# Is taking photographs of homeless people for your own self gain wrong?



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

Simple question. Poll to follow.

Say if I took a photograph of a person who was homeless to enter in a comp' to further myself and my own ego, would that be wrong of me?


----------



## Kidda (May 1, 2008)

why would you be taking photos? and are you asking people first? do they have ownership of what your doing?


----------



## Dhimmi (May 1, 2008)

How little have you got to fill your day to come up with questions like this?


----------



## story (May 1, 2008)

Did you ask the person? Or did you just steal their soul without asking?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Simple question. Poll to follow.
> 
> Say if I took a photograph of a person who was homeless to enter in a comp' to further myself and my own ego, would that be wrong of me?






Twat!




Depends if they're just homeless, or mentally unwell and homeless obviously


----------



## snadge (May 1, 2008)

not at all mate, ask them and do it later in the day when they don't know you are there, give 'em something though.

on the other hand though, there seems to be a lot of people that take the piss out of the homeless, photographing them for a risque type of art.


----------



## snadge (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> .
> 
> Say if I took a photograph of a person who was homeless to enter in a comp' to further myself and my own ego, would that be wrong of me?



that would enter my example of taking the piss, especially if you had no contact with the subject.


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

I think it stinks myself and the people I have taken photos of who are on their arse I have always had some conversation with before hand and asked for their permission, and as it turned out, they were not homeless! Just a scruffy alcoholic busker 

Just one of my pet hates when you get what snadge described above. Would you take a picture of a cripple trying to jump?

Even if you ask permission, as I voted, I would still feel bad,


----------



## scifisam (May 1, 2008)

Ask permission, pay them, talk to them, and it's OK, depending on why you're taking the photo.


----------



## snadge (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> I think it stinks myself and the people I have taken photos of who are on their arse I have always had some conversation with before hand and asked for their permission, and as it turned out, they were not homeless! Just a scruffy alcoholic busker
> 
> Just one of my pet hates when you get what snadge described above. Would you take a picture of a cripple trying to jump?
> 
> Even if you ask permission, as I voted, I would still feel bad,



word, you see some fucking twats though, no contact with the subject at all and shite to boot.

these photographers forget sometime that these people have exactly the same rights as anyone else and they can refuse to have their photo taken and also demand retribution if an image is displayed against their wishes.


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

I can understand people wnating to photograph something profound as a homeless person begging for food outside of mcdonalds but I can't forgive them for it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> I think it stinks myself and the people I have taken photos of who are on their arse I have always had some conversation with before hand and asked for their permission, and as it turned out, they were not homeless! Just a scruffy alcoholic busker
> ...




A bit more than a pet hate of mine. I fucking hate people who look at the world through a 200mm and never dare to actually venture into that world and find out what it's all about.

They're scared that they may find out that the person they're photographing is actually sane and stuff. They keep a distance believing that they will never have to survive there so long as they don't do drugs, or over do booze and keep the banks and the boss happy.

I often look like a down and out homeless person whilst painting on the streets here. You learn to ignore the long lens tossers who haven't even bothered talking to you, never mind asking permission. You take comfort in the knowledge that they will go home to boring suburbia and bank loans whilst you have enjoyed the World's greatest views; The Alhambra every morning, Manhattan framed by the East and West Hudson, The City from my living room and Canary Wharf from my bedroom along the Thames, Berlin with a view that tracks the wall as it was.

Ooooooh! So don't like cowards.

And, whilst I'm at it; hippies. Fucking hippies that do fuck all. There are good hippies here that actually make sun ovens and take them to Africa and stuff. Most of the pseudo hippies do fuck all but get stoned and let their dogs get put down 

You've started me off on one!


----------



## cybertect (May 1, 2008)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ledgard/1922321774/


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 1, 2008)

On that basis, some of the most iconic pictures in the world wouldn't have been taken. The camera is neutral, it merely records the event, it does not create nor influence the event.

If the picture gains wide recognition, it MAY just spark someone to help alleviate the homelessness situation, if it is not taken, then nothing will happen.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 1, 2008)

cybertect said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ledgard/1922321774/





> Many were unable or reluctant to communicate



Wanker.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 1, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> On that basis, some of the most iconic pictures in the world wouldn't have been taken. The camera is neutral, it merely records the event, it does not create nor influence the event.
> 
> If the picture gains wide recognition, it MAY just spark someone to help alleviate the homelessness situation, if it is not taken, then nothing will happen.




Total fucking toss.

Show me an example of a photograph taken in such circumstances that has actually helped people. More than that, show me the 'iconic pictures' you mention.


----------



## purves grundy (May 1, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> The camera is neutral, it merely records the event, it does not create nor influence the event.


utter bobbins


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 1, 2008)

cybertect said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ledgard/1922321774/



That is a stunning photograph. Blow it up to full size. 

Please God, never let me feel pain like the pain in that man's eyes.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 1, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> That is a stunning photograph. Blow it up to full size.
> 
> Please God, never let me feel pain like the pain in that man's eyes.





Oh, you complete and utter tosser.

Fuck you!


----------



## story (May 1, 2008)

What is the matter with you Stanley Edwards?

If you have an opinion, please give it. Why be so rude?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 1, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Total fucking toss.
> 
> Show me an example of a photograph taken in such circumstances that has actually helped people. More than that, show me the 'iconic pictures' you mention.



Do you remember a picture of a little Vietnamese girl who had been very badly burned? The picture the monk who immolated himself, and brought the eyes of the world to the plight of the Burmese people. The shadow pictures of Hiroshima that helped mobilise world opinion against nuclear weapons, the pictures of the tsunami which caused a flood of aid from the ordinary peoples of many nations?


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> On that basis, some of the most iconic pictures in the world wouldn't have been taken. The camera is neutral, it merely records the event, it does not create nor influence the event.
> 
> If the picture gains wide recognition, it MAY just spark someone to help alleviate the homelessness situation, if it is not taken, then nothing will happen.



Bollocks, at best it'll get some twat hoying 10p in a bucket nad feeling muckle proud with themselves they helped the homeless.


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do you remember a picture of a little Vietnamese girl who had been very badly burned? The picture the monk who immolated himself, and brought the eyes of the world to the plight of the Burmese people. The shadow pictures of Hiroshima that helped mobilise world opinion against nuclear weapons, the pictures of the tsunami which caused a flood of aid from the ordinary peoples of many nations?



Yeah I do and what difference did it make? and am pretty sure IIRC the first example you said was photoshopped (albeit in a darkroom).


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 1, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oh, you complete and utter tosser.
> 
> Fuck you!



I don't know what your problem is, but do try and be civil.

That picture is incredibly moving, at least to me. You may be completely oblivious to the man's pain, but not everyone is.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Yeah I do and what difference did it make?



On that basis Firky, what difference does anything make?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Bollocks, at best it'll get some twat hoying 10p in a bucket nad feeling muckle proud with themselves they helped the homeless.



And 10p is better than no 10p? Yes?


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

cybertect said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ledgard/1922321774/



Funny, I had that bloke in mind. Why do you think he took those photos? Considering I have been spammed by him on flickr.


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> And 10p is better than no 10p? Yes?



What has it changed?


----------



## boskysquelch (May 1, 2008)




----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


>



Youtube the catman of greencock.


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Youtube the catman of greencock.



Here you go: 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x5O6QEejg


----------



## editor (May 1, 2008)

Rocking up to a homeless person and just blasting out a load of context-free "Oh look! It's a tramp!" shots is one of the worst photo clichés of the lot. And it's rude too.

I know this because I did exactly the same thing when I was first started taking photos.


----------



## cybertect (May 1, 2008)

firky said:


> Funny, I had that bloke in mind.



And there was me thinking it had something to do with this months photo comp...


----------



## Firky (May 1, 2008)

cybertect said:


> And there was me thinking it had something to do with this months photo comp...



It did. The two are related.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 2, 2008)

Give them some money.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> What has it changed?



It has bought some slices of bread for the soup run. 

Not quite sure I understand your view, you deprecate the person that gives 10p, what do you want them to do? Not give 10p? As you get older and have a bit more life experience, you will realise that tiny increments are much more common than grand gestures.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 2, 2008)

story said:


> What is the matter with you Stanley Edwards?
> 
> If you have an opinion, please give it. Why be so rude?





Thing is that you and Sas are still asking for an explanation. That says all really.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Staged


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Rocking up to a homeless person and just blasting out a load of context-free "Oh look! It's a tramp!" shots is one of the worst photo clichés of the lot. And it's rude too.
> 
> I know this because I did exactly the same thing when I was first started taking photos.



It isn't something that I would do at all , but then I'm not a professional photographer.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> It has bought some slices of bread for the soup run.
> 
> Not quite sure I understand your view, you deprecate the person that gives 10p, what do you want them to do? Not give 10p? As you get older and have a bit more life experience, you will realise that tiny increments are much more common than grand gestures.



Yeah, you are better off not giving 10p cos it is not as though as you give a shit is it? If you did you wouldn't be sticking a £800 camera in their face.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> ...As you get older and have a bit more life experience, you will realise that tiny increments are much more common than grand gestures.




FFS! You really are a cunt.

Sorry for being so rude and unchristian like. But, 10p!!!

Keep it mate. By yourself a gobstopper and make it last a few hours if not days


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Stanley...


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Thing is that you and Sas are still asking for an explanation. That says all really.



No it doesn't.

Other than showing yourself up as a charmless cunt, you have said nothing.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> Other than showing yourself up as a charmless cunt, you have said nothing.



Have you ever slept rough?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Have you ever slept rough?



Yes and no. I have slept in conditions which are every bit as bad as sleeping rough, but not because I had no choice.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Simple question. Poll to follow.
> 
> Say if I took a photograph of a person who was homeless to enter in a comp' to further myself and my own ego, would that be wrong of me?



no


----------



## DownwardDog (May 2, 2008)

I saw some guy in Leipzig taking some photos of a homeless person yesterday. The mendicant was getting the hump about it but what's he going to do? One flappy soled shoe out of line and he would have got a stomping from the Polizei.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Yeah, you are better off not giving 10p cos it is not as though as you give a shit is it? If you did you wouldn't be sticking a £800 camera in their face.



I should be so lucky as to have an £800 camera.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

DownwardDog said:


> I saw some guy in Leipzig taking some photos of a homeless person yesterday. The mendicant was getting the hump about it but what's he going to do? One flappy soled shoe out of line and he would have got a stomping from the Polizei.



Are conditions in the East as bad as the news reports?


----------



## purves grundy (May 2, 2008)

Plenty of amateur 'photojournos' bouncing around the refugee camps on the Burma / Thai border, goading toddlers into poking turds with a straw and such like. Bunch of soiled wankers. 

"Hopefully, when we get home, our photos will really make an impact."

"Yes I hope so too. We really should be doing more to... fuckin hell, a bloke without any lips - quick!!"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> And 10p is better than no 10p? Yes?



Rather than give ten p, why not just keep it in your pocket, and spit in their face, instead?


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> I should be so lucky as to have an £800 camera.



doesn't really answer my point.


----------



## matrix_22 (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> I can understand people wnating to photograph something profound as a homeless person begging for food outside of mcdonalds but I can't forgive them for it.



I would ask permission and also try to do something useful for the person involved then and as long as it is used for something useful such as to raise awareness of homeless issues and any cash made went to the cause then cool....


----------



## DownwardDog (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> Are conditions in the East as bad as the news reports?



Leipzig itself is quite pleasant, if in the midst of a Russian gangster turf war over who controls the door (and hence the drugs) in the local nightclubs. However, once outside the charming city centre there are still a huge amount of empty and derelict buildings probably caused by the massive depopulation when anybody who could move under their own steam voted with their feet and legged it in the direction of capitalism at the first opportunity.

One thing is for certain, the local plod do not fuck around with filling in forms and human rights bullshit like our lot.


----------



## cybertect (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Why do you think he took those photos?



Considering he was, according to his own account

1) Studying art at Manchester Poly in 1970, with an interest in street photography and documenting the city (from other pics in his stream)

2) Helping out with soup runs round Manchester

I'd have thought it quite natural. He seems to remember quite a bit of detail of the story of the man pictured forty years later, so it's hardly an intrusive, casual snap. They must have engaged on some level.

Beyond that, I don't know whether I can speculate about his motivations.


On to your edit...



firky said:


> Considering I have been spammed by him on flickr.



How? Is it relevant?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> Other than showing yourself up as a charmless cunt, you have said nothing.




I'm going to bed now. I have a safe room with a bed and blankets and shit. I have a luxury room these days 

I will think about all my mates here who are now drunken comatosed under bridges, in doorways, in the park on a bench. It isn't actually that bad! I prefer it to mortgage gloom and pay back stress. I still sleep with all doors and windows wide open even in winter. I like it. I feel safe.

Few here go hungry. There are plenty of free kitchens run by religious groups. Say prayers and you get your morning coffee. Evenings are just a get the grub rush. Addicts, wronguns, lostuns and others.

But, when you are hungry, lacking nicotiene, booze, or whatever and some cunt sticks a camera in your face without so much as a 'hello', it fucking hurts to the point of rage. So, don't be surprised if one of those 'reactionary' down and outs comes along and whacks you in the face if you haven't even got the decency and courage to say 'hello' in the first instance.

OK. I'm off to bed now


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> doesn't really answer my point.



I wasn't aware that you had made a point, a little gratuitous abuse, but no point.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

cybertect said:


> Considering he was, according to his own account
> 
> 1) Studying art at Manchester Poly in 1970, with an interest in street photography and documenting the city (from other pics in his stream)
> 
> ...



1) So he took photos, by your own admission, to better his degree and to rid himself this guilt he did soup runs.

It is relevant insofar as the person on flickr obvisouly wanted recognition for his 'art'.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

DownwardDog said:


> Leipzig itself is quite pleasant, if in the midst of a Russian gangster turf war over who controls the door (and hence the drugs) in the local nightclubs. However, once outside the charming city centre there are still a huge amount of empty and derelict buildings probably caused by the massive depopulation when anybody who could move under their own steam voted with their feet and legged it in the direction of capitalism at the first opportunity.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the local plod do not fuck around with filling in forms and human rights bullshit like our lot.



They never did. I always found the German police much more brusque than our lot. Not that I ever went out of my way to offend them, not when they have a gun on their hip.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> I wasn't aware that you had made a point, a little gratuitous abuse, but no point.



Where have I been abusive to you, in fact, I'll extant that so far as to say when I have ever been abusive to you in my 7 years on these boards?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I'm going to bed now. I have a safe room with a bed and blankets and shit. I have a luxury room these days
> 
> I will think about all my mates here who are now drunken comatosed under bridges, in doorways, in the park on a bench. It isn't actually that bad! I prefer it to mortgage gloom and pay back stress. I still sleep with all doors and windows wide open even in winter. I like it. I feel safe.
> 
> ...



Thank you. That explains, although does not excuse, your reaction. Neither I, nor anyone else here knew your circumstances, how could we?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Where have I been abusive to you, in fact, I'll extant that so far as to say when I have ever been abusive to you in my 7 years on these boards?



Apologies Firky. You didn't.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)




----------



## zenie (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> 1) So he took photos, by your own admission, to better his degree and to rid himself this guilt he did soup runs.
> 
> It is relevant insofar as the person on flickr obvisouly wanted recognition for his 'art'.



what guilt dude?  Maybe he really loved helping the homeless and did his degree after he's started the soup run?

I don't like it myself, would feel weird...but I only feel that way about homeless people.

if someone I knew had an interesting stump, or some other disfigurement, I wouldn't mind asking them if I could photograph them, but then maybe that's cos I know them

Having been homeless I know how people can look at you, they just look through you a lot of the time, like you're not there, you don't exist on their radar. I don't think I'd have been happy with a camera in my face when I was already so vunerable. So, I don't really think it's fair to ask someone no.

If I was working for someone like Shelter  or another homeless charity then  yeh I guess I'd be ok with it. Because you're actually raising awareness, rather than saying you are in order to increase those 'gritty' portfolio shots. 



Sasaferrato said:


> They never did. I always found the German police much more brusque than our lot. Not that I ever went out of my way to offend them, not when they have a gun on their hip.



I wasn't scared of the Ob til I saw the German Police in full riot gear (they looked like something out of a sci-fi film) with bug fuck off guns by their side


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Want to seem my an interesting stump? It gets bigger the more you touvch it


----------



## El Jefe (May 2, 2008)

good to have you back, you dutty fucker


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> good to have you back, you dutty fucker



*takes a bow*

Well some fucker has to say it


----------



## snadge (May 2, 2008)

he's taking the piss firks, sass that is 

There is a way to get away with this type of photography and it hasn't to do with artistic expression, it's to do humility and the ability to integrate oneself into an alien scenario and live that with your subjects, giving a damn if you will.

that is why most homeless type pics look staged or as someone has said at the end of 200mm lens, the ones that don't create impact in a way the art farts could only dream of, in them cases though the photographer was accepted by his subjects,part of that scene and accepted as someone that has integrity, willing to give their ability to help people in positions of despair by making sure they had food and bedding, that person is the artist.

There are very few of that type though


BTW firky, that flikr bloke you pointed to, I feel as though he was involved at that time, maybe not now but it seems he had a rapport with his subjects at that time.


I feel that his photography is excellent, at least in that era.


----------



## El Jefe (May 2, 2008)

snadge said:


> he's taking the piss firks.



Erm. I'm not. Firky's a good mate and I miss him when he's not around.


----------



## snadge (May 2, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Erm. I'm not. Firky's a good mate and I miss him when he's not around.



sos mate just edited....


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

snadge said:


> BTW firky, that flikr bloke you pointed to, I feel as though he was involved at that time, maybe not now but it seems he had a rapport with his subjects at that time.
> 
> 
> I feel that his photography is excellent, at least in that era.



He wants to be Charles Bukowski with a camera and he isn't. That is why he spams people on flickr.


----------



## cybertect (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> 1) So he took photos, by your own admission, to better his degree and to rid himself this guilt he did soup runs.





Did I say anywhere that he took the photos to better his degree?

I said he was studying art, which presumably means he had an interest in image-making.

I can neither deny nor confirm that he used those particular photographs as part of his coursework, which is one of the reasons I said I'd rather not speculate further about his motivations. Without asking him directly, I don't know.


Your implication that he rid himself of the guilt of taking pictures of homeless people by doing soup runs simply doesn't make sense anyhow. It was while he was doing the soup runs that he took the pictures.

Unless he was feeling guilt in _anticipation_ of taking pictures of homeless people that he would encounter while doing the soup runs that were assuaging his guilt for the pictures that he was going to take... [etc. in an endless loop] ?

Are you suggesting that it's wrong to take pictures of homeless people in all circumstances?


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

cybertect said:


> Are you suggesting that it's wrong to take pictures of homeless people in all circumstances?



No, as the title of this thread gives away. 

A Perect opportunity to take photographs of people in need is on a soup run, yes?


----------



## cybertect (May 2, 2008)

I admire your cynicism


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> No, as the title of this thread gives away.
> 
> A Perect opportunity to take photographs of people in need is on a soup run, yes?



I've seen various pictures taken by you involving what appears to be unknowing subjects, such as the one of the old person sitting on a bench, etc. I'm assuming you didn't pay these people, or talk to them.

Why the distinction wrt someone you perceive to be in bad economic straits?


----------



## snadge (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> He wants to be Charles Bukowski with a camera and he isn't. That is why he spams people on flickr.



look firky, your a class photographer, you have your style and I think he maybe just acknowledging that, he's got a load of poo alongside some inspirational stuff but I do feel he did the right thing with his 1970 homeless stuff, there is a few that is staged but the subjects look like they are comfortable with that.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I've seen various pictures taken by you involving what appears to be unknowing subjects, such as the one of the old person sitting on a bench, etc. I'm assuming you didn't pay these people, or talk to them.



Oh I did, that bloke on the bench, yup talked to him. He wasn't homeless.

One thing I have learned in life is the nice guy fails, always.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

snadge said:


> look firky, your a class photographer, you have your style and I think he maybe just acknowledging that, he's got a load of poo alongside some inspirational stuff but I do feel he did the right thing with his 1970 homeless stuff, there is a few that is staged but the subjects look like they are comfortable with that.



1) I aint a good photographer, I just copy what I like and lookds good. Thanks tho'.

2) Wghat become of the subjects?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Oh I did, that bloke on the bench, yup talked to him. He wasn't homeless.
> 
> One thing I have learned in life is the nice guy fails, always.



Do you speak with all subjects whom you photograph on the street? I recall a series with a group of women in some street.

My point is that whatever you think is right to do for people in general, is right wrt homeless people also. To the extent that you offer them money, that's a good thing as a matter of general principle.


----------



## snadge (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> 1) I aint a good photographer, I just copy what I like and lookds good. Thanks tho'.
> 
> 2) Wghat become of the subjects?



1. yes you are, you have a definite style which when you think, comes across.

2. That isn't the point, the point is that we are discussing it almost 40 years later.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Do you speak with all subjects whom you photograph on the street? I recall a series with a group of women in some street.



you mean the one I got published on the guardian, indie and bbc? They were not homeless, I lived with them


----------



## snadge (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> One thing I have learned in life is the nice guy fails, always.



fails in what, being nice?

I don't think so.


----------



## Firky (May 2, 2008)

snadge said:


> 1. yes you are, you have a definite style which when you think, comes across.
> 
> 2. That isn't the point, the point is that we are discussing it almost 40 years later.



1) Bollocs do I have a style  I see something and copy it,you are better at taking photos than myself.

2)  eh? forgive me, but weed and alcohol takes it's toll.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> you mean the one I got published on the guardian, indie and bbc? They were not homeless, I lived with them



Judging by their dress, I'd assumed they weren't homeless.

You're skirting the point.


----------



## snadge (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> 1) Bollocs do I have a style  I see something and copy it,you are better at taking photos than myself.
> 
> 2)  eh? forgive me, but weed and alcohol takes it's toll.




1. having the ability to interpret another photographers thought process and reproduce that is an art in itself but I feel you only use that as a learning process as we all do to an extent, copying styles is not a crime, most have been done already and almost every picture we take today is a copy of another persons without us having ever seen the original concept, probably done years ago, to be a photographer of worth, especially with human subjects takes a certain ability to allow your subject to accept you as a photographer to participate in their world view, being a nice person will let you be able to capture emotion as an image more than if you are at the end of a 200mm lens with no involvement, saying that 200mm lenses are superb on portraits.

I also need to take more pictures I must have only taken 1000 since I started digital photography, I have confidence issues holding a camera, thanks for the compliment though.

2. nothing wrong with that mate.


----------



## mhendo (May 2, 2008)

Went to a baseball game with some friends here in Baltimore the other night. After the game finished, the crowd was streaming out onto the streets, and there was a homeless guy sitting on the sidewalk asking for change. 

Out of the blue, three young women (can't have been more than 19 or 20) came up. Two ran around behind him and made silly faces, while the third one snapped a picture of them all. Then the three girls ran off giggling.

My friends and i were just dumbstruck. Had half a mind to chase them down and beat them to death with their own camera.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 2, 2008)

The bottom line is thinking about other peoples' feelings. I would probably take a picture of an asleep homeless person without asking (who wants to be woken up by that shit) but otherwise no.


----------



## Pavlik (May 2, 2008)

cybertect said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ledgard/1922321774/



I've always liked pictures like that but as i said somewhere else this week, I don't like the way people take pictures of people without permission, especially in poorer countries. There were so many people with cameras in India last year poking their lenses into peoples homes and faces that it made me too embarrassed to be a part of it. 
 Most of my pictures are taken after sitting with someone for a while and buying whatever they're selling or having a chat and getting to know them a little first.


----------



## e19896 (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Simple question. Poll to follow.
> 
> Say if I took a photograph of a person who was homeless to enter in a comp' to further myself and my own ego, would that be wrong of me?



Yes you are right firky, i would always ask and one of the people i often took images paul was murdered last weekend, i was happy to give a image of him to the police to help get the scum that kicked him to death. agreed a mouthy piss head at times, but wtf can not people simply walk on?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 2, 2008)

For the most part its parasitic.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 2, 2008)

firky said:


> Simple question. Poll to follow.
> 
> Say if I took a photograph of a person who was homeless to enter in a comp' to further myself and my own ego, would that be wrong of me?


Bit of a strange question i think.

The apposite implication of your question is that it would be right of you to take the picture if, say, you thought that it would make a difference to a government policy on rough sleepers, or that it would illustrate a media story about why people sleep rough. Now, that might imply some grandiose implied objective for social change on the part of the snapper but it might also "_further that person and [their] own ego_" for eg.

What would you think about a picture series that demonstrated the humanity of rough sleepers for eg? That aimed to overcome stereotypical prejudicial views of some people. Should people only ever be allowed to take images of others with their tacit approval?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 2, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> ....
> What would you think about a picture series that demonstrated the humanity of rough sleepers for eg? That aimed to overcome stereotypical prejudicial views of some people.



To achieve that you would surely have to speak to the people to find out if they're homeless. No? You would also have to get to know them a little at the very least.




> Should people only ever be allowed to take images of others with their tacit approval?



In an ideal world - yes.

---


Think I was a little bit lubricated when posting on this thread last night, but what really annoys me about so many pictures of homeless people are the comments that come with the pictures. "I can see the pain in their eyes" etc. Perhaps the pain is all yours. Particularly in reference to the shot that Cybertect posted as an example. The guy looks to be as happy as any other person to me.

It's this false sympathy shit. No-one wants your sympathy false, or genuine. Sympathy is worth fuck all. A chat as an equal before you go snapping is only fair and right.

I have lived homeless on a couple of occasions in the past. I still sketch on the streets here in artist scruff shyster clothes. I can look a mess and I'm often joined for a chat by people who are living on the streets. Just last week I was sitting on a bench in Plaza Nueva. I was joined by Normen - a true itinerant artist from Latvia. A stereotypical homeless hippie bum to most peoples' eyes. He served in Afghanistan for the former Soviet army. Was held as a prisoner. Had both his knees broken and all fingers on his right hand snapped in half as well as other severe beatings. He spent Three months in various hospitals in various countries before finally getting back to Latvia.

He told me about how he was just put on a train without being told where he was going to serve the USSR. He eventually found himself dumped on the front line. He was telling me all this with tears welling up in his eyes. At the same time some cunt was photographing from a distance in an alley way with a telephoto. Not the slightest bit of acknowledgment. Just a glance before he left when he realised I had seen him.

The next day Normen was gone. Onto Mallorca I think.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that one day I will actually shove someone's camera up their arse. I've come very close a couple of times, but one day...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 2, 2008)

Stanley Edwards;7443673]To achieve that you would surely have to speak to the people to find out if they're homeless. No? You would also have to get to know them a little at the very least.[/QUOTE]Where did i say that you didn't? You're not the only person to have experience of roughing it you know.[QUOTE=Stanley Edwards said:


> In an ideal world - yes.


So what about street photography then, as in the corresponding article that editor has just posted? What about crowd scenes? This isn't an ideal world so where do the boundaries lie with regards to appropriately moral behaviour?


----------



## stowpirate (May 3, 2008)

removed


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2008)

Photography as voyeurism v photography as recording/capturing, age-old discussion innit. I suppose a lot depends on how much the photographer intrudes.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 3, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Where did i say that you didn't? You're not the only person to have experience of roughing it you know.



You didn't. The opening post and poll did - that set the precedent. I'm very aware that I'm not the only person with this sort of experience. WTF is your point you argumentative tit?




> ...This isn't an ideal world so where do the boundaries lie with regards to appropriately moral behaviour?



The boundary is very clearly stated in law. If you (or, any person) is the main subject of the photograph then a model release is required.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 3, 2008)

stowpirate said:


> ...Unless that individual is surrounded with discarded beer cans, vomit or is sleeping under a cardboard box it could be some form of scam
> ...




Holy shit. It just gets worse.


----------



## Firky (May 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Photography as voyeurism v photography as recording/capturing, age-old discussion innit. I suppose a lot depends on how much the photographer intrudes.



There's degrees of voyeurism, there's the voyeurism that observes, records and details the unoticed, there's the selfish voyeurism and there's the peeping tom who boo's at me. What matters is the objective of the act of taking a photograph and not the subject. 

Take photos of homeless people but not for entertainment of your audience. 

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/03/photographing-homeless-banned.html

Made me chuckle.


----------



## Firky (May 3, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Holy shit. It just gets worse.



Fuck him. No wonder people end up on their arses with attitudes and perceptions like that, it's quite sad really, to have such a suburban detached attitude of real life.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2008)

firky said:


> There's degrees of voyeurism, there's the voyeurism that observes, records and details the unoticed, there's the selfish voyeurism and there's the peeping tom who boo's at me. What matters is the objective of the act of taking a photograph and not the subject.
> 
> Take photos of homeless people but not for entertainment of your audience.
> 
> ...



Heh, max headroom 

I think it's an interesting discussion - how do you assess the objective of the act? Isn't all photography for the entertainment of the audience? etc etc

Photojournalism v paparazzi


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 3, 2008)

firky said:


> Fuck him. No wonder people end up on their arses with attitudes and perceptions like that, it's quite sad really, to have such a suburban detached attitude of real life.



There was a funny article in the local government sponsored rag here the other day. Photograph of a squat where a lot of mates live. The story read along the lines of...

'These people live here for free, beg on the streets and still have the latest MP3 player and mobile phones etc etc etc'

It's a big place. I guess they're just getting ready to justify an illegal eviction.


Not surprising that people have these attitudes when the press always promote the stereotype.


----------



## stowpirate (May 3, 2008)

removed


----------



## Aldebaran (May 3, 2008)

Answer to OP.

Yes it is. You not only violate their privacy, you add to that "personal gain". I wonder what you would do if anyone abused you, and violated your privacy, for such a non-"reason".
(Hint: There is no excuse.)

salaam.


----------



## chooch (May 3, 2008)

Tricky. 
Not a big fan of the _Oh look, some poor people_ approach to street photography but I can see it having some uses, depending on intention. And they´re ain´t _much_ personal gain in coming 17th in the Urban photo competition.

It´s potentially humiliating, and I wouldn´t do it, but I can´t say how it´s necessarily different from other photos I would take without permission, or that others would take and that I´d maybe be impressed with. hmm:


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2008)

chooch said:


> Tricky.
> Not a big fan of the _Oh look, some poor people_ approach to street photography but I can see it having some uses, depending on intention. *And they´re ain´t much personal gain in coming 17th in the Urban photo competition.*
> 
> It´s potentially humiliating, and I wouldn´t do it, but I can´t say how it´s necessarily different from other photos I would take without permission, or that others would take and that I´d maybe be impressed with. hmm:



Is this a call-out thread then


----------



## boskysquelch (May 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Is this a call-out thread then



course it frkkn is  ...why haven't you returned my call eh? 

nice to see Aldebran's oh so thoughtful but none the less knobbish, superior, elitist & up his own arse as usual, comments.

Thought proper Mooozlims dint agree with imagery & idolatry of Life?...oh yeah...theyz have exceptionz. Coz theyz teh Knowers.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


> course it frkkn is  ...why haven't you returned my call eh?



Ain't looked at the comp thread this month  Fuck sake Firks, coulda been an interesting thread 

Been no ringing on the landline doody and I has been having a day off from me mobby, guess you're saying I should turn it on or summat


----------



## Blagsta (May 3, 2008)

stowpirate said:


> I am sure this is going to upset some urbanites but how do you know if the person you are photographing are genuinely homeless and not just begging and commuting home every evening? There is a lot of money to be made on the streets,



oh fuck off


----------



## boskysquelch (May 3, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> oh fuck off


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 3, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


>




I'm still struggling to believe anyone actually made that post. If I had read it in the Daily Mail I would have bit my tongue, but here on Urban 


Mayhem outside tonight. I'm really not up for it. Got threatened by some guy with a knife and a bloody hand yesterday. Tried to tell police. They just didn't give a fuck. "But, the guy has a knife - he threatened me and he had fresh blood on his hand". Not bothered. But, they still jailed a mate for Three days for playing drums in the streets.

Cowardly fuckers 


Rant over. I may go out for tapas now


----------



## Firky (May 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> Ain't looked at the comp thread this month  Fuck sake Firks, coulda been an interesting thread



Isn't a call out threa of such, more a reaction to what was accepted and left to go unchallanged on a board that prides its self in being against such things.


P.S

Phone calls from squelch rarely last less than an hour, I'd pencil in an afternoon if you're a lass


----------



## cesare (May 4, 2008)

firky said:


> P.S
> 
> Phone calls from squelch rarely last less than an hour, I'd pencil in an afternoon if you're a lass



Was just 15 mins


----------



## Pavlik (May 4, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> oh fuck off



i shared a squatted flat in hackney with an old mate who used to bunk the tube down to leicester square for a few hours begging.
he said he'd make loads of money in no time at all.
and he did have things like mp3 players and mobiles too.

so not every homeless beggar you see is neccesarily homeless.

havent been following this thread btw. just read a few comments and wanted to put my tuppence worth in.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 4, 2008)

Pavlik said:


> ...
> so not every homeless beggar you see is neccesarily homeless...




Guess what? Not every homeless person sleeps in vomit soaked cardboard boxes surrounded by booze cans!

That's the bit people find offensive.


----------



## Blagsta (May 4, 2008)

Pavlik said:


> i shared a squatted flat in hackney with an old mate who used to bunk the tube down to leicester square for a few hours begging.
> he said he'd make loads of money in no time at all.
> and he did have things like mp3 players and mobiles too.
> 
> so not every homeless beggar you see is neccesarily homeless.



That may have been the case years ago, I doubt it is now.  For one, the police regularly do begging ops in the west end where they arrest anyone begging and ASBO the most persistent ones.  Some people get big drops from time to time, but often they have to sit there for ages enduring verbal and physical abuse.  There are much easier and more pleasant ways of making money.


----------



## cybertect (May 4, 2008)

Here's a bit of a different take on the topic 

http://www.luvera.com/



> *Photographs and Assisted Self-Portraits*
> 
> The archive Photographs was assembled by Luvera through weekly workshops hosted across  London attended by over 200 homeless and ex-homeless people. Providing his  subject/participants with cameras, Luvera facilitated the building of each individual’s contributory  portfolio toward the larger bank of images, gathering diverse viewpoints on the experience of  homelessness from the inside. Comprised of contributions ranging widely from intimate portraits  and images of the everyday experiences and surroundings of the contributor, through to visual  explorations of concepts and ideas to do with the notion of homelessness and the experience of  the city, the images from the archive Photographs are an insightful presentation of homeless  and ex-homeless people portrayed in a way previously unseen, by simply allowing the individuals  to represent themselves and their own points of view.
> 
> Devised to provide a representation of the contributors to the archive, each image in the series  Assisted Self-Portrait is the trace of a process that blurred distinctions between Luvera and his  subject / participants during the photographic sitting, investing in the subject a greater level of  control, collusion and power in the creation of their representation than is usually offered in a  traditional photographer / subject relationship. Played out in locations of the participant’s  choosing, over repeated sessions, Luvera taught each participant how to use large format  camera equipment using Polaroid and a long cable release. Each subject was an active  participant and co-creator of the image, while Luvera, as the photographer, served more as a  facilitator, tutor and technical advisor.


----------



## Blagsta (May 4, 2008)

cybertect said:


> Here's a bit of a different take on the topic
> 
> http://www.luvera.com/



Completely different though, doing workshops _with_ homeless people.


----------



## cybertect (May 4, 2008)

Indeed.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (May 6, 2008)

Interesting thread. Whenever I've taken photographs of 'homeless' people on the street I always ask permission and try to give them either something to drink or a sandwich. I've probably only done this a dozen times and yep, each time, felt a little uncomfortable about doing it.

Anyways, a slight derail - but a book I recommend for some great portraits is by Harvey Wang and is a study across a number of years of the residents of the few remaining 'flophouses' on the Bowery in New York - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flophouse-Life-Bowery-David-Isay/dp/0375503226 - It has a some history about the buildings and the 'hotels' and some commentary / interview (written in the first person) with the subjects. Really interesting and an example of where this sort of photography has been done well and with some humility.


----------



## cybertect (May 6, 2008)

The question of whether Dorothea Lange was taking these pictures 'for her own self gain' arises, I suppose. She was being paid by the Farm Security Administration for the job (and indeed directed quite closely about _what_ to take pictures of).


----------



## boskysquelch (May 6, 2008)

cybertect said:


> She was being paid by the Farm Security Administration for the job (and indeed directed quite closely about _what_ to take pictures of).




can we do the FSA?...whereto begin?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 6, 2008)

cybertect said:


> ...The question of whether Dorothea Lange was taking these pictures 'for her own self gain' arises, I suppose. She was being paid by the Farm Security Administration for the job (and indeed directed quite closely about _what_ to take pictures of).




I think there's a big difference between someone who has put years into a career as a documentary photographer/photojournalist/professional being commissioned to record and a casual snap of a random homeless person. I think Dorethea Lange actually took photographs with great empathy for the people she was photographing. 

Most of the people on the streets here don't mind having their picture taken - many are quite extrovert characters, but they do expect €1 for the pleasure.

In some respects I suppose taking photographs before asking permission is the only way to get a true representation. Once asked people will pose, or just the fact that they're aware that they're being photographed will change the way they behave.

To my mind there are plenty of valid reasons for recording all walks of life and the whole of society. It's just the attitude of the telephoto snapper who's to fucking scared to actually talk to anyone that really annoys me.


BTW: Apparently there are some B&W photographs of me on a FlickR set looking as much like a homeless bum as anyone else in Granada  No idea who took them. No doubt I had a bottle of booze close by also!


e2a; Ha ha! Found it and fuck it's a bad photograph. Nice shiney baldy head. I'm going to sue the fucker for mis-representation. Early morning in Bib-Rambla in winter. Freshly shaven head 

I've just found lots of shots of mates also. This is a laugh.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 6, 2008)

Can't see it anywhere else in the thread, so...

What's the difference between taking shots of homeless people for personal gain without their permission and taking shots of homed people without their permission for personal gain?



I just went out sketching in Plaza Nueva and as usual, a couple of dicks in poncey 'camera jackets' with zoom lenses just clicked away without as much as an 'hello'. It is really fucking annoying sometimes. Then at other times it's just all part of the job.


----------

