Photographing the Homeless. What's Your Ethics On this?

Too many Jesuses around here, and deeply invested people, probably due to them being ex-homeless, which is sad. But a reality.
Poisson, do you spend your time giving money and helping the homeless? Do you go and give your credit card to a homeless "here you go, man. Have fun"? Really, really? And why are you so against people taking their picture? What's the big deal, except the fact that you were once a homeless and heavily biased?

I don't want to sound like a a-hole but really, why should i go out of my way caring for them? I give them a buck when i feel like it and, although I never take their picture, I won't feel bad if I had a sudden urge to shoot 10,000 shots tomorrow morning. Who cares.

NB23 said:

Too many Jesuses around here, and deeply invested people, probably due to them being ex-homeless, which is sad. But a reality.
Poisson, do you spend your time giving money and helping the homeless? Do you go and give your credit card to a homeless "here you go, man. Have fun"? Really, really? And why are you so against people taking their picture? What's the big deal, except the fact that you were once a homeless and heavily biased?

I don't want to sound like a a-hole but really, why should i go out of my way caring for them? I give them a buck when i feel like it and, although I never take their picture, I won't feel bad if I had a sudden urge to shoot 10,000 shots tomorrow morning. Who cares.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not someone is or was homeless, why would that somehow disqualify them from having an opinion of value on this subject? If anything, it is THEIR voice I would want to listen to more than anyone else's as to the ethics of this.

As to the question "who cares?" - how would you feel if you were photographed for the amusement of others while you were suffering - physically and/or mentally ill, underfed, dirty because you didn't have somewhere to go to wash, wearing ragged clothes because you couldn't afford newer. If I were sick, even just garden-variety ill with the flu in the safety and comfort of my own home, I wouldn't want strangers coming around poking camera lenses in my windows to take pictures of me in my bathrobe with a snotty nose, bleary eyes and three days' stubble.

I'm not saying it is impossible to photograph the homeless or that it should NEVER be done under any circumstance. But it is damn hard, and should not be undertaken casually. Either that, or be prepared to own the 'asshole' label, as it will be well deserved.

And you, flyingcamera, do you go out of your way to save them from the street?

NB23 said:

Too many Jesuses around here, and deeply invested people, probably due to them being ex-homeless, which is sad. But a reality.
Poisson, do you spend your time giving money and helping the homeless? Do you go and give your credit card to a homeless "here you go, man. Have fun"? Really, really? And why are you so against people taking their picture? What's the big deal, except the fact that you were once a homeless and heavily biased?

I don't want to sound like a a-hole but really, why should i go out of my way caring for them? I give them a buck when i feel like it and, although I never take their picture, I won't feel bad if I had a sudden urge to shoot 10,000 shots tomorrow morning. Who cares.

Click to expand...

Why would I care what you say with a bellicose attitude of "so what!" like that?
And who are you to judge what people here may be doing for the homeless, other than speculate? Do you know, at all? No you don't.
For the record, this family has a long history of providing help in a voluntary capacity to organisations that need it. Last Christmas my sister prepared 42 Christmas lunches in advance for the Salvation Army in our town, specifically for the homeless and low-income people. For a small seaside town, that is a large number of homeless people, but the Big Smoke, Melbourne, has more than 500. The Major only knows us by name and where we live; he does not know I am a photographer, or my sister a craftsperson, because neither is relevant. I have also volunteered with the Salvation Army Outreach Service providing sessions of companionship for both homeless and older people here in my home town, but as far back as 2000 when I was living in a more isolated country location.

The suburb where I reside is comprised of a mix of old money and families of high net worth in money terms. But this family is not so much wealthy as enriched by a conscience to provide help to the less fortunate and capable of society. Unlike some, we don't keep our noses high in the air as we pass by.

Now you know how I care. Now step up to the plate and tell us all what you have done!

And you, flyingcamera, do you go out of your way to save them from the street? What are you doing that's so great to help them out?
Not taking their picture is not hellong them out, either.

To me, shooting them or not shooting them all comes down to the same. One is not better then the other in reality. There's absolutely no good deed in not pointing a camera at them.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Why would I care what you say with a bellicose attitude of "so what!" like that?
And who are you to judge what people here may be doing for the homeless, other than speculate? Do you know, at all? No you don't.

Click to expand...

Because, obviously, your arguments weren't strong enough to persuade me that NOT taking their picture would be a good deed.
Maybe you should try harder.

NB23 said:

Because, obviously, your arguments weren't strong enough to persuade me that NOT taking their picture would be a good deed.
Maybe you should try harder.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should just get a bit of maturity, hey?

eclarke said:

To me, it's like taking a picture of a burning building with occupants, and not helping instead.

Click to expand...

Id call the fire brigade and then take photos, helping invites problems and I've trained as a fire person.

Normally I give homeless people money.

NB23 said:

Because, obviously, your arguments weren't strong enough to persuade me that NOT taking their picture would be a good deed.
Maybe you should try harder.

Click to expand...

I reiterate what I said earlier. I think the photographs you posted are excellent and they do cause me to think about how I can in some way improve what I do for my less fortunate fellow humans. I'm not wealthy, and with work and school I usually pull 80-90 hour weeks. But I do volunteer to help feed those who starve. It's not something I bring up often, but I do it now for the sake of this discussion.

You have done no harm in taking their picture, in my opinion, but you DO gain something from taking that picture. What are you going to do to give something back? That's the big question. You don't have to save the world, but at least spare a thought and see if there's something you can do? I mean, what are you trying to accomplish with those photographs? Raise awareness? If so, I think you've already given back something. If it's just to make photographs I think karma might be slightly out of balance.

i see nothing wrong with the photographs you have posted in this thread, but i do have trouble with
using a camera to take portraits to mock people and be mean spirited.
life is hard enough.


we try to look out for the less fortunate too ...
regularly give food to the food bank ( local ) and give gift cards to people who are hungry.
and often give most of the proceeds of my photography print sales on imagekind.com
to organizations steeped in disaster relief ..

if asked by drs without borders oe the japan foundation or the salvation army
or the foodbank or great hour of sharing to photograph their good works
i would in a heartbeat as well ...
ive wanted to do more, but logistically its an impossibility atm

its too bad your comments are so hash nb, while i dont mind your photos you have posted
im offended by the way you defend your taking the photographs

NB23 said:

And you, flyingcamera, do you go out of your way to save them from the street? What are you doing that's so great to help them out?
Not taking their picture is not hellong them out, either.

To me, shooting them or not shooting them all comes down to the same. One is not better then the other in reality. There's absolutely no good deed in not pointing a camera at them.

Click to expand...

What do I do? At the moment I'm not doing much, but I have volunteered at soup kitchens, and when panhandled with requests for something other than money (or booze) I oblige. It's not easy to sustain a charitable attitude when working with (some) homeless people because they have mental issues that make them hard to work with. I've been asked for food before and literally seen the person throw it in the trash because it wasn't to their liking. On the other hand, I've been asked for toiletries (soap, shampoo, toothpaste) and walked right in to the CVS with the person and let him pick it out. But I'm not here to humblebrag about what I've done or not done. I was expressing my opinion on the original question of the ethics of photographing the homeless and why I held the opinion I do. I do think there is a good deed in not pointing the camera at someone homeless - the good deed is directed specifically at that individual by granting them some privacy they are otherwise lacking. Good deeds don't have to be obvious and they don't have to have a concrete outcome in order to be good.

Often i offered food to homeless people. 9 times out of of 10 they turned it down. They didn't want it. "Give me money".
I was shocked and mad at the fact that they'd use the money for booze. But then I realized how stupid my reaction was.

The reality is that they can drink Booze all they want. I'm not their mama, i'm not the moral police. And if I see another photographer on the street "taking advantage" of them by taking a few pictures of a poor homeless, I absolutely won't care. No one will care. Not even the homeless. In fact, I'm more concerned about even less trivial things in life, like, for example, the color of the shoes my wife is wearing today.

I can already imagine me and John Doe:

-John Doe "Hey NB23, look! Someone is taking photos of a homeless across the street! What is this sheet!? I wanna go teach a lesson to the photographer. I'm gonna go break his neck"

-NB23 "Relaaax man, So what, look at those beautiful shoes my wife is wearing. Are they sexy or what?"

Then he loaded his camera with the lousiest film ever, the polypan-F and developed it with the rodinal stand technique using Rodinal 1:100 and he got streaks all over the negatives.
I shot my wife's shoes with velvia film and took a shot at the homeless and gave him a buck so he could fund his next Jack Daniel's bottle.

That's pretty much the way the story would go in real life.

NB -

I don't know where you get this idea that there are (would-be) photo police out there looking to beat up photographers taking street shots of homeless people. Nobody here in this thread certainly has advocated such. The question posed was "is it ethical", to which a majority of the voices in the thread have said "I don't think so". But even the most stridently opposed have not said they would even contemplate physical opposition. To reiterate, IN MY OPINION, it is somewhere between tacky and unethical to randomly photograph the homeless "just because they'd make a good picture". If someone asks me my opinion, I'll tell them my opinion. They are free to listen to my opinion and do with it what they will, adopt it or ignore it.

TheFlyingCamera said:

They are free to listen to my opinion and do with it what they will, adopt it or ignore it.

Click to expand...

What you say is true. Instead of condemning the photographer, my attitude is that if I wouldn't have taken the picture for moral/ethical reasons, then I don't appreciate or admire it as someone else's work either. It goes into my ignore list. Nobody here was on a condemnation crusade. Just saying this thing doesn't work for them.

NB, no-one likes to suffer under generalisations if they are the exception. There are those homeless people who don't drink or do drugs, and don't want or deserve to be there. I should know, because my mother worked for 30 years as a social worker, and she has seen the best and the worst. If you haven't suffered like some have, don't be so quick to judge and generalise. As for giving food vs money, that is a universal issue, and nothing new. How to manage homelessness and poverty is a science of its own, and the reason why we have social workers etc. that are trained to deal with the many issues. There are many factors (substance abuse, low IQ, psychiatric problems, depression, plain poverty and unemployment etc.), and many cases are unique even though the lot seems hopelessly the same. On an individual level, every human being is entitled to at least a basic level of respect. We even afford that to criminals in jail, whether we like it or not. It is not what it means to them, but what it says about ourselves, that matters.

This is an interesting topic. A couple of years ago I was in one of my home towns, Cape Town. I was walking about taking some pictures and I felt tired of the typical sunset, beach, beautiful people motif. A guy with his face all cut up asked me for money and I dismissed him. I stopped 20 meters after the event and went back to him. I told him that I would give him money in exchange for his portrait. He was only too happy to oblige. While I was focusing and looking down the barrel of my RZ67, his friends appeared out of nowhere and started mugging me. I told them they could take all the money I had, but that I wanted their portraits in exchange. They obliged. They all lined up, ripped off their shirts and posed for me.

From that point on I began to see people on benches, under bushes or sleeping on the ground. All I saw were those people on the periphery of living, on the edge of life. I would strike up a conversation and offer to buy them lunch in exchange for a portrait. Some of them were happy to be seen, some of them just wanted to tell me their name. I have a series from this day out and I often go back out and see some of them. I now know their names and can strike up a chat.

I think they appreciated the time I spent listening to their stories. Some of them had marvelous stories to tell. I often wonder if I was taking advantage of them but then I think that intention counts. I was not stealing their portraits. I was not making any money from them, in fact I went to the ATM and probably made their day. I got their names and stories and they loved it. It made them feel seen but not in an embarrassing way. So many of them had so much pride left in them, real dignity even in the face of real adversity.

I then started developing an idea to create a body of work that might just be of some use and if it could generate any kind of value would be donated to the local shelter. I wanted to know where these people got food, shelter or a cup of tea. Some of them had pets and I found out of a vet who treated those people without homes' animals for free. I discovered that there are stories all around and that what we thought was the main focus can lead to something else.

It was a hugely humbling and valuable experience for me, one that left me feeling a lot of gratitude. I would like to share some of the pictures from this day.

This is the guy who mugged me. He has a blade concealed in his hand and the words "Your monther's **** " tattooed on his arm.


This is Zain. She was ravaged by alcohol and haunts me to this day.


This is Zain and Abubakkar. Abu was awesome. Before I took the picture he asked me to stop. He went riffling through his plastic bags and pulled out his hat. He brushed himself down, put his hat on and asked how he looked - 'beautiful' I told him.


This is Mohammad. He really made me work for this portrait. I spoke to him for about an hour. He is very learned and we discussed everything from Jesus to Mohammad. He comes from a long line of Cape Malays and was very proud to tell me of his heritage.


This band of merry pranksters also just about mugged me. I just emptied my pockets in exchange for their picture. They were having a great time drinking and laughing. In the center is Elizabeth. She came from a town far away and was blind in one eye. Her t-shirt reads " I only golf on days that end in 'Y' " Even though they were on the street and as free as can be, I thought the gate behind them was an excellent metaphor of the cage in which they are trapped.


These two Rastas who live on the mountain side were full of good vibes and actually stopped me for a picture when they saw me talking to Mohammad.


This guy came up behind me and offered me an Easter Egg. He lived in a local shelter.


I have so many more pictures from that day, which I consider myself blessed to have been part of. I don't feel I took advantage of anyone. I learned a lot that day.

Before he attained Nirvana and became Buddha, he was Prince Siddhartha.
A Prince whose father's court astrologers foretold, would either become a great King or a great Saint/sage.
Now no King would want a son to go become a saint, so he was ensconced within the walls of richness and care was ensured to see he would not see the sick, poor or the dying.
But, one day, he somehow got to go out without all the camouflage and got to see the poor, the old and the sick/dying. Following that he shock he left behind a lland kingdom to go meditate. And years later become the Buddha.

On a photographic forum, being told not to photograph the poor/sick/homeless, kind of reminded me of that.
Photographers have enough restrictions on what to photograph without fellow photographers adding to that list.

The consent logic or the 'you *have* to do something about it'
argument can be extended infinitely to cover everything around.
"the tree was soaking in the sun, listening to the birds chirping, its hairy, well leafy branches taking the fresh air as well and cooking and you disturbed it, in its own home! You didn't take it's consent, now *stop using paper*".
(or, "dont take baby pictures, so what if you're the parent, the baby cant yet consent to it!")

Let's not take ourselves so seriously.

---

To the OPs question

I personally really like taking candids but shy away if I think it's a private moment - 'really lost deep in thought', or crying silently etc., even if it probably makes for a good photograph.


I don't think it is 'necessary' to help. Even a conversation, treating them as people is okay. or just photographing is okay too.
Dont subscribe to the you *must* do this argument...


Sent from Tap-a-talk

analoguey said:

Before he attained Nirvana and became Buddha, he was Prince Siddhartha.
A Prince whose father's court astrologers foretold, would either become a great King or a great Saint/sage.
Now no King would want a son to go become a saint, so he was ensconced within the walls of richness and care was ensured to see he would not see the sick, poor or the dying.
But, one day, he somehow got to go out without all the camouflage and got to see the poor, the old and the sick/dying. Following that he shock he left behind a lland kingdom to go meditate. And years later become the Buddha.

On a photographic forum, being told not to photograph the poor/sick/homeless, kind of reminded me of that.
Photographers have enough restrictions on what to photograph without fellow photographers adding to that list.

The consent logic or the 'you *have* to do something about it'
argument can be extended infinitely to cover everything around.
"the tree was soaking in the sun, listening to the birds chirping, its hairy, well leafy branches taking the fresh air as well and cooking and you disturbed it, in its own home! You didn't take it's consent, now *stop using paper*".
(or, "dont take baby pictures, so what if you're the parent, the baby cant yet consent to it!")

Let's not take ourselves so seriously.

---

To the OPs question

I personally really like taking candids but shy away if I think it's a private moment - 'really lost deep in thought', or crying silently etc., even if it probably makes for a good photograph.


I don't think it is 'necessary' to help. Even a conversation, treating them as people is okay. or just photographing is okay too.
Dont subscribe to the you *must* do this argument...


Sent from Tap-a-talk

Click to expand...

I think you completely missed Buddha's point - not photographing someone is NOT not seeing them. Buddha would have wanted you to see them, experience compassion, and do something. The "do something" would be to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, treat them with dignity and respect. Photographing them at the moment of their least dignity is not feeding, clothing, sheltering or respecting them - it is in fact inviting others to ridicule and shame them, perpetuating their situation instead of alleviating it. But again, as has been said multiple times in this thread, that all depends on how you photograph them. And no, you can't extend the consent argument the way you suggest, either. A tree is non-sentient (that we know so far) so it does not have consent to give or withhold. A child, while not capable of giving informed consent from a legal standpoint, is capable of expressing a desire to be photographed or not, and that should be respected by people not in their family. And legally speaking in almost every country (if not actually every country) parents are considered able to consent or withhold consent for their children until the children reach the age of majority.

how do you feel about paparazzi photos then, of celebrities sunbathing in the nude, on their own lawn or inside their own homes? Is that fair and appropriate to take their picture in a situation where they had every expectation of privacy? What about if you and your spouse/significant other are having sex, inside your home, but didn't realize the curtains were open, and the horny teenager from across the street takes pictures of it, then passes them around to all their friends in your neighborhood? That, to me, is the moral equivalent of photographing a homeless person on the street who happens to be minding their own business, just because they happen to be 'picturesque' in the moment you observe them.

There isn't a need to personalise this. I have already my position on privacy clear, or didn't you notice?

1. No, it wasn't Buddha who didn't want to see, someone else restricted him from seeing what was real, and out in public space.

No one here's asking 'How about we take photos of the poor or homeless and make fun of them' so going ballistic about it and saying ' it's plain wrong to photograph the poor or homeless' is just not on. A lot of documentary evidence of how the poor live just wouldnt exist if people were forbade from photographing them.

Funny that you argue trees aren't sentient beings - and then use the legal consent requirement wrt children. This is hardly a 'legality' issue when discussing ethics.
If legality is required, then the whole ' dont shoot the homeless' argument is bunk as public spaces mean photography is legal, privacy isn't assured.

I reiterate, a photography community saying 'dont shoot' in a public space, reg something legal is well ironic, at best.


Sent from Tap-a-talk

If you think I'm going ballistic you're completely misreading me.

WRT children, of course parents should be able to take all the pictures of their children they want to. I, on the other hand, not being the parent of said child, should get permission from the parent. It's one reason why I don't photograph other peoples' kids in public - even though it is my right to do so if the child is doing something cute or photogenic, the potential hassle isn't worth it.

I still think you're completely missing the point about privacy and public spaces. Yes, there is no legal bar to photographing anyone doing anything on a public street (in the United States, that is... elsewhere your mileage may vary. Don't try and pull that stunt in Germany, for example). However, I am making an ethical distinction about photographing someone in public who effectively has no privacy. The comment about your personal privacy being invaded for photographic purposes was to try and drive home the notion that that is what is happening when you photograph the homeless. Why is there a problem with feeling empathy for someone in a desperate situation and showing them some compassion by NOT photographing them in a moment of weakness?

I'm making a distinction between a journalistic exercise and hobbyist photography. Journalism is about telling a story and communicating an idea or some larger truth. Hobbyist photography is taking pictures for the pleasure of the activity. If your purpose is journalistic, by all means take pictures of whatever needs to be photographed. But the original question was not "is it ethical to photograph the homeless for a journalistic purpose" but rather "is it ethical to photograph them just because".

I did see your comment about your personal ethics of when to shoot and not to shoot. I don't see how the position I'm advocating is incompatible - I'm just arguing for a broader definition of compassion.

TheFlyingCamera said:

If you think I'm going ballistic you're completely misreading me.

WRT children, of course parents should be able to take all the pictures of their children they want to. I, on the other hand, not being the parent of said child, should get permission from the parent. It's one reason why I don't photograph other peoples' kids in public - even though it is my right to do so if the child is doing something cute or photogenic, the potential hassle isn't worth it.

I still think you're completely missing the point about privacy and public spaces. Yes, there is no legal bar to photographing anyone doing anything on a public street (in the United States, that is... elsewhere your mileage may vary. Don't try and pull that stunt in Germany, for example). However, I am making an ethical distinction about photographing someone in public who effectively has no privacy. The comment about your personal privacy being invaded for photographic purposes was to try and drive home the notion that that is what is happening when you photograph the homeless. Why is there a problem with feeling empathy for someone in a desperate situation and showing them some compassion by NOT photographing them in a moment of weakness?

I'm making a distinction between a journalistic exercise and hobbyist photography. Journalism is about telling a story and communicating an idea or some larger truth. Hobbyist photography is taking pictures for the pleasure of the activity. If your purpose is journalistic, by all means take pictures of whatever needs to be photographed. But the original question was not "is it ethical to photograph the homeless for a journalistic purpose" but rather "is it ethical to photograph them just because".

I did see your comment about your personal ethics of when to shoot and not to shoot. I don't see how the position I'm advocating is incompatible - I'm just arguing for a broader definition of compassion.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Having met The Flying Camera a couple times I cannot envision him "Going Ballistic" over anything. You have that guy all wrong.

Whatever you think about the various opinions given in this thread, it seems to me that this is one of the most on topic threads I've seen for this "Ethics and Philosophy" sub-forum.

Yawn.
flyincamera, I would've bothered to really point how you keep shifting the goalposts when countered and respond to each of them, but too bored to do that, and APUGs more charming than that. At least, I think so.

I might just go out n shoot instead. Maybe see if I get some interesting ones like NB above.
Feel free to pontificate all you want.

Moving on.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

I don't see how I've been "shifting the goalposts". I've been very consistent, I think, in arguing that it is compassionate, and more ethical, to not photograph the homeless, for the sake of a "picturesque" photo. Have I articulated my philosophy in a single, indisputable post that crushes all opposition? No. This is the internet, and this is a discussion, not an essay edited and crafted for publication in the New York Review of Books, so it's not perfect. By all means, go take pictures. Photograph the homeless, if you want. Just think about how you would feel if the situation were reversed when you do. I know I wouldn't want strangers coming into my home to photograph me watching TV in my underwear on the couch, so I don't do the same to them. YMMV.

TheFlyingCamera said:

At this point in time, I'd say unless you have something utterly new to communicate, don't. It seems like virtually everyone at some point or another in their photographic journey (or at least one person in every Photo 101 class) has done a photo essay on the homeless

Click to expand...

This is my view.

As a genre, this is completely over-done. The likelihood of coming up with something new or interesting is virtually nil.

Edit: Ok, now I'm caught up on the thread, so here's an addendum. The Cape Town photos changed my mind. But they show the level it takes to get there. Maybe its that there are so many who think of this genre as an "easy" way to create "art". The bar is very, very high.