Photographing homeless people - OK or not?

[SCraig]

OP asked for the moral point of view. Just gave mine. sorry if it goes against the grain.

It doesn't go against the grain with me. I happen to agree with it.

IMO people have an intrinsic right to privacy. Doesn't matter if they are in a public place or not, they still have a right to a certain amount of privacy in my opinion. In the case of homeless people where else are they going to go? Their home is the street and they have no place that is private.

I personally don't photograph people on the street unless it is at an event where they would expect to be photographed. Costume events such as a Renaissance Festival or a Zombie Walk or things like that come to mind, and these are the only places I photograph people. My rules for my personal behavior. Your rules may vary.

 

[gsgary]

do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.

Youn would be really pissed if i lived in Eustis Florida, if they are in public they are fair game, so to your questions my answers are NO, NO, NO

 

[gsgary]

do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.

Well duh......

That is photography.

YOU and YOUR FAMILY are on video wherever you go 24/7 complain to the CCTV police and others.

THEY do NOT ask and you have NO choice

but they arent put up on display asking for C&C. if you dont understand the difference between security cameras and photographers..i really dont have the time nor the inclination to explain it if you really believe they are the same thing.
the intent is the difference.

This really upset me when someone posted a photo of my dog
Gallery - Category: 23/09/2012 - Hathersage - Image: 23-09-2012 - Hathersage_22

 

[pixmedic]

do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.

Youn would be really pissed if i lived in Eustis Florida, if they are in public they are fair game, so to your questions my answers are NO, NO, NO

so you are saying you would deliberately take pictures of me and my family, even knowing that we did not wish it just because you have the legal ability to do so? you would not stop if we asked? or perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning of me being pissed if you lived here? please elaborate. I personally disagree with your stance on this issue, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

 

[gsgary]

OP asked for the moral point of view. Just gave mine. sorry if it goes against the grain.

You're certainly entitled to your views on the subject. I just don't understand what the big deal is.. not just from your comments, but generally speaking to anyone with similar thoughts. What's the big fear?

it isnt necessarily about fear.. although that might be an issue for some. for me, it is about respect. why would you feel the need to photograph someone else that has no desire to be photographed? or that you dont even KNOW if they do or not? just because you legally can? Is the justification only that they are outside in public so its ok? that is entirely self serving using someone else that gains no benefit from their unwilling participation.

I just personally need a little more than that before I am willing to start taking photos of people that are unaware of it. that's just me personally.
obviously there is no legal issues with it so...from that aspect, shoot away. i am only speaking to my own personal feelings on the matter...which is what the OP asked for.

Have you ever studied Garry Winogrand or Joel Meyerowicz photos ? they are not just photos they are art

 

[gsgary]

do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.

Youn would be really pissed if i lived in Eustis Florida, if they are in public they are fair game, so to your questions my answers are NO, NO, NO

so you are saying you would deliberately take pictures of me and my family, even knowing that we did not wish it just because you have the legal ability to do so? you would not stop if we asked? or perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning of me being pissed if you lived here? please elaborate. I personally disagree with your stance on this issue, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

Yes if you were doing something that made an interesting photo

 

[pixmedic]

Youn would be really pissed if i lived in Eustis Florida, if they are in public they are fair game, so to your questions my answers are NO, NO, NO

so you are saying you would deliberately take pictures of me and my family, even knowing that we did not wish it just because you have the legal ability to do so? you would not stop if we asked? or perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning of me being pissed if you lived here? please elaborate. I personally disagree with your stance on this issue, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

Yes if you were doing something that made an interesting photo

i have to say..that honestly saddens me. I could not imagine making someone uncomfortable, or frightened, or upset with me photographing them or their children after they asked me to stop, simply for my sole benefit. legal or not. Chivalry and Honor are indeed lost. but I suppose as long as you get your "interesting photo", its OK.

 

[gsgary]

so you are saying you would deliberately take pictures of me and my family, even knowing that we did not wish it just because you have the legal ability to do so? you would not stop if we asked? or perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning of me being pissed if you lived here? please elaborate. I personally disagree with your stance on this issue, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

Yes if you were doing something that made an interesting photo

i have to say..that honestly saddens me. I could not imagine making someone uncomfortable, or frightened, or upset with me photographing them or their children after they asked me to stop, simply for my sole benefit. legal or not. Chivalry and Honor are indeed lost. but I suppose as long as you get your "interesting photo", its OK.

You would not be uncomfortable because you wouldn't even know i had taken your photo camera is set so i dont have to focus i just aim shoot and i'm gone

 

[pixmedic]

Yes if you were doing something that made an interesting photo

i have to say..that honestly saddens me. I could not imagine making someone uncomfortable, or frightened, or upset with me photographing them or their children after they asked me to stop, simply for my sole benefit. legal or not. Chivalry and Honor are indeed lost. but I suppose as long as you get your "interesting photo", its OK.

You would not be uncomfortable because you wouldn't even know i had taken your photo camera is set so i dont have to focus i just aim shoot and i'm gone

the second part of my question asked if you would stop if we asked. your reply to the entire statement was no, so I assumed you meant that for both parts. everyone thinks they are a ninja photographer. doesn't always work out. If you are batting 1000, the my most sincerest Kudos, but its irrelevant since its "legal" to do so. I guess im just too old and set in my ways to get over respecting even the feelings I only perceive people to have.
I wonder if the OP has gleaned ANYTHING useful from this thread thus far.

 

[Ilovemycam]

do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.

Youn would be really pissed if i lived in Eustis Florida, if they are in public they are fair game, so to your questions my answers are NO, NO, NO

so you are saying you would deliberately take pictures of me and my family, even knowing that we did not wish it just because you have the legal ability to do so? you would not stop if we asked? or perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning of me being pissed if you lived here? please elaborate. I personally disagree with your stance on this issue, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

I think the vast, vast amount of photogs would respect someones wishes to not be photogrpahed. Now, if your a movie star and they are the parasite photogs that chase them, then it may be different.

I got the idea for this poll from another photog. He said the first rule of street photography was not to shoot the homeless. I had never heard of that rule before. So I brought it up here. Never really gave the homeless debate any thought before I read his "rule"

 

[bhop]

...
I got the idea for this poll from another photog. He said the first rule of street photography was not to shoot the homeless. I had never heard of that rule before. So I brought it up here. Never really gave the homeless debate any thought before I read his "rule"

I'm going out on a limb, but I think that guy probably said that because a lot of newbie street photographers think that shooting pics of any random homeless person instantly makes it a good "street" photo, so much to the point that it's one of the most tired, clichéd things about street photography.

 

[pixmedic]

...
I got the idea for this poll from another photog. He said the first rule of street photography was not to shoot the homeless. I had never heard of that rule before. So I brought it up here. Never really gave the homeless debate any thought before I read his "rule"

I'm going out on a limb, but I think that guy probably said that because a lot of newbie street photographers think that shooting pics of any random homeless person instantly makes it a good "street" photo, so much to the point that it's one of the most tired, clichéd things about street photography.

totally agree with that assessment.

 

[KmH]

Now making money off the photo's you take of them is a different story.

Oh! What's the different story?

 

[unpopular]

It really depends. I think if you are photographing a person who is homeless, that is fine. If you are photographing the homeless as a whole through a person, that isn't. I think the important thing to remember is that these are individuals who, for whatever reason, lead a life which deviates from societal norms. No individual should ever be used to illustrate or represent their social class.

No person is "the homeless".

 

[gsgary]

Winogrand, Garry

Just scroll down 10th photo on left, from the greatest street photographer (probably WW2 vet)