Photographing the homeless...

[Denis Pleic]

In the "December portraits" thread, there appeared a photo of a homeless person, holding a dollar bill in his hands...


Although I rarely comment on other people's photos, this one made me comment - unfavorably, saying there's something seriously wrong with that photo.

Some discussion ensued, and I want to voice my opinion this way, without polluting one of those (otherwise quite fascinating) portrait threads.

I said:

Personally, I'd never take a photo of a homeless person, under any circumstances.
But then again, I couldn't picture myself in the role of a paparazzo, either... or in the role of Weegee.
Call me old-fashioned (or outdated), but that's just me...


And then others followed, saying that I can't walk through life with my eyes closed, that we need to point out “social injustice”, etc., etc.

Now, I'm not a squeamish guy - I've been to a war, and have seen my share of blood and gore, so I'm not actually looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. I'm not that naive... or that young

What's wrong with that photo, and what upsets me is something else:

1) It's not a PORTRAIT - it's a snapshot of a homeless (and helpless) person in the street. The fact that the person is holding a dollar bill (which was obviously a payment for the photo-op) makes it also quite exploitative in my book.
I wouldn't call ANY street snapshot a "portrait". See a dictionary definition of a "portrait", and perhaps you'll agree. Also, the fact that the homeless person received one dollar does not make it right to post his photo for everyone to see. Was this homeless person asked a permission to publish his photo?

2) Homeless people do not have any "private space", and are usually helpless against wannabe street photographers - who are often just predators with cameras. Now, don't give me that "social consciousness" story... If you wanted to help the homeless, you'd join a charity program, you wouldn't be posting their (ethically questionable) photos on the Internet for everyone to see, possibly humiliating them even more. You'd be doing something more serious about it, like opening (or helping in) a shelter for the homeless.

3) Did that person sign a model release?
I bet the original poster wouldn't post a photo of an obviously well-to-do businessman with a briefcase on an Internet photo forum without him signing the model release. Otherwise there's a good chance that the hypothetic businessman will find out about it sooner or later and sue the bejesus out of the original poster....
But, there's no way the homeless person can do anything about it. He's helpless in this regard. The dollar bill in his hands is by no means a "fair remuneration" for being so publicly humiliated.

In my book, that's called hypocrisy!

If there were no money shown in the photo, I might have not reacted as I did - I would have thought "There goes another street photographer wannabee, with lots of poor taste...". But the dollar bill made me furious...

4) If you're going to say that this photo adds to public awareness of a difficult situation (the problem of homeless people), aren't you just kidding yourself? Has the original poster posted the photo in order to raise our awareness (in a "Portrait" thread?!), or just to show off?
Has this photo been posted for the benefit of the person in the photo, or for the benefit of photographer? Who will profit from its being available to the public? The photographer is signed/named, the homeless person isn't.

Now, if it had a caption: "This is Joe Blow - you can find him on the corner of XY and WZ, and buy him breakfast. He has many interesting stories to tell" - I would have felt very much different about the whole thing; you'd obviously be trying to help the guy (cf: ”you can find him there and buy him breakfast...”)....

But no, the photo did not have any caption, and therefore it was open to all kinds of interpretations.

Also, if the original poster is so concerned about the homeless, s/he would have spent some serious time with the homeless person in the photo, and perhaps with other homeless people. S/he would have taken photographs which would look very much different than the one taken here, and would have probably even published a photo project - for the benefit of the homeless. This wasn't the case with the original photo.

I'm not looking to pick a fight. I'm just trying to explain my views on the so-called "street photography", and the way some people interpret it...

I'm not trying to argue against posting of photos of the homeless: I'm arguing against hypocrisy

Originally, I sad: "Personally, I'd never take a photo of a homeless person, under any circumstances."

When I actually meant: "I wouldn't dream about taking a photo of a homeless person without first hearing his/her story, buying him/her a breakfast first, and listening what he/she has to say. And I wouldn't dream of publicly showing such a photo without the consent of the person in the photo - preferably a written consent or a model release."

In my case, it would mean I'd probably have to spend weeks with the homeless, learning everything I can about them, living as they do for a while.... And then I would probably have taken some photos which would not be DEMEANING for the persons in the photo, and would probably even earn the right to be called portraits - and I would probably be proud to show such portraits, since such portraits would surely radiate the pride/personality of such person, and love, respect and sympathy I (as photographer) have for them.

The original photo is nowhere near anything like that - and it shows, captions or not!

I'm sorry if I come across as looking to pick a fight or trying to call anybody names - it is not my intention. English is not my native tongue, and sometimes it's difficult to express ourselves in a foreign language, particularly when dealing with rather complicated (ethical) matters. I have nothing personal against the original poster of the photograph in question. I'm just trying to point out possible problems in posting photos of the homeless off-handedly, without providing at least some background story. Otherwise, it might be percieved as rather exploitative, crass and unsympathetic - which is often quite the opposite of the original poster's intentions.

This is also NOT a public attack on the original poster, either - who probably posted the photo with the best of intentions. But, you know what they say: "The road to Hell is paved with best intentions..."

Denis

[Pete Watkins]

Denis, I agree with most of your comments. We all know that the homeless are out there, we see them in our towns and cities, we don't need photographic reminders. I dislike "street photography" as I see it as a breach of peoples privacy. I certainly don't want photographs of people I don't know in my pictures unless the person adds to the image, a driver of a preserved locomotive or a vintage vehicle who has derssed up in period costume for the occasion. Military re-inactments etc.
I tend to judge a picture buy asking myself if I could live with it on my wall, enough said.
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Struan Gray]

I am a very private person, and was taught, and still believe, that being in a position of strength or power automatically includes responsibilities towards the weak. However, I am also a strong believer in the concept of public space, and that our actions in public are just that, public.

So I agree with everything Denis says, but see his comments as a guide to the personal morality of individual photographers, and not an absolute command to the medium. For individual cases, a lot rests on intent and the back-story.

My immediate thoughts on seeing the original photo were "One dollar? Just one?", and "What's his name?". Both seemed to me to indicate a naive distance on the part of the photographer (deserving of Denis' heads-up) rather than an attempt to subvert the genre.

[soeren]

I'm not trying to argue against posting of photos of the homeless: I'm arguing against hypocrisy

Originally, I sad: "Personally, I'd never take a photo of a homeless person, under any circumstances."

When I actually meant: "I wouldn't dream about taking a photo of a homeless person without first hearing his/her story, buying him/her a breakfast first, and listening what he/she has to say. And I wouldn't dream of publicly showing such a photo without the consent of the person in the photo - preferably a written consent or a model release."


Denis

Is that because you would care especially about this person or would you just want that picture so much you want to invest that amount of time and money in it?
So giving a homeless 1$ and then later ask if he mind you taking his photo is not ok but buying him a meal and making him stand in dept to you is?? If a person Homeles or not do not want his/her photo taken that is to be respected no matter if you give them money, buy them food or just pass them on the street. Whether its 1$ or a meal makes no difference to me.

In my case, it would mean I'd probably have to spend weeks with the homeless, learning everything I can about them, living as they do for a while.... And then I would probably have taken some photos which would not be DEMEANING for the persons in the photo, and would probably even earn the right to be called portraits - and I would probably be proud to show such portraits, since such portraits would surely radiate the pride/personality of such person, and love, respect and sympathy I (as photographer) have for them.
Denis

Isn't that just trying to make the world look better than it acually is?
Like romancing walking matilda.

To me the photo in question is not that bad and actually it has served a purpus allready makin you and probably others think and react. It is, perhaps not intentionally, crystal clear in showing the reality facing the homeless, the humilliation the must deal with, the contrast to the rest of society and how hopeless they mus feel. You think it demeans the man pictured but actually thats what people do everyday passing this guy mumbling "why don't you get a job" etc.
Something you just can't picture with grace
Best regards

[soeren]

My immediate thoughts on seeing the original photo were "One dollar? Just one?", and "What's his name?". Both seemed to me to indicate a naive distance on the part of the photographer (deserving of Denis' heads-up) rather than an attempt to subvert the genre.

Because one dollar is more than most people can spare and nobody asks his name anyway. Giving that poor chap 1$ here in Dec is not to help him but to help ones own conscience comming Xmas
Best regards

[Steven Tribe]

Compare this photo and how it came about with the in-depth photo/journalism work of Jacob L. Riis over decades. I'm not saying there isn't a need for single shot photos showing the downside of our society but the whole circumstances of this shot gives cause for concern. It is not the same as paying an entry fee to a National Park or a Zoo!

[leighmarrin]

Interesting thread; as the original photographer I'll just sit back and read with an open mind. Thus far I feel my non-commercial use of an unposed public snapshot done with the subject's permission is morally justified, but am willing to reconsider, and will kill the link to the photo IF convinced otherwise.

On RFF there's a similar thread with many responses:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=82779

[Donald Miller]

When I initially read the first post of this thread, I wondered what it was within the person posting that caused this strong reaction against a "portrait" of a person within the space that the person inhabited at the time of the exposure. BTW my dictionary defines a portrait as "a likeness of a person, esp. of the face, as a painting, drawing, or photograph" Taking that definition this photograph does fit the definition of a "portrait".

The homeless (especially in the US) very often are living a life of their own choosing. This happens more often than we want to admit. To me this person and his surroundings are no different than any other person within the context of the environment that they occupy at a given time.

Now having said this, I still wonder what it is within the person that started this thread that accounts for this reaction. To me this reaction says more about the person expressing their opinion than it does about a portrait.

Interesting thread.

Donald Miller

[Jim Michael]

1) It's not a PORTRAIT - it's a snapshot of a homeless (and helpless) person in the street. The fact that the person is holding a dollar bill (which was obviously a payment for the photo-op) makes it also quite exploitative in my book.
I wouldn't call ANY street snapshot a "portrait". See a dictionary definition of a "portrait", and perhaps you'll agree. Also, the fact that the homeless person received one dollar does not make it right to post his photo for everyone to see. Was this homeless person asked a permission to publish his photo?

I won't delve into a metadiscussion regarding what constitutes a portrait, but I thought that photo was as much a portrait as what typically passes for such in that thread.

I don't agree that homeless implies helpless. Some folks can't survive like you and I and they adapt the best they can. His holding the dollar is open to interpretation. Some might see it as exploitive as you do, or a comment on the photographer, or something else. Re permission to publish, does he have rights that others in public don't have? Is he to be hidden because he's different?

2) Homeless people do not have any "private space", and are usually helpless against wannabe street photographers - who are often just predators with cameras. Now, don't give me that "social consciousness" story... If you wanted to help the homeless, you'd join a charity program, you wouldn't be posting their (ethically questionable) photos on the Internet for everyone to see, possibly humiliating them even more. You'd be doing something more serious about it, like opening (or helping in) a shelter for the homeless.

I don't agree with your assertion that homeless people don't have private space. Of course they do. It might be a box under a bridge, or an encampment in the woods. They are no more helpless against street photographers than any other person in public.

3) Did that person sign a model release?
I bet the original poster wouldn't post a photo of an obviously well-to-do businessman with a briefcase on an Internet photo forum without him signing the model release. Otherwise there's a good chance that the hypothetic businessman will find out about it sooner or later and sue the bejesus out of the original poster....
But, there's no way the homeless person can do anything about it. He's helpless in this regard. The dollar bill in his hands is by no means a "fair remuneration" for being so publicly humiliated.

Do other subjects of street photography sign model releases when the photos are not being used commercially? Again you use the helpless label when in fact homeless people have sued cities for being denied access to facilities such a libraries and won significant judgements. I don't agree that the subject was publicly humiliated.

4) If you're going to say that this photo adds to public awareness of a difficult situation (the problem of homeless people), aren't you just kidding yourself? Has the original poster posted the photo in order to raise our awareness (in a "Portrait" thread?!), or just to show off?
Has this photo been posted for the benefit of the person in the photo, or for the benefit of photographer? Who will profit from its being available to the public? The photographer is signed/named, the homeless person isn't.

Now, if it had a caption: "This is Joe Blow - you can find him on the corner of XY and WZ, and buy him breakfast. He has many interesting stories to tell" - I would have felt very much different about the whole thing; you'd obviously be trying to help the guy (cf: ”you can find him there and buy him breakfast...”)....

But no, the photo did not have any caption, and therefore it was open to all kinds of interpretations.

Looks like a photo of some guy with a blanket holding a buck. It doesn't need to raise my awareness of anything. Some believe photos should stand on their own without any commentary that seeks to define what they are about. The fact that it is open to all kinds of interpretations is not necessarily to its detriment.

Also, if the original poster is so concerned about the homeless, s/he would have spent some serious time with the homeless person in the photo, and perhaps with other homeless people. S/he would have taken photographs which would look very much different than the one taken here, and would have probably even published a photo project - for the benefit of the homeless. This wasn't the case with the original photo.


When I actually meant: "I wouldn't dream about taking a photo of a homeless person without first hearing his/her story, buying him/her a breakfast first, and listening what he/she has to say. And I wouldn't dream of publicly showing such a photo without the consent of the person in the photo - preferably a written consent or a model release."

Since there is no story with the photo, you don't know what transpired. You seem to have a pretty active imagination though, and you seem to be implying that the exploitation of helpless people should cost more than a dollar and come with a model release.

[r.e.]

Leighmarrin,

I thought that you just happened to post this photograph in the LFInfo monthly portrait thread and that this discussion just happened to arise as a result. I have now read the Rangefinder Forum thread, which started about a week ago when someone asked about the propriety of photographing homeless people. It turns out that you contributed this photograph, which is apparently several years old, as part of your input into the debate:

Yes, I photograph homeless people, usually with their permission. I'm slightly acquainted with several local homeless folks.

"Attached is a photo I took several years ago of a homeless man on the Promenade street mall in Santa Monica, Calif. He asked for money; I gave him a dollar and asked to take his photograph. (9x12cm Certo "BeeBee" plate camera + Efke sheet film.)

In other words you knew, or certainly ought to have known, when you posted this photograph in the December portrait thread here, where contributions are usually not several years old, that it would generate a debate. Of course, it did, first in the monthly thread, and now as the subject of its own thread.

What is the object of this exercise?