Cannon: A Story of Homelessness in Washington, D.C.

[SCraig]

Actuality this is total BS rationalization so that you can exploit people and use their suffering to get clicks.
If you were saying something new or novel, then maybe. But there have been thousands of ''stories" like this.
AFAIC, to take pictures of the homeless, without a new, real purpose, is exploitation.
The fact that you can get a decent picture is irrelevant.
You're not showing anything that we haven't seen before.

Work harder and don't use other peoples' suffering as a boost.

Well said, Lew. I agree completely and it's the primary reason I dislike most so-called "Photo Journalism".

 

[R3d]

No, it's not a BS rationalization. I'm not just talking about what I've posted here, I'm talking about photojournalism. By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo. That's such a cop out. The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time. What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone. He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.

 

[amolitor]

Deceived him, no. Used him, yes, of course you have.

One minor point: jiggling the camera around during a long exposure to create a sensation of coldness isn't photojournalism, not even close. If, as a journalist, you want to express the idea of coldness, you need to find a different approach. You have a basic problem with this series, quite apart from problems with taking pictures of homeless people, which is that you're not sure if you want to make Art or Photojournalism, so we get a bit of both, to the benefit of neither.

 

[Rags]

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I've been to a lot of places where the people I've shoot are less fortunate than me, by far.

I'm just taking pictures and those pictures are not commercial, so perhaps exploit is too strong a word.

There is a bunch of shots taken in the depression (dust bowl) by a federal photog, if this morality was imposed then, we wouldn't have the historical context of these strong images.

I used to think all homeless people wanted a home; that's not true in our area (San Francisco). It's been proven that some just like to live outside. Just sayin'

Rags

 

[kathyt]

What is Cannon?

What is Cannon?

An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much. It's also an old TV Show - lol

It's also a bath towel company.

I learn something new every day.

 

[amolitor]

The FSA/OWI archive is a deeply important artifact, but the making of it was extremely problematic. I'm glad we have it, but the making of it wasn't a particularly moral exercise. Photojournalism is likewise problematic as it is usually conducted, and certainly much more complicated and morally grey than the News Business pretends. These are probably mostly outside the scope of this thread, but if someone wants to talk about it, a new thread in, say, Photographic Discussions, might be a good start.

 

[Rags]

The FSA/OWI archive is a deeply important artifact, but the making of it was extremely problematic. I'm glad we have it, but the making of it wasn't a particularly moral exercise. Photojournalism is likewise problematic as it is usually conducted, and certainly much more complicated and morally grey than the News Business pretends. These are probably mostly outside the scope of this thread, but if someone wants to talk about it, a new thread in, say, Photographic Discussions, might be a good start.

Fair enough. But I wouldn't recommend it, opposite polarities would just create arguments and things said that can't be reversed

Personally, I was never good at PC.

Rags

 

[mohammad.ammar]

second and third are great .

 

[The_Traveler]

, I'm talking about photojournalism. By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo. That's such a cop out. The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time. What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone. He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
It is a balance.
You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'

I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.

I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.

 

[JerryVenz]

, I'm talking about photojournalism. By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo. That's such a cop out. The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time. What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone. He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
It is a balance.
You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'

I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.

I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.

Lew, good point using the wedding analogy. Having done weddings for over 25-years, I agree. I've had to restrain my camera many times--these things just want to record everything, useful or not!

 

[robbins.photo]

, I'm talking about photojournalism. By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo. That's such a cop out. The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time. What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone. He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
It is a balance.
You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'

I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.

I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.

Egads Lew. I agree with you. Not just in principle or in part but.. like.. wholeheartedly. OH Crap.

Somebody grab a copy of the Book of Revelations.. quick! This has got to be a sign of a seal breaking.. coming apocalypse ... or something..

 

[kathyt]

, I'm talking about photojournalism. By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo. That's such a cop out. The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time. What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone. He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
It is a balance.
You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'

I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.

I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.

You can post that image here Lew. We won't say anything or laugh.

 

[Rags]

, I'm talking about photojournalism. By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo. That's such a cop out. The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time. What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone. He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
It is a balance.
You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'

I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.

I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.

You can post that image here Lew. We won't say anything or laugh.

Uh...Oh...... bad Kathy... bad girl....


Rags

 

[robbins.photo]

Uh...Oh...... bad Kathy... bad girl....


Rags

Which is exactly why we love her so.. lol

 

[LShooter]

Search under my posts for my Street Photos. I like your ideas and photos. But, to really get the feel of street people, you need to talk with them, get their story and photo them looking right at you when you can. Keep it real. Out.