Street Photography: What dont you take photos of?

[Bob Carnie]

Originally Posted by Andy K

Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation.

I Agree with Andy, it is too easy and takes little effort.

[Daniel_OB]

Andy
"Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation."

Photojornalist do not do it. Art directors and editors make that sh*t contextualizing pictures. Photjournalist is just a pinion that gears to what is "ordered". He can do what he want but it is not magazines want, but if editor want it he (pj) again made what is ordered.

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by Andy K

Because unless it is done to aid the homeless and disenfranchised, or as a photojournalist to highlight their plight, it can be seen as exploitation.

And the point is??? I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US, once you walk out the door to your house or office into public space, the only protection one has is against unwarranted search or seizure. I suppose that those who dont want to show their faces or social status should wear a burka

There is no right or expectation to "privacy" once in public. Likely, there are certain considerations. Let's say I photograph you taking a dump behind a bush. A minor embarassment for sure, but as long as I dont sell it or post it on the internet, I really do not have to worry about getting a release from you. On the other hand, if you take a dump in the middle of a crowd, that might be considered by some "news", and by virtue of the fact you are in a crowd a release is not necessary.

Homeless or not, it boils down to the simple fact that taking a public photo of anyone might be considered by our post-modernist or marxist friends as exploitation; what difference does it make?

[unregistered]

What I dont you take photos of in street photography is naked people.

Mostly because there are none.

[firecracker]

Originally Posted by Alexis Neel

What I dont you take photos of in street photography is naked people.

Mostly because there are none.

Really? A friend of mine was once approached by some lady (or a lady-looking guy is what I think) in the street in South Philly. She asked him to take pictures of her, and they went into the alley. Then she started to undress in front of him, and he snapped a few photos of her naked.

There are opportunities like that.

[Roger Krueger]

I don't shoot the homeless mostly because it's a cliche. But exploitation? So what? Some schmuck with a camera is about 532nd on the list of people they should be aggrieved with.

The most powerful, haunting picture I can think of is Winogrand's shot of the legless vet. I don't think I've got enough sociopath in me to take that kind of shot, but I envy those who do.

Not, however, that I'd likely want someone like that as a neighbor or friend. Many talented folks you really don't want to get too close to--just saw "Tom and Viv" the other night about how T.S. Eliot dumped his wife in an asylum and ignored her for the rest of her life, living off her inheritance. Even when menopause cured her hormone-imbalance-related problems, no one was interested enough to get her out.

[unregistered]

Originally Posted by firecracker

Really? A friend of mine was once approached by some lady (or a lady-looking guy is what I think) in the street in South Philly. She asked him to take pictures of her, and they went into the alley. Then she started to undress in front of him, and he snapped a few photos of her naked.

There are opportunities like that.

Guess I need to move to Philly.

[joneil]

a couple of meandering thoughts, in no particular order..

1) There is a homeless daytime drop in shelter right across the street from my house. Seriously - right across the street. Anyhow, when and if they sit on my property, I feel I have the right to take their picture - but seldom do.

2) IN addition to the shelter across the street from my house, theres is also a meth clinic, a second daytime homeless drop in shelter exactly one block due north of my house, a youth jail on the same block I am on, a mens homeless mission (for overnight stays) two blocks west, another two blocks west past that a Salvation Army homeless shelter, the police station is across the street to the east (same block the one homeless shelter is on), - well, you get the point, there's a few other social agencies that have stores and other such places in my immediate vincinity.

My point is - try and take a local picture in my neighborhood and NOT get the homeless in it. Heck, I've even taken family snaps of the kids in the side yard, and inadvertently gotten the homeless in the background, walking down the sidewalk in front of my house.

..and you guys are all debating the ethics of shooting the homeless.. Grrr. if I sound angry - I am. At least you people have the choice to do it or not.

3) as per above, I make a point of NOT shooting the homeless when away from home, or travelling. One exception in the past however. I was shooting in Key West once, and a homeless guy came up to me, and offered to let me shot him for a day, if I bought him a beer. But, if I wanted to shoot him the next day, it cost another beer. The day was hotter then hell, and i kinda liked the guy - being up front and all. So I gave him beer money,a nd had a nice chat with home. A lot of homeless people know the streets very well, and can be an amazing source of information for many different topics.

Well, last point on the soapbox for now.

I guess my point is, maybe you all should be grateful that you have the choice to begin with. Kinda like the debates you see pop up here and on other photo boards and mailing lists about B&W vs colour. I'm colour blind, so I cannot shoot colour anymore than a guy in a wheelchair can do a Stairmaster. Maybe instead of debating ad nauseum which is the right choice, occasionally take a deep breath, step back, and thank whomever you hold responsible that you have the ability to make a choice to begin with. It makes you see the world in a different light when you do that. That kind of outlook on life might even improve your photography a wee bit, regardless of medium.

have a good one everyone

joe

[bjorke]

Just one more comment

Thinking about how you will not take pictures doesn't sound like a very productive way to find and make The Good Pictures. Sounds like the same old "confirm and conform" to me.

Rule of thirds, anyone?

kb

[Troy]

Originally Posted by bjorke

Just one more comment

Thinking about how you will not take pictures doesn't sound like a very productive way to find and make The Good Pictures. Sounds like the same old "confirm and conform" to me.

Rule of thirds, anyone?

kb

I agree. There's nothing I wouldn't shoot if I thought it was interesting and I could get away with it. If you're street shooting and editing in your head before you even attempt a picture you're really limiting yourself. It's what happens to the picture later that's important.

Think of all the great pictures from the last 100 years of photojournalism. Almost all of them are hard to look at because there's someone in distress in them, let alone just plain homeless or a child. Hell, HCB used to hide his camera under a hankie and sneak up on people. Doisneau's great pictures are almost all kids.

I know times are different, but don't give in to the pervs. Let the world know photography is not a crime. Stand up for yourself and your art. Incidently, most kids who are abused are abused by someone they know, not strangers with cameras.

Goethe said something like, "Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid."