Photographing homeless people - OK or not?

[Mike_E]

It kind of depends on you.

Are you photographing them because they're homeless or are you photographing them because they are a part of an interesting scene? If the first then no, exploiting anyone is crass at best. If the second then why not? They are after all people too.

If they are the scene, iow the only reason for the shot then pay them like you would any other model.

 

[rambler]

Rather than trying to get some random shots on the side before sneaking away, engage the person in conversation, maybe explain the reasons for your interest in photographing them just as you might any other person. You might be amazed to find some very interesting characters which in turn might get you some even better photos than if you had been trying to photograph on the fly. Hey, you might even give them some entertainment or a chance for them to tell you their story. If your subject refuses or objects, have the respect and courtesy to move on.

 

[TonysTouch]

Take the photograph and if it turns out well, then go back and ask for their permission to use it. You could sweeten the deal by paying them for being a model or a give them a print.

If you are using the photo for profit, then you should compensate them. Many organizations will not buy/sell your photo without a model release form anyways.

and if somebody ever asks you to not take their photo, then be professional and don't do it.

 

[unpopular]

Take the photograph and if it turns out well, then go back and ask for their permission to use it. You could sweeten the deal by paying them for being a model or a give them a print.

I think this is essentially bribery, taking advantage of their economic status or substance abuse problems. I am very against this. If the only way you can justify taking photos of the homeless is by paying them off, then the project is probably not socially responsible.

 

[pixmedic]

People have to ask why they are photographing someone. Are they photographing for the subjects benefit? Or for their own? Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?

 

[Ysarex]

Winogrand, Garry

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

An activity is not automatically validated because someone famous did it or became famous doing it.

Joe

 

[TonysTouch]

I only post photos of my work if the subject has been compensated. Note that the first section only applies to photos you are not making a profit off of. You don't legally need someone's permission to take a photo. But if you do compensate them, I'm sure they will be more likely to allow you to photograph them.

It is no different than a painter paying someone so they can use them to practice their technique. They don't have to, but it makes for a good gesture.

 

[TonysTouch]

Winogrand, Garry

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

An activity is not automatically validated because someone famous did it or became famous doing it.

Joe

Like coke.

 

[gsgary]

People have to ask why they are photographing someone. Are they photographing for the subjects benefit? Or for their own? Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?

We might as well give up on photography then, i expect there are hundreds of photographer walking round New York looking for stories of peoples misery

 

[Ysarex]

I have spent many years photographing the homeless so I speak from experience. I've devoted a lot of time to thinking and reading about this question. A number of folks above hit on some of the key points.

First you have to examine your motivation. Why do you want to do it? Photographing people is arguably our most consistent activity as photographers -- we are our most interesting subjects. So there's legitimate reason to turn the camera on each other. Candid street photography in public is a standing tradition and I think an acceptable practice if done with discretion (if you can get a shot of Paul Ryan picking his nose great! but no need to do that to a stranger). However the homeless are a special case. When we photograph those among us who are living in misery and misfortune, even physically suffering, and we are not engaged in ending their plight it begs the question; what then is our relationship with them? All human beings have intrinsic dignity that can't be stripped from them, not even by self-abuse. Are you respecting that dignity? The photographer as voyeur is a long standing philosophical question. Susan Sontag addresses it well in On Photography.

If you head down to the seamy part of town armed with a telephoto lens and you're careful to stay concealed in your activity as you hunt for the cart-pushing bag lady or the old man passed out with a 1/2 pint, you're probably being an exploitative paparazzi pig.

Do you know any homeless people? Have you ever spent any time with and talked with homeless people? If the answer is no, then go photograph people who aren't suffering.

When I photographed the homeless I spent time with them and I was otherwise engaged in helping them. I knew the people I photographed and typically they saw the photos when I saw them again. In the few instances that I was asked not to show a photo by the individual depicted I destroyed the negative. You'll get much better photos of homeless people when they're your friends and then this question won't bother you.

Joe

 

[unpopular]

I only post photos of my work if the subject has been compensated. Note that the first section only applies to photos you are not making a profit off of. You don't legally need someone's permission to take a photo. But if you do compensate them, I'm sure they will be more likely to allow you to photograph them.

It is no different than a painter paying someone so they can use them to practice their technique. They don't have to, but it makes for a good gesture.

I suppose if you have a general policy of paying human subjects, there isn't anything wrong with it. It just sounded like you'd only pay off homeless people.

Still, it's going to be very difficult for a homeless person to pass up a few bucks. Little things like hamburgers and french fries become sorely missed after week on end eating crappy goulash at the Mission (trust me, as well intentioned as they are, Christian missionaries can't cook), and for a drug addict it is going to be literally impossible.

I guess what I'm saying is you're putting people in a tough position, and they may be inclined to accept payment even if they wouldn't be willing in a different situation.

 

[unpopular]

If you head down to the seamy part of town armed with a telephoto lens and you're careful to stay concealed in your activity as you hunt for the cart-pushing bag lady or the old man passed out with a 1/2 pint, you're probably being an exploitative paparazzi pig.

Do you know any homeless people? Have you ever spent any time with and talked with homeless people? If the answer is no, then go photograph people who aren't suffering.

Yes! Yes! Yes! And as anyone can see, the quality of work improves considerably.

 

[SCraig]

People have to ask why they are photographing someone. Are they photographing for the subjects benefit? Or for their own? Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?

We might as well give up on photography then, i expect there are hundreds of photographer walking round New York looking for stories of peoples misery

Yeah, much like the vultures that were running up to people getting out of the World Trade Center and sticking cameras and microphones in their faces. The ultimate in bad taste journalism in my opinion. Overly distraught people worried about themselves, their friends, their families, and these so-called "Journalists" wanting to get "Their Story". Absolutely disgusting.

 

[pixmedic]

People have to ask why they are photographing someone. Are they photographing for the subjects benefit? Or for their own? Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?

We might as well give up on photography then, i expect there are hundreds of photographer walking round New York looking for stories of peoples misery

just because a lot of people are doing it, does not make it morally right. it could be thousands of photographers walking around trying to benefit from the misery of others misfortunes, and i would still find all of them equally morally bankrupt.

 

[gsgary]

People have to ask why they are photographing someone. Are they photographing for the subjects benefit? Or for their own? Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?

We might as well give up on photography then, i expect there are hundreds of photographer walking round New York looking for stories of peoples misery

Yeah, much like the vultures that were running up to people getting out of the World Trade Center and sticking cameras and microphones in their faces. The ultimate in bad taste journalism in my opinion. Overly distraught people worried about themselves, their friends, their families, and these so-called "Journalists" wanting to get "Their Story". Absolutely disgusting.

And if they don't there will be no record for the future, in years to come there is going to be a massive hole in our social history due to digital photography because most never make prints