To all aspiring street photographers

[Phoenix]

I came across this article today. Because of my preferred genre I used to hang around people who take these kind of shots and this is something I have always felt but never voiced out. I ended up distancing myself for them as I did not want to be accused of “not being able to see their vision”. I guess to me I rather be a decent person and a horrible photographer rather than be a decent photographer and a horrible person.

I guess this is why I never really branded myself as a street photographer, I love taking reportage style photos but I prefer to be a spectator and participant rather than a voyeur.

 

[Luke]

I have some complex feelings about most of what this post is about. None of it is concrete and ALL of it is specificly photo dependent. And my bullet points are not in any order.

1. In general, Most photos of homeless people are pointless.
2. More specificly, most photos of SLEEPING homeless people are even more pointless (unless the context really makes the image stand out).
3. a lot (maybe MOST, but I'm trying to be generous) of modern street photography is pointless and probably photographically purile. (And I know the same can be said of "sunset photos" or "flower" photos or any subset of photos that people can pile up against. But people hate these kinds of photos for a good reason. There's TONS of bad flower photos.....and there's tons of bad street photos. The fact that street photography is seen more often in museums or is more often shot spontaneously does not give more credit to the whole genre. Bad "street" is bad photography.
4. I have also seen breathtaking, heartbreakingly beautiful (or sad) photos that include members of the homeless community. No subject should automatically be thrown out (should we ignore Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" as cliche....oh , just another down on her luck mother who can't feed her children)
5. My heart bleeds for the poor effing editor who needs to sort through all those mediocre photos of homeless people. At least that scrub has a place to sleep every night (and what IS his talent anyways?)
6. There's probably more, but I'm tired and a little bit drunk. I don't seek out photo opportunities of passed out homeless. But I wouldn't skip a great shot because some clown on Vice is tired of it.
7. We should ALL try harder to only share GREAT photos, but then I might only share one or two a year (or more likely NONE).

 

[Ray Sachs]

There's no one size fits all for any type of photography. My feeling tends to be that almost everyone you see on the street is a reasonable subject for street photography. I mostly avoid shooting homeless folks when they're sleeping or otherwise seem to be trying to carve out a little privacy. This is because most people you see on the street are in the public sphere but also HAVE a private sphere they can and do retreat to when they don't want to be in public. So when they're in public, I don't think twice most of the time about shooting them. But most homeless folks don't have that option, that private place to go, so they try to carve that out in a doorway, behind a wall or dumpster, or wherever. And if they're obviously trying to carve out some privacy, I generally respect that and avoid photographing them unless there's a tremendously compelling reason to do so - some sort of juxtaposition that makes a strong point about their circumstance or something. And most of these I ultimately don't see much in once I see it on the computer and end up trashing anyway. But every once in a great while, I'll get a keeper that way. And when homeless people are up and about and interacting with the environment, I don't have any compunction about including them in shots - I often probably don't even know when I'm doing it. It's only when someone is obviously homeless and trying to carve out some small amount of privacy in a very public place that I just won't shoot them.

But I don't want to get too high and mighty about this - there are other perfectly valid approaches. My friend Don (Streetshooter around here, but doesn't hang out around here anymore) shoots in Philly and shoots nearly every homeless person he sees. Sometimes artistically (because he sees almost everything artistically) and sometimes in a more straightforward documentary way, and he sends every photograph of a homeless person to the appropriate agencies and politicians at City Hall. He wants to keep hitting them over the head with the enormity of the issue and the serious conditions these people live through every day. I don't know if this approach is effective, but it's as valid a strategy as any, probably more than most, and I fully respect him for continuing to do it.

And, yes, as Luke says, most street photography is bad street photography and bad street photography is bad photography. And the internet is loaded with bad photography of all types. Most photography of ALL types is basically mediocre to bad - the standouts are few and far between in any genre in any form of art. But I don't think most of the photography, street and otherwise, that actually ends up in museums and most galleries is bad - most of those curators have reasonably discriminating eyes for what has some artistic merit and because they see so much they're pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff. And, sure, they see a lot more chaff than wheat, but they signed up for that job, so I don't feel sorry for them. None of which means we shouldn't all continue on our own personal journey's of shooting that which is of interest to us and try try try to get better at it and produce some that's occasionally good.

For me, that's often (far from exclusively, but often) street photography for one simple reason - I find people to overwhelmingly be the most beautiful and interesting subjects to photograph, sometimes grotesquely beautiful, but beautiful nonetheless. There's potential beauty in the image making process no matter what you shoot, but I find more beauty in people and our interactions and struggles and basic humanity than I do in the average flower or butterfly or landscape or building (although I shoot those too, maybe not any butterflies - I don't think I've EVER shot a butterfly!). I also find people out in the environment (the street) the most challenging subject to shoot well, which is part of why so much street photography is bad and many like Luke develop a visceral dislike for the genre. But that's no reason not to keep trying - just the opposite in my eyes. If we just do stuff that's easy, we'll never get better at anything and we'll probably get bored too. I've been an aspiring street photographer for a long time and will probably always be one. And when I'm gone, if I leave behind more than a small handful or so of street photographs that anyone else will ever want to see again (and that anyone probably just means the friends and family I leave behind) it'll be a lot. But I do it because I love doing it. And hopefully I suck less today than I did yesterday. That's just part of the journey and I don't feel bad for littering the world with street photography. I have to do it, I don't spend my time that way on a whim - I somehow NEED to do this. But nobody else has to waste their time looking at it if they don't want to. So nobody has to lose...

-Ray

 

[Lightmancer]

Interesting article, and the usual crop of jaw-droppingly broad-brush, pig-ignorant responses - I have tried to comment on one, but since I don't have an account with any of Facebook, Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail (nor would I if you paid me) I cannot do so.

Ray's post speaks volumes and largely sums up how I feel on the subject. Kudos to Don, too - I didn't know he does that.

I couldn't actually remember the last time I turned my camera on a homeless person; I had to check back in my files, and the answer was 12th December 2009:

Budapest Beggar par Lightmancer, on ipernity

Now, this is where it gets interesting. That was neigh on five years ago, taken in Budapest, on the bridge over the Danube. Let's ask some questions.

Was I wrong to take it then?
Would I take it again today?
Is it of documentary or artistic merit?
What does it "say"?
What does it say about me as a photographer?
What does it say about me as a photographer that I have not taken another similar shot for a lustrum?

Let me know what you think...

As to street photography itself, my own very personal view is that more than some other forms of the craft such as landscape or portraiture, it is as much about the act as the result. One can prowl the streets of a town or city all day and come away with the square root of buggerall photographically, but still have a sense of satisfaction. Furthermore, because less of what you shoot is under your control (essentially everything that occurs in front of your lens, if you are quick enough to catch it) it becomes more of a "mind game" and less of a process. Old HCB, when he used the term "pecheur d'images" to describe what he did, was spot-on - but the same term would not fit so comfortably for, say, Ansel Adams.

My entry to street photography was propelled by "Johnny Stiletto" - a nom-de-rue for a photographer who used to have a column in AP back in the 1980s. He was famed for shooting "a roll a day" with his trusty Olympus OM and 35mm lens. His book "Shots from the Hip" made me want to get out there and give it a try. It's out of print now, but can be picked up secondhand. Many of the same photos are in "Vintage 80's: London Street Photography" which is a vastly inferior, dumbed-down, politically correct re-hash of the earlier book. I would encourage anyone interested in the era or the subject to seek out a copy of the former.

Bringing this back to Fuji, in the X-Series they have brought to market "street machines" that, when combined with the 14, 23, 27 or 35mm lenses are almost as much of a pleasure to use when out and about as a Leica M or LTM for the purposes of urban imagery.

Enough talk, I must get out more (reaches for camera)

 

[Ray Sachs]

I went back through my Flickr stream to see if I still had ANY photos of obviously homeless people in it and this is the only one I found. Not sleeping, not seeking privacy in a corner somewhere, but still something deeply painful in the way this person is huddled in the dirty sleeping bag. And of course the nervous eye from the well dressed gal and the "dress for less" sign complete the scene as intended.

Dress for Less by ramboorider1, on Flickr

One that I had up for a long time, but had taken down in a large purge a couple of months ago is now going back up, because it's the ONE photo of a homeless person asleep in a doorway, trying for some privacy, that I actually like. And it's all in the context of the statue reaching out and beckoning to anyone to PLEASE take notice. In reality, he's beckoning to customers to come and enjoy the musical theater within, which evidently he's not too good at since the place just closed down after years of bankruptcy. But the juxtaposition, the unintended plea on the part of the statue works well enough for me to make this one a rare exception to my rule of not photographing homeless people trying to maintain a bit of privacy.

Prince Music Theater by ramboorider1, on Flickr

-Ray

 

[KillRamsey]

Both of those are complete, compelling pictures that communicate something. They happen to be street shots. There is ... such ... a difference between these and most of what gets posted and called "street."

 

[ChangshaNotes]

Maybe there is too much of it or maybe it can be considered lazy to shoot homeless people but they are part of what makes up the street. Should they be ignored?

I could only find one photo from the past year that involved a (maybe) homeless person. I don't consider myself a horrible person for taking the shot.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[MitchGtz]

I often carry pocket warmers that I buy in bulk at Costco and individually wrapped food items (cheese sticks) to give out. If you feel guilty about taking a photo, you can feel good by providing something in exchange afterwards. But be careful, some people are on the streets because of mental illness and aren't as predictable as you may think. Others are very thankful to receive something to eat.

 

[spinyman]

This picture is my best argument against this kind of generalization.Credit goes to Barro Talvez,an amateur photographer from Columbia.

Untitled by barro.talvez, on Flickr

 

[kevistopheles]

I went back and re-read the article and while it's not the most eloquent bit of writing I see the point. I think that a photographer that chooses to shoot on the street should try to be understanding of what it means to be homeless and what it means to be photographing these folks.

I find myself very conflicted about street photography in general. Where Ray finds people...

overwhelmingly be the most beautiful and interesting subjects to photograph

(and I can appreciate that), I don't find people to be all that interesting so I'm already predisposed to not want to take photos of any people. Each us has the thing that drives us to make images and for me people aint it. I also try never to lose sight of the fact that I live a privileged life and am EXTREMELY fortunate. I have a job, I have insurance, I eat regularly and have a warm place to sleep at night. I'm not alone and have a wife and son that love me. My cameras and lenses are worth three months of rent for a safe place for someone on the street to stay. Because of that I am not comfortable with taking shots of homeless people (where they are the subject of the shot). I feel by doing so it's an invasion of their privacy so I choose not to do it. I've also had a few good friends who have been homeless and I was very close myself at one point in my life.

Of course my choice to not photograph the homeless doesn't mean I think street photography is bad and I agree with the idea that this is not the kind of thing that can be approached with any sort of generalization. Good street shots can be compelling/moving and I find myself always appreciating the amazing work by skilled photographers like Ray, Don and Colin (sorry if I left anyone out). Just because I choose to shoot butterflies doesn't mean don't appreciate other kinds of work. I look at what Streetshooter is doing and think it's absolutely terrific. I think photography and activism can easily go hand in hand. My training is in environmental education and there are tons of great examples of photography making an impact on public policy. I think photography has a great ability to create change.

Ultimately however is one of those things that each of us has to wrestle with and come to our own decision on. That said, I don't like to have my photo taken and even less so when it's my young son and without permission.

 

[RT Panther]

IMHO,
I've seen only 2 street shooters that actually talk to the homeless, drug addicts, and prostitutes that they shoot. Each image of theirs is also accompanied with a short story about the subject of their shot....

Food for thought....

 

[RT Panther]

IMHO,
I've seen only 2 street shooters that actually talk to the homeless, drug addicts, and prostitutes that they shoot. Each image of theirs is also accompanied with a short story about the subject of their shot....

Food for thought....

Look at this person's images & read the description that accompanies each image...
-> Chris Arnade

 

[kevistopheles]

Those are powerful. That brings up a question in my mind however, are those street photography? They strike me as something all together different. Any street photographers want to weigh in? I ask because of my own ignorance on the matter.

 

[Ray Sachs]

Those are powerful. That brings up a question in my mind however, are those street photography? They strike me as something all together different. Any street photographers want to weigh in? I ask because of my own ignorance on the matter.

Street photography, like most things, can mean different things to different people. I think that's some powerful stuff, and I've seen other examples of it. But to me it's a different thing, at least totally different from what I try to do. Those folks are basically doing portraits of street people, survivors of obviously tough circumstances, as almost a public service, to give those subjects a sense of empowerment, to help tell their stories, and in some small way to let them know they matter and they're noticed. This is enormously admirable work and I have mad respect for those who do it. But my version of street photography (not my definition of it, just the slice of it I find myself actually doing) is more trying to be the observer of what's happening on the street, not primarily with people who are down and out, but sometimes they're included as well because they're in the urban mix. But I try very hard NOT to interact with my subjects or interfere with the human moments I'm trying to catch. I've made some photos I like a lot where I'm unintentionally very much a participant in the shot, but those just happened that way - it wasn't what I intended. And most of my more successful shots are moments unaffected by my my presence that I managed to document.

What those folks are doing is an entirely different thing than I do or most street photographers do, but I have no problem calling it street photography (or not - whatever they want to call it is fine by me) and, in any case, it's damn good and damned important work.

-Ray

 

[RT Panther]

Street Photographer = good?
Paparazzi = bad?

More food for thought....

 

[Ray Sachs]

Street Photographer = good?
Paparazzi = bad?

More food for thought....

If that's food for thought, it's not much of a meal or even a tiny snack IMHO, RT. Paparazzi stalk and hunt down very specific individuals who are under watch pretty much all the time and are largely deprived of any sort of normal public life by those photographers and their near constant presence. And it can play hell with their private lives too, if they happen to have an outdoor pool or someplace visible from a helicopter. OTOH major celebrities choose that life and pretty much know what they're getting into with the paparazzi, or should, and most learn to deal with them, some more effectively than others. Street photography at most catch a fleeting glance at someone in public, very rarely people who are widely known, and unless avid followers of street photography themselves, will probably never even know they were in a photograph. It doesn't deprive it's subjects of one iota of their private lives (though it can with the homeless, as discussed above) and it rarely disrupts their public lives at all. On the off chance they're aware of being photographed, it may affect their public lives for a moment or two, like about a thousand other things that happen when you're out on the streets of a city.

Except in the case of the rare "assault photographer" from the Bruce Gilden school who do seem to give people in public a brief glimpse of what it must be like to be followed by the paparazzi, so you can either look at that as a public educational service or as a momentary rudeness of rather high levels. VERY VERY few street photographers who I know or am aware of employ those techniques, but I'm aware of a few that do. But even at it's very worst, street photography is nothing more than a momentary annoyance in someone's life when they're out and about, among so many potential minor annoyances.

Not even remotely comparable IMHO.

-Ray

 

[RT Panther]

If that's food for thought, it's not much of a meal or even a tiny snack IMHO, RT. Paparazzi stalk and hunt down very specific individuals who are under watch pretty much all the time and are largely deprived of any sort of normal public life by those photographers and their near constant presence. And it can play hell with their private lives too, if they happen to have an outdoor pool or someplace visible from a helicopter. OTOH major celebrities choose that life and pretty much know what they're getting into with the paparazzi, or should, and most learn to deal with them, some more effectively than others. Street photography at most catch a fleeting glance at someone in public, very rarely people who are widely known, and unless avid followers of street photography themselves, will probably never even know they were in a photograph. It doesn't deprive it's subjects of one iota of their private lives (though it can with the homeless, as discussed above) and it rarely disrupts their public lives at all. On the off chance they're aware of being photographed, it may affect their public lives for a moment or two, like about a thousand other things that happen when you're out on the streets of a city.

Except in the case of the rare "assault photographer" from the Bruce Gilden school who do seem to give people in public a brief glimpse of what it must be like to be followed by the paparazzi, so you can either look at that as a public educational service or as a momentary rudeness of rather high levels. VERY VERY few street photographers who I know or am aware of employ those techniques, but I'm aware of a few that do. But even at it's very worst, street photography is nothing more than a momentary annoyance in someone's life when they're out and about, among so many potential minor annoyances.

Not even remotely comparable IMHO.

-Ray

Hey Ray...
So if I understand you correctly, you're essentially saying that the casual photographer who is not a photojournalist who sets out to shoot homeless individuals (who have no home, and thus by default, have no private life - therefore, the street is their private life) without even offering a meal, a bottle of water, or getting their story isn't even remotely comparable to a paparazzi?

 

[Ray Sachs]

Hey Ray...
So if I understand you correctly, you're essentially saying that the casual photographer who is not a photojournalist who sets out to shoot homeless individuals (who have no home, and thus by default, have no private life - therefore, the street is their private life) without even offering a meal, a bottle of water, or getting their story isn't even remotely comparable to a paparazzi?

No, if you read my first post in this thread, I laid out why I almost NEVER shoot homeless people when they're trying to hold onto some small bit of privacy, specifically for the reason you state. Because they DON'T have a private place to retreat to. I'm basically saying that there are rare exceptions to the rule, my only one so far being the one shown earlier here, of the guy sleeping near the statue of the well dressed guy beckoning for all to take notice. So I've developed my own philosophy about shooting homeless folks and it's generally NOT to do it when they're sleeping or huddled in a doorway or behind a wall or dumpster or something, but sometimes I will as part of a larger street scene, occasionally as social commentary when someone is begging for money and being roundly and obviously ignored by passersby. I generally do contribute to these folks, but not for the right of taking their photograph. But as I noted, if you look at my Flickr stream, there are TWO photos that include homeless people, and both are shown in this thread.

But for the sake of discussion, I still don't see anything in common with the paparazzi. The paparazzi is in it for money, is getting paid, often well, for those photos of specific celebrities, who they stalk pretty much constantly. Very very VERY damn few street photographers are making any money at it, maybe very rarely selling a print or two. And I've never heard of a street photographer stalking someone on the street and shooting them repeatedly to get just the right photo, which is what paparazzi do all the time. Street shooters are generally out observing life as it swirls among us and trying to grab the occasional moment in a frame that says SOMETHING about the human condition. And failing more often than not, I suspect even the best of us would say. Kind of like baseball, but with street shooting if you're batting .100 you're doing pretty well. I generally don't shoot homeless folks, but as has been argued pretty effectively in this thread I think, it's not a hard and fast rule - there are exceptions and times when I think it's OK. And I don't get to make the rules for anyone but myself. And I don't have any problem with people who DO choose to give money to, buy a meal for, or otherwise try to contribute to the well-being of a homeless person - quite the opposite. But I don't think that's particularly related to whether you include the occasional homeless person in a photograph.

I hope that clarifies my position. We're perhaps not as far apart as it initially seemed on when it is or isn't OK to include homeless folks in street photography. But I still don't see any valid comparison to paparazzi...

-Ray

 

[RT Panther]

No, if you read my first post in this thread, I laid out why I almost NEVER shoot homeless people when they're trying to hold onto some small bit of privacy, specifically for the reason you state. Because they DON'T have a private place to retreat to. I'm basically saying that there are rare exceptions to the rule, my only one so far being the one shown earlier here, of the guy sleeping near the statue of the well dressed guy beckoning for all to take notice. So I've developed my own philosophy about shooting homeless folks and it's generally NOT to do it when they're sleeping or huddled in a doorway or behind a wall or dumpster or something, but sometimes I will as part of a larger street scene, occasionally as social commentary when someone is begging for money and being roundly and obviously ignored by passersby. I generally do contribute to these folks, but not for the right of taking their photograph. But as I noted, if you look at my Flickr stream, there are TWO photos that include homeless people, and both are shown in this thread.

But for the sake of discussion, I still don't see anything in common with the paparazzi. The paparazzi is in it for money, is getting paid, often well, for those photos of specific celebrities, who they stalk pretty much constantly. Very very VERY damn few street photographers are making any money at it, maybe very rarely selling a print or two. And I've never heard of a street photographer stalking someone on the street and shooting them repeatedly to get just the right photo, which is what paparazzi do all the time. Street shooters are generally out observing life as it swirls among us and trying to grab the occasional moment in a frame that says SOMETHING about the human condition. And failing more often than not, I suspect even the best of us would say. Kind of like baseball, but with street shooting if you're batting .100 you're doing pretty well. I generally don't shoot homeless folks, but as has been argued pretty effectively in this thread I think, it's not a hard and fast rule - there are exceptions and times when I think it's OK. And I don't get to make the rules for anyone but myself. And I don't have any problem with people who DO choose to give money to, buy a meal for, or otherwise try to contribute to the well-being of a homeless person - quite the opposite. But I don't think that's particularly related to whether you include the occasional homeless person in a photograph.

I hope that clarifies my position. We're perhaps not as far apart as it initially seemed on when it is or isn't OK to include homeless folks in street photography. But I still don't see any valid comparison to paparazzi...

-Ray

On a bit of a side note,
There is at least one "Paparazzi" photographer that's a member in one of Amin's forums - however, I don't think that person will comment in this thread though.

That being said, I'm also a bit biased here (to which I admit). I'm a veteran (24yrs USAF) and in my area (lots of military bases), there are a number of homeless veterans. Many of them have some great stories behind their experiences.

Back on topic, my comments were not directed at you but rather the subject matter in general. I think that this is important in the greater context of every photographer is different from one another. Street photographers might not shoot an individual a number of times to get the right shot but will they shoot a number of homeless individuals to get the right shot? (Just posing the question..)

 

[Ray Sachs]

Back on topic, my comments were not directed at you but rather the subject matter in general. I think that this is important in the greater context of every photographer is different from one another. Street photographers might not shoot an individual a number of times to get the right shot but will they shoot a number of homeless individuals to get the right shot? (Just posing the question..)

Obviously, I can't speak for how anybody else shoots. It's possible that some street photographers specifically target homeless folks and shoot a number of them to get the right shot. I constantly observe a lot of people on the street looking for interactions, situations, expressions, gestures, whatever, that looks like it might say something in a photograph about that individual or that couple or the human condition in general. In some situations I specifically try to avoid shooting the homeless for reasons discussed previously. In other situations, if they're just among the swirl of people out on the sidewalks I don't specifically aim for them or aim to miss them - they're just like everyone else to me in those situations. But as you can see from my Flickr stream, the number of shots involving the homeless that actually make it that far is EXTREMELY limited.

To me, the whole exercise feels nothing like I envision the paparazzi shooting experience, where you're doing everything possible to get the payoff shot of a particular celebrity or celebrity couple or possibly celebrity event. You know WHO you want to shoot and what you're after. Any street photographer I've communicated with is looking at the whole area with radar attuned to as many people as you can take in waiting for someone or some group of people do do something interesting that might make for a photograph that says something, that tells a story. The people are the stars of the show, but you don't a have a clue who's gonna be in your next photo from shot to shot - they just present themselves. It's much more of a spontaneous sort of a thing and far less pre-meditated than it sounds like you're thinking of. At least, again, in my case. There are a lot of people out there shooting and I'm sure everyone approaches it a little bit (or a LOT) differently. So I can only really speak for myself...

-Ray