems to me to capture the essence of street photography, since as soon as you engage someone you're doing portraiture and the street scene is no longer represented accurately. Your model then starts playing to the camera and responding to your input instead of being themselves.
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
They would probably have both had a good laugh with you had you shown it to them.
boliston
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,959
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
I think it's only "wrong" if you are in some way inconveniencing the subject such as standing in their path, as I'd find that annoying, and the whole point of street photography is to observe rather than directly influence a scene. The best street photographers are "invisible but in plain view" and have perfected their technique to achieve this. Trying to "hide" by "sneaky" techniques like hiding in a bush, using a "sniper" tele lens etc might make the photographer "feel" like they are invisible but it almost certainly has the opposite effect! An extreme example of the opposite is Bruce Gilden, who often gets so close to his subject that they often assume he is photographing something else.
Rhodese
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,154
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not wrong per say... Rhodese's image, as he described it sounded quite charming actually. Not portraying anyone in a particular light, but more importantly, not pandering to stereotypes in a derogatory way... old people made to look sad and pathetic, when in reality they may not be any such thing.. homeless people looking like victims... shots of "youths" made to look like their chavs and cast in a negative light... all the usual stereotypes. The photographers who shoot this pap are without a doubt exploiting people because they're only concerned about the photograph. If they were genuinely bothered about the issues they pretend to be concerned about why don't they put their cameras to good use and produce brilliant documentary or ethnography? Nope... let's go for the gritty street shot... yeah... let's get that on 500PX... that will increase my popularity. That just bugs me.
I just think that if you're going to publish images of the public, you should be able to defend it with a reason that makes the work morally viable. If you can't actually do that, then by default, it's morally questionable. QED. If you can live with that, fine, but but so long as you know you're just exploiting someone.
Not you Toni.... just speaking generally there....
Why does street photography have to be candid? Who said that because you are in plain sight and known to the subject that it's then a portrait?
This is not a portrait.
That's street photography. Yes, it was not on a street... but it's still street photography. The essence of which is simply photographing people in the environment, either with, or without their consent, or knowledge. Neither of the two subject are looking to camera, but I'm fairly certain they would have been aware of Mr Winogrand, if not before the shot, certainly straight after it. Has their privacy been breached? Yep... was it worth it? Absolutely. I'll not patronise you by explaining the image's purpose, and hence reason it is easily defendable. It should be pretty damned self-explanatory.
These people are well aware they are being photographed. Still street photography... definitely not a portrait. So sorry.. but I can't accept your argument that you have to sneak around with a long lens, and all street should be totally candid, as it's clearly not the case,
Right at the other end of the moral spectrum, you have crap like this.
Yeah... homeless man... let's grab a shot with the Hipstamatic and put it on Flickr.... ****ing prick. You also get other ****ing pricks leaving comments like...
"SUPERB.....nice click....some times you find inspiration where you never expect it to be and this shot did inspire me in a way........you have a great photostream....."
What an absolute wa**er.
Last edited:
Fodrigal
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 509
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't spend that much time looking on Flickr etc so most of the street photography I've ever seen has been the really good type.
Until you posted that link I actually thought you were talking nonsense as I didn't see anything wrong with taking pictures of homeless people, but if I'm honest I hadn't realised that ANYONE would take a picture that pointless, and so badly. That image (and the stupid amount of views/comments) has 100% changed my mind on the subject!
I am still finding it hard to understand how 17000 people have clicked on that picture.......
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Because they're idiots.
I have, IMO though, shown the very best, and the very worst there in one post.... but there are loads of photographers who will take pictures of those less fortunate, and exploit them mercilessly just to get a great shot. Anyone who does this needs a good slap.
An interesting debate but a few questions occur to me.
Is it only those who are less fortunate who can be 'exploited' by street photography?
Can someone who is more fortunate than the photographer be exploited?
Does the question of exploitation depend on consent?
If consent has been given, are those people who appear inadvertently in the background being exploited?
Do famous war photographers, highly commended and winning awards for their pictures, exploit their subjects? After all the end result is to sell more newspapers. Or does 'fame' confer a veneer of righteousness on the photographer?
Should all 'people photography' be restricted to the studio in case someone is inadvertently exploited?
Is it only those who are less fortunate who can be 'exploited' by street photography?
Can someone who is more fortunate than the photographer be exploited?
Does the question of exploitation depend on consent?
If consent has been given, are those people who appear inadvertently in the background being exploited?
Do famous war photographers, highly commended and winning awards for their pictures, exploit their subjects? After all the end result is to sell more newspapers. Or does 'fame' confer a veneer of righteousness on the photographer?
Should all 'people photography' be restricted to the studio in case someone is inadvertently exploited?
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,780
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I recently had a request from 500px asking for model releases for all images with people in that are available for licensing, so *someone* has decided that there is exploitation going on.
If kudos for the photographer is more important motivation than the subject itself then it's exploitation.
War photography has a clear purpose - to inform.
frankthetank
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7
- Edit My Images
- No
In the UK are there any laws about taking peoples photos in public and permissions needed etc?
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
No specific UK laws no. However, there is the European Convention of Human Rights which guarantees everyone a right to a private and family life, but the law itself is unclear on what constitutes that, or more importantly, what breeches that. In short.. not really no. That shouldn't give the photographer carte blanche to do what the want though. There may not be much in the way of law stopping you, but your own moral compass should kick in at some point.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
Buskers - always loads in York, I often ask if I can take their photograph and drop a coin or two in the pot. Never had anyone say no. They make great subjects and are happy to oblige.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No permission needed in a public place - however if you use the picture in a derogatory or defamatory way you (or more likely the end user) can wind up in civil court , this is why model release is usually required by agencies etc , its not a legal requirement per se but it means they don't have to worry about getting their arses sued
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
The ECHR covers dealings between government organisations and individuals, not matters between individuals so not really relevant here.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A good few years ago now, I would go out with the TP crowd and indulge in a little 'street' photography and whilst I quickly learnt to work with a short lens and be 'in the action', it dawned on me that the photos of people I was taking just weren't 'doing' it for me. They might have been interesting studies of folk, or not, but the pictures I really liked were the ones where any people were secondary, where the 'landscape' of the picture was the prime motivation, any people merely adornments that completed the look. Several had no discernible people in them at all [maybe a very blurry oof person in the background who would struggle to recognize themselves], including the only one I have ever framed and hung on my wall. Took a while for me to realise it wasn't street photography I enjoyed, it was 'urban landscapes' [of various scales, from silly details to entire street/architectural vistas] but also that some of those landscape did actually require people to achieve a certain look. Is that exploiting people I wonder? Certainly I would use them as part of context, and I certainly won't claim to be in anyway 'good' at the genre but I can give more reason why I shot those photos than any previously that were specifically of people. Certainly recently, with the exception of two or three pictures i can think of, any street pics of people I have done have been where those people are fully aware of my presence and purpose, I am just much more comfortable that way.
boliston
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,959
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
No problem with people doing that but that has got nothing to do with street photography.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
People in their environment, people reacting to them !
Please define street photography ?
Given that the photographer is either employed by the media or an independent selling to the media how much of the purpose is to inform and how much to sell a picture? I'm not denying that the pictures may be informative but was that the sole, or main, motivation of the photographer?
If the photographs are informative, that's enough. They have a purpose. I've no problem with photographers getting money for their work (particularly war photography which cannot really be done as a leisure-time hobby), but if that work involves the vulnerable as a subject then it must serve a wider purpose. I didn't even say that a photographer shouldn't do it for kudos; just that kudos shouldn't be the sole or principle motivation.
Most war photography does indeed serve the wider purpose of informing on and drawing attention to important world events. The image is more important than the photographer.
Last edited:
I too have a general distaste for meaningless snapshots of unfortunate homeless people, people eating etc or anything else which could be viewed as exploitative for the sake of it but for me this picture highlighted by Pookeyhead does have a message in that it shows the contrast between wealth represented by the rather magnificent building and designer clothes as shown in the window and the absolute poverty typified by this homeless man. If a picture can make you stop and think about life then surely that has a value, although I accept that many may feel the cost outweighs the benefit. The more I look at street photography it seems to me that there is no consensus at all on what makes a good image - it's a very personal thing that cannot simply be validated in some objective way. Yes, some shots will resemble the more classic street photography work of the recognised early masters but why do their perspectives, even morals, at that time have to serve as a straitjacket for today's photographers? For me personally, I love the gritty and often despondent imagery of Daido Moriyama and I guess that could be argued to be exploitative certainly but I suppose anything unposed is, ultimately. Some may be more compelling storytellers than others and for beginners in particular I'm sure there's often a need to get some kind of recognition or feedback on their work but I think that's natural really and doesn't necessarily mean that they lack any moral compass. Of course it could mean that but perhaps we should give each other more benefit of the doubt. I still regard myself very much as a learner, if not a beginner, and when I look back on many of my earlier shots I feel uncomfortable with them too, others are just plain bad but but that's what learning and hopefully improving is all about, isn't it?
Last edited:
boliston
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,959
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
I just feel uneasy shooting people "at home" (ie homeless) and "at work" (ie buskers) as I would not wish to have a stranger come into my home or my workplace and start shooting me. The only other "no no" is shooting disabled as they cannot defend themselves if they do not wish to be shot.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
That's a fair one, it's just that you said photographing buskers had nothing to do with street photography. I would suggest it has. The same goes for street entertainers. In fact both subjects are often depicted in books on street photography. It's not just the static act it's about the reactions of the people engaged.
On the question of kudos, do you then see a difference between an amateur who photographs a homeless person solely because he wants to master the skill of street photography and produce an interesting image and one who photographs the same person because he thinks it will win him a camera club competition?
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
This is probably true for all of us. However.... you then reflect on what you got, and that's when you make a moral choice. TAKING the shot is one thing, publishing it is another.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
If we accept the proposition that photojournalism and street photography is capturing real people in the real world and environment in which we live then should it be censored, Isn't the whole point of uncomfortable images to provoke a reaction, to make people think?
If walking past someone and not photographing them in the first place, ignoring them, perhaps crossing the road or quickly turning the page when you see an uncomfortable image any better ?
Just a few random thoughts, I don't have a strong opinion and I don't know the answer.
If walking past someone and not photographing them in the first place, ignoring them, perhaps crossing the road or quickly turning the page when you see an uncomfortable image any better ?
Just a few random thoughts, I don't have a strong opinion and I don't know the answer.
- Messages
- 43,206
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not my thing at all and I often think that other than demonstrating the skill of the photographer and the abilities of the gear many shots are just pointless (my VHO) but maybe I'd view them differently in 50 years time.
When the camera was first invented,it was so big it was mainly used in the studio,as cameras became smaller the natural place for it to go next was the street,and don't forget in those early days their were not the lens or film about to say do sport or nature etc.
So in a way it's was the need to make cameras faster & and lens longer,as they came out of the studio that brought on many other fourm of photography,so like it or not street photography has been around almost as long as photography itself
So in a way it's was the need to make cameras faster & and lens longer,as they came out of the studio that brought on many other fourm of photography,so like it or not street photography has been around almost as long as photography itself
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Wow, talk about stereotyping!
You think someone unable to express their views, opinions or preferences to a "photographer" simply because they have a disability?
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm unsteady on my feet and have had several falls in the street, even though I use a stick. I have always found people very kind and they rush over to help, and although lots of people also just stand and stare, I only recall anyone photographing me once while I'm collapsed on the floor, but I'm not really paying attention to the people around me so could be more. I'ts not dignified and I feel embarrassed and pathetic and just want to go home and hide when it happens.
I am not happy that someone photographed me in this state. I didn't challenge them, as all I want to do is get home and away from everybody, and really don't want to draw any more attention to myself.
My question would be why would someone want to photograph such a thing? It's not a news story, like the victims of 7/7 bombing being helped. It's not a social issue.....I can fall over on a perfectly flat surface so nothing to do with road maintenance. So what would the motivation be to photograph this?
I am not happy that someone photographed me in this state. I didn't challenge them, as all I want to do is get home and away from everybody, and really don't want to draw any more attention to myself.
My question would be why would someone want to photograph such a thing? It's not a news story, like the victims of 7/7 bombing being helped. It's not a social issue.....I can fall over on a perfectly flat surface so nothing to do with road maintenance. So what would the motivation be to photograph this?
- Messages
- 3,232
- Name
- Brian (not Jeff)
- Edit My Images
- No