# For Some, Life is Tough



## Ricardodaforce (Sep 19, 2011)

Hay Que Tener Esperanza by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




Fast Food. No Food. by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




26 de Julio by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




Pidiendo Limosna by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr


----------



## StringThing (Sep 19, 2011)

These are compelling images, thanks for sharing these.  The first one really tells a story of despair.  I don't speak Spanish but can make out a few lines of the sign.  Sad.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 19, 2011)

While these are good pictures, there is a definite ethical issue about using the vulnerability and bad circumstances of others for impact in casual photography without bringing more to it than just another picture of a poor person.


I call it 'homeless porn'

Lew


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 19, 2011)

Photo three says alot, especially with the couple on the other side walking away, looking content with each other.  I find it to be a very strong image.


----------



## klbphotography (Sep 19, 2011)

I agree. It shows how some can be so happy together, while others an only worry about themselves


----------



## bobnr32 (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> While these are good pictures, there is a definite ethical issue about using the vulnerability and bad circumstances of others for impact in casual photography without bringing more to it than just another picture of a poor person.
> 
> 
> I call it 'homeless porn'
> ...



You read the title before you viewed the thread. Take some responsibility for your actions.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 20, 2011)

> *The_Traveler
> 
> *_Photography is for grownups_



Lew, with this signature you ought to be able to also view photography like a grown-up and not pass disparaging comments about some very compelling photography! The world is not only beautiful, it has its ugly sides, worst if they are ugly for people (!), and those NEED TO BE SHOWN. It is necessary and important to also show those sides, even if it provokes unpleasant feelings in the viewer. And the photos we get to see here are FAR from any kind of ... I won't repeat the phrase you used! So please watch your words.


----------



## ghache (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> While these are good pictures, there is a definite ethical issue about using the vulnerability and bad circumstances of others for impact in casual photography without bringing more to it than just another picture of a poor person.
> 
> 
> I call it 'homeless porn'
> ...



:thumbdown:


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

I am surprised that people don't think there is an ethical issue here that one should consider.

I feel the same way about a reporter who had peeked into the home of a grieving family and sneaked a picture of them 

The pictures might be good or great but has the photographer exploited the family's situation, not for any purpose but his or her own, without bringing any more knowledge about the situation but certainly emotion.

A homeless person or even one in very straitened circumstances has a vulnerability that the rest of society doesn't have, they are forced to do much of what they do in the view of the public without the protection of walls that we enjoy.

So I think that any picture I take must bring something new to the issue, something that isn't obvious, and not just use their situation, exploiting their life for my sake.

I thought through this issue several years ago when I read a long discussion in an 'ethics in photography group' and have my opinion as others have theirs.



bobnr32 said:


> You read the title before you viewed the thread. Take some responsibility for your actions.



A completely incomprehensible statement. 
I have an opinion about the ethics of shooting the homeless or the poor that predates this posting by several years. Like selective color, it should be done rarely and only when there is a really good purpose.



LaFoto said:


> Lew, with this signature you ought to be able to also view photography like a grown-up and not pass disparaging comments about some very compelling photography! The world is not only beautiful, it has its ugly sides, worst if they are ugly for people (!), and those NEED TO BE SHOWN. It is necessary and important to also show those sides, even if it provokes unpleasant feelings in the viewer. And the photos we get to see here are FAR from any kind of ... I won't repeat the phrase you used! So please watch your words.



Oh, LaFoto, I didn't say the photos weren't good. I think the third one is terrific. 

But at what cost to the people photographed? Shouldn't we, as grownups respect others' human condition and not take this picture when they are in their darkest place - unless the picture serves some other good. 

If you fell down a hill, went head over tails, and landed with your dress up around your ears, showing your bottom to the public, how would you feel if someone took a picture of that and put it on a website for the world to see?  You would probably feel angry and embarrassed that your fall had been exploited to arouse cheap sensations - for no real good.

Well, I feel the same way about pictures of the poor and homeless. 

There is always a balance between capturing a moment that will inform the viewers and exploiting a situation for your own sake and where a photographer comes down on any particular situation should be, again my opinion, a result of consideration about the ethical issue involved.

I think that, at least, a photographer should think about this issue before seeing every situation as an opportunity to make pictures.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

For those who are interested in this issue, here are two quick links to supplement the one above.

Are There Any Ethics in Street Photography?
Is it Ethical to Photograph the Homeless?


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 20, 2011)

Where is any of these four photos in any way comparable to the situation you're describing about me tumbling down a hill and landing with my skirts round my neck?
They show PEOPLE, in their daily situation, and make us, the viewers, realise that there is such a problem as being without a home. Particularly these four photos are anything BUT "photo porn". They don't show anyone in a drunk situation, an embarrassing situation - they only show what life can be like for some! No more. But fortunately no less, either. They make us think. In how far would that be "for the benefit of the photographer" or "in exploitation of the photographed"?


----------



## bobnr32 (Sep 20, 2011)

What part of my statement did you not understand? You knew what the thread was about but still chose to shoot your mouth off before engaging your brain, as usual.


----------



## ghache (Sep 20, 2011)

this guy is great, takes pictures of crack addicts and the prime ministers.


Ottawa photographer Tony Fouhse


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 20, 2011)

Interesting debate.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> I am surprised that people don't think there is an ethical issue here that one should consider.



Lew, I agree with you.. but I think we will be swimming against the current here!  

People.. think of it this way.... if YOU were homeless, would you want someone splashing your misfortune all over the internet? Possibly even profiting from the photo? Would you want everyone seeing you at the bottom, when that is an image people would never be able to erase, even if you managed to get back on top again?

I would also like to know if the photographer was kind enough to slip the homeless people he shot a few bucks to help them out (not that it could be verified :/  ). It might be different if he asked their permission first... and they would probably give it for a "donation".


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

LaFoto said:


> Where is any of these four photos in any way comparable to the situation you're describing about me tumbling down a hill and landing with my skirts round my neck?
> They show PEOPLE, in their daily situation, and make us, the viewers, realise that there is such a problem as being without a home. Particularly these four photos are anything BUT "photo porn". They don't show anyone in a drunk situation, an embarrassing situation - they only show what life can be like for some! No more. But fortunately no less, either. *They make us think.* In how far would that be "for the benefit of the photographer" or "in exploitation of the photographed"?



Clearly not.

Because of their situation, homeless people don't have any option to escape being made the object of our Schadenfreude.  Saying that pictures make us aware that people are worse off might be useful if the viewer was, say, from Venus or had been asleep in a cave for the last 1000 years but what person isn't away of the plight of the homeless?

Picture number 3 is quite good in that it is not the man, however well he is portrayed, as the point but the photographer showing us visually that this sad situation exists in parallel with the real society and we turn away from it. A good and valid point, imo, that justifies the picture.

The others just recapture things that we've all seen. Except for the person's condition what new do they bring to the issue?

I'm not saying that we should all stop shooting street people, just that we should look at each picture opportunity and make the ethical choice about whether the information value makes the picture worthwhile and decide that it isn't a cheap opportunity to get some response at the cost of the subject's humanity.

Instead of _ad hominem_ attacks on me  for having a different opinion and daring to express it, why not justify your position that anyone, anytime is fair game?

Here is a quote from Eric Kim's blog Are There Any Ethics in Street Photography?


> I see many aspiring street photographers on the web who merely take photos of homeless people down on their luck and label their images as &#8220;street photography.&#8221; I feel bad for these aspiring street photographers, as they simply use images of people who are experiencing poverty as a crutch for their own photographic shortcomings.
> 
> 
> Don&#8217;t get me wrong&#8211; I do not believe that all photos of homeless people are distasteful..............................
> ...


----------



## StringThing (Sep 20, 2011)

Thank you for bringing another voice to this discussion.  I had never really thought about it from that point of view, but I will now.  I'd love to hear what the OP would say on this subject.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

bobnr32 said:


> What part of my statement did you not understand? You knew what the thread was about but still chose to shoot your mouth off before engaging your brain, as usual.



Dear Bob,

Your personal animosity towards me seems to be just bubbling out.

Rather than attacking me, why not just explain why you think that anyone, anytime is fair game, no matter what and how I'm wrong?


----------



## bobnr32 (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> bobnr32 said:
> 
> 
> > What part of my statement did you not understand? You knew what the thread was about but still chose to shoot your mouth off before engaging your brain, as usual.
> ...



Paranoid or what?
Again you are exhibiting classic bullying symptoms. You can give it out but don't like it up you, and of course denial.
By the way, is your avatar copyright protected?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

bobnr32 said:


> Paranoid or what?
> Again you are exhibiting classic bullying symptoms. You can give it out but don't like it up you, and of course denial.
> By the way, is your avatar copyright protected?



Dear Bob,

I realize now that asking to you explain your thoughts or actions might be bullying in your case.
If you consider my response to you bullying I suggest that you report it to the mods.


In response to your question, assuming that it was a real question and not a pathetic passive-aggressive act, here is an explanation of my avatar as a derivative work under the Fair Use doctrine.



> In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. § 101:
> A derivative work is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a derivative work.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

Bob,

This is the second thread in which you've attacked me, not my opinions.

As I did that time, I'm asking that, since you don't like me or what I think, just put me on ignore and you'll be free of me.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> While these are good pictures, there is a definite ethical issue about using the vulnerability and bad circumstances of others for impact in casual photography without bringing more to it than just another picture of a poor person.
> 
> 
> I call it 'homeless porn'
> ...



Seriously Lew? You sound like you are parroting that pompous windbag Bjorn R and his tedious bleating about the same, exact disparaging phrase. Your judgemental dismissal of this type of photography, and equating it to pornography, shows a real small-mindedness. Maybe you and B.R. ought to spend a few minutes in the corner, reflecting upon your sanctimonious judgement of the work of other people. I really do NOT AGREE with the value system you and your mouthpiece buddy constantly spout, in an effort to try and make others feel bad about showing the world the way it really is. Seriously...why are you attacking the photographer, and not discussing the work: as the title shows, the photos show us that, "For Some, Life is Tough". For example, the second photo shows a man seated on a crate, between the offices of an Abogado (Lawyer), and a Kentucky Fried Chicken store...his sign says he has six kids...he has no work..his house needs [something I cannot quite read]"...this photo really shows the difference between the haves, and the have-nots. It causes people, me included, to "think", to "ponder"--you know, one of the major goals of art!!!

I'm seriously sick of this line of thinking that street photography is the equivalent of "pornography"; the assertion is tasteless and juvenile. You and B.R. need to construct a bit better, more grown-up put down and argument to spew at those whom you dislike and disagree with.


----------



## bobnr32 (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Bob,
> 
> This is the second thread in which you've attacked me, not my opinions.
> 
> As I did that time, I'm asking that, since you don't like me or what I think, just put me on ignore and you'll be free of me.


I have not attacked you but your mindless obsession with belittling others. You voice your opinions, nobody else. 
You have been told to watch your words not me. 
I shall challenge injustice wherever it rears its ugly head.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Seriously Lew? You sound like you are parroting that pompous windbag Bjorn R and his tedious bleating about the same, exact disparaging phrase. Your judgemental dismissal of this type of photography, and equating it to pornography, shows a real small-mindedness. Maybe you and B.R. ought to spend a few minutes in the corner, reflecting upon your sanctimonious judgement of the work of other people. I really do NOT AGREE with the value system you and your mouthpiece buddy constantly spout, in an effort to try and make others feel bad about showing the world the way it really is. Seriously...why are you attacking the photographer, and not discussing the work: as the title shows, the photos show us that, "For Some, Life is Tough". For example, the second photo shows a man seated on a crate, between the offices of an Abogado (Lawyer), and a Kentucky Fried Chicken store...his sign says he has six kids...he has no work..his house needs [something I cannot quite read]"...this photo really shows the difference between the haves, and the have-nots. It causes people, me included, to "think", to "ponder"--you know, one of the major goals of art!!!
> 
> I'm seriously sick of this line of thinking that street photography is the equivalent of "pornography"; the assertion is tasteless and juvenile. You and B.R. need to construct a bit better, more grown-up put down and argument to spew at those whom you dislike and disagree with.


 


bobnr32 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Bob,
> ...



Again, nothing said about why my opinions are wrong or incorrect, only harsh words attacking me.

I do like the challenge injustice line; it has a kind of silly pomposity to it.
Care to point out where the 'injustice' is? 

Some people have a real hard time with opinions that challenge their own view of the received truth.


----------



## mishele (Sep 20, 2011)

:er:


----------



## Ricardodaforce (Sep 20, 2011)

[/QUOTE]


I would also like to know if the photographer was kind enough to slip the homeless people he shot a few bucks to help them out (not that it could be verified :/  ). It might be different if he asked their permission first... and they would probably give it for a "donation".[/QUOTE]

I gave the subject of the first 3 images some money. I don't give money to those that approach people (like the woman in the fourth image) because often they can be rude and a tad aggressive. So, if I see someone passively begging that I want to photograph, then yes I give them some money.

Furthermore, sometimes I see people that I would like to take a proper portrait shot of and I ask them if I can do so for a financial consideration. Some say no, some say yes, like this guy:




4 de Julio by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr

I take photos of stuff that interests me, whether it be people, landscapes, architecture etc. When it comes to people I don't fixate on the less fortunate members of society I take pictures of people that I find interesting. Here are some examples.




La Sonrisa by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




Lágrimas by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




Untitled by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




Las Guapas by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr




Ojos Españoles by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Picture number 3 is quite good in that it is not the man, however well he is portrayed, as the point but the photographer showing us visually that this sad situation exists in parallel with the real society and we turn away from it. A good and valid point, imo, that justifies the picture.
> 
> I'm not saying that we should all stop shooting street people, just that we should look at each picture opportunity and make the ethical choice about whether the information value makes the picture worthwhile and decide that it isn't a cheap opportunity to get some response at the cost of the subject's humanity.
> 
> Instead of _ad hominem_ attacks on me  for having a different opinion and daring to express it, why not justify your position that anyone, anytime is fair game?



Thank you, Ricardo, for your measured response.

Let me repeat what I have said several times.
We have the power to invade homeless peoples' lives by taking their picture and exposing their situations and weaknesses to the world.
As photographers, we should use that ability carefully and use it only when we think the situation is worth the cost.

If that is bullying, well ...................


----------



## bobnr32 (Sep 20, 2011)

Traveler your arguments are contradictory. It was clear that Ricardo used "that ability carefully and use it only when we think the situation is worth the cost." The title was "For Some, Life is Tough". He portrayed his subjects with great sensitivity. A lesson to be learnt, surely?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 20, 2011)

Ricardodaforce said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like to know if the photographer was kind enough to slip the homeless people he shot a few bucks to help them out (not that it could be verified :/ ). It might be different if he asked their permission first... and they would probably give it for a "donation".
> ...



Thats great! That is more than most photographers / people do! I fully understand about not giving to those that hassle you for it... I hate panhandling with a passion. Some nice shots too! Love "untitled".. made me smile!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 20, 2011)

I nominate this as the most jacked thread on this forum


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Some people have a real hard time with opinions that challenge their own view of the received truth.



That is quite true.

And You sure are one of them.

Pray tell, what is the difference between a shot of some homeless people in N. America and some kids in a third world country? Both types of shot exploit the subject so why do you have a problem with one and not the other.

Please don't tell me your shots have a higher meaning/intent. You are preying on the exotic, the different which is basically what street people are.

But you are also preying on children. Does that make you a pedophile?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't care what others think.
I have my own opinion and I don't attack people for having theirs.

And using the term 'preying on children' is over the line, even for you.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 20, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> I don't care what others think.  Really? So why do you feel let down when no one comments on the shots you've posted?
> 
> 
> I have my own opinion and I don't attack people for having theirs.   True, you don't, according to your own definition of what attacking people is. And according to your own definition of what being attacked is.
> ...



Get over yourself  or  move on.


----------



## rgregory1965 (Sep 20, 2011)

Seems to be a patern here with certian people.....:thumbdown: You know who Im talking about


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 20, 2011)

Just to change the current tone, I have found in my travels that often these poor souls are not what they seem. From NYC USA to Cartegena Columbia to Rome Italy, not all people who portray desperation are always what they appear to be. 

And people who are homeless and with families are not necessarily beggars. 

Good street shots though. Def provocative in multiple ways.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2011)

*sigh* can't you lot just have a debate instead of sniping and insulting each other back and forth. 

Return to commentary regarding the photos direct and end the debate; if you seriously want to debate (and I mean debate not rant/insult) the issue then start a new thread in the photographic discussions subsection.


----------



## Ricardodaforce (Sep 30, 2011)

One more that suits the theme.




Ayudeme by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr


----------

