# Homeless



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 27, 2013)

I recently had a university documentary assignment given to me. So i thought of what i could document, in the end i came up with Homeless People. I took all these with my Nikon D800 and my 50mm f1.4. These are some of my favourites i came out with;

For those interested here's a link for the whole set including photos i've not posted here; http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151514925074468.545559.345421469467&type=1

Any comments and critique i'd be extremely grateful,

Tom

1




2




3




4




5




6


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 27, 2013)

I'm surprised they let you. I did a documentary assignment like that and the homeless in this area aren't too keen to being photographed. I found it incredibly difficult.

Neat faces though. My favorite is probably number 5, although I'm not a big fan of the processing. It's kind of Dragan-esque, but the highlights seem to be too bright and kind of muddy. It almost looks like you intentionally tried to make them look gritty.


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 27, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm surprised they let you. I did a documentary assignment like that and the homeless in this area aren't too keen to being photographed. I found it incredibly difficult.
> 
> Neat faces though. My favorite is probably number 5, although I'm not a big fan of the processing. It's kind of Dragan-esque, but the highlights seem to be too bright and kind of muddy. It almost looks like you intentionally tried to make them look gritty.



thanks mate! well yeah i did intentionally try and make them look more gritty! I feel the general public have more of a wow factor when they see them! Also it is really hard photographing them and i got told no so many times, however a 1 pound coin and a sausage roll and they normally let me have a quick shot. It's tough though and you never know what to expect!!


----------



## Parker219 (Feb 27, 2013)

Well, yes you can tell the "gritty" factor was turned up in post. That is not a bad thing, if anywhere fits that type of processing, I guess it would be this. I would like 1 and 2 more if their noses were in focus too. For some reason it looks weird with their noses out of focus.

With that being said, I still like 1 and 2 the best.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 27, 2013)

Looks like a little bit of perspective distortion too... like WA's are famous for? Was that intentional?


----------



## Michael79 (Feb 27, 2013)

I agree number 1+2 are the best. Number 1 def. tells a sad story.


----------



## invisible (Feb 27, 2013)

I think this is a great set, I really enjoyed it. I don't like the heavy vignetting, but that's just a personal preference.

You might want to check out Lee Jeffries' Flickr page for some extra inspiration. He only photographs homeless people and he does it with the utmost respect: Flickr: LJ.'s Photostream. Another great photographer of homeless people is Tom Stone: Flickr: stoneth's Photostream


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 27, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Looks like a little bit of perspective distortion too... like WA's are famous for? Was that intentional?



i wouldn't say i set out there to do it, but after taking my first few shots, i started to stick with the same theme. I think shooting 1.4 on a 50mm so close up just produces the distortion naturally a bit too. I think it adds to the photos personally though. i set out there wanting to get some really gritty not pleasant photos that would tell a story, and i think it's worked!


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 27, 2013)

invisible said:


> I think this is a great set, I really enjoyed it. I don't like the heavy vignetting, but that's just a personal preference.
> 
> You might want to check out Lee Jeffries' Flickr page for some extra inspiration. He only photographs homeless people and he does it with the utmost respect: Flickr: LJ.'s Photostream. Another great photographer of homeless people is Tom Stone: Flickr: stoneth's Photostream



Thanks a lot, i appreciate it. Yeah i actually spoke to Lee about doing these before hand and got some tips, he really was my inspiration for them. I just wish i could save up and get down to skid row and try get some on his level!! I'll check out Tom Stone too, thanks!


----------



## OLaA (Feb 27, 2013)

Nice detail in the shots but I wish they all didn't fall so in the center. I know negative space is generally unwanted but a few shots stopped down and maybe a view behind to add more context. 

Also I find the vignette a bit distracting. Too obvious. Maybe back it off a bit and feather? Overall I like them.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 27, 2013)

These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.

There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.

Ethically it's pretty much impossible to do it without being essentially being complicit in their situation. Sure, you didn't make 'em poor and sick, and you even helped out with a bit of food and cash. Good onya. Nonetheless, you are converting their suffering into a grade on a project, and ultimately into part of a degree, which degree will presumably give you advantages in life. No amount of exchanged money or other atonement is going to change that fact. Now, we all oppress one another all the time, so it ain't just you, and you're not a bad person for it. But the issue's there.

The artistic problem is that everyone does this and nothing changes. We have far more pictures of homeless people rattling around out there, making whatever artistic and social statements they make, than we do actual homeless people. Ultimately these pictures don't have any impact any more except to make the viewer say "oh how sad" and -- maybe -- donate a little something to the food bank this year. Art doesn't have to drive social change, but this kind of art is frequently justified as an attempt to drive social change. Often enough that even if you haven't the slightest intention of driving social change, your photographs will tend to be interpreted as an attempt to drive change, an attempt that won't work. Pictures of the sad and ruined faces of the homeless are, whether we like it or not, all citations of one another. They smash together into one giant ethically problematic useless ball of sameness.

All that said, the photos are fine, they do what you were asked to do and they do it well. They just happen to exist in a sort of sticky corner of the world of photography.


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 27, 2013)

OLaA said:


> Nice detail in the shots but I wish they all didn't fall so in the center. I know negative space is generally unwanted but a few shots stopped down and maybe a view behind to add more context.
> 
> Also I find the vignette a bit distracting. Too obvious. Maybe back it off a bit and feather? Overall I like them.



Yeah i'm starting to agree with people on the Vignetting. It's one of those things you realise once you've posted them, and it's the type of feedback that improves an aspiring photographer like myself!



amolitor said:


> These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.
> 
> There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on the ethical issues. However i see most of these people around the city centre regularly, and a lot of people just ignore them and don't give them the time of day. What i got most out of this project, regardless of the final images, is the story each one had. More often than not each and everyone of them just appreciated my time sitting down and having a chat, plus they did get some food and a little bit of cash to help them along their way. But these are the ethical problems and artistic issues i have included in depth in my write up for the assignment!

Thanks for the input!


----------



## nola.ron (Feb 27, 2013)

I enjoyed this set.  #1 is very, very powerful.  Good job.  Processing is almost a little too much for my taste but that is personal opinion and taste.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 27, 2013)

ThornleyGroves said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like a little bit of perspective distortion too... like WA's are famous for? Was that intentional?
> ...



In your original post.. you stated you used a 14-24.... but you have since edited it. And there is no exif in the photos.... so why the change?


----------



## CA_ (Feb 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.
> 
> There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.
> 
> ...



I can certainly see how you'd feel that way, and I somewhat feel the same, but I guess I always feel like what will remind people that these dark crevices in society still exist is a good thing. There's nothing censored about these pictures, and it's a good reminder to us all that we are ignoring a sizeable portion of people.. anything that humanizes the homeless, I'm all for.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 27, 2013)

:heart:  The photos


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.
> 
> There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.
> 
> ...



I think it is admirable that you care so much... however, he did not make these people homeless... I think you are putting too much of the burden on him and his project. 

It is not unethical in my mind to document them... would be a whole other issue if he went and made a million dollars on their images and did nothing in return for homeless people.


----------



## invisible (Feb 27, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> I think it is admirable that you care so much... however, he did not make these people homeless... I think you are putting too much of the burden on him and his project.
> 
> It is not unethical in my mind to document them... would be a whole other issue if he went and made a million dollars on their images and did nothing in return for homeless people.


It's become pretty obvious that he did it for the TPF glory. I'm glad someone was able to see through Thornley's evil intentions. I'd be ashamed if I were him if you ask me :roll:


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 28, 2013)

invisible said:


> Photographiend said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is admirable that you care so much... however, he did not make these people homeless... I think you are putting too much of the burden on him and his project.
> ...



Haha! I'm not on here often, so I presume that was a joke!


----------



## weepete (Feb 28, 2013)

Personally I like 5, mainly due to the warmth of the guys expression. As part of the set it also stands out to me, as he's the only one smiling.

As far as the exploitation argument is concerned you can take that one to the nth degree and run around in circles all day with it. You could also apply it to any model you use or anything you take a pic of. Utlimatley it is what it is.


----------



## daymon (Feb 28, 2013)

Realy nice photos. There is something interesting in their eyes...


----------



## gw2424 (Feb 28, 2013)

I love the photos but the processing doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

&#8220;There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We&#8217;re all crew.&#8221;
&#8211; Marshall McLuhan


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

If I had been your University teacher this would have been a solid fail - for a couple of reasons

First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food. 

Second, the photographer has added nothing to the images but placed them dead center and let the camera do everything else. There is no context, no thought, just blammo.

Third, the choice of lens and the excessive PPing intentionally distorts whatever their normal visage into something monstrous.

If this is your path I expect that next you will pick on mentally and physically handicapped people to 'document.'


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 28, 2013)

amolitor said:


> These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.
> 
> There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.
> 
> ...



Yes, he's exploiting the homeless in the same way that photographers were exploiting the violence and suffering of a group of people in South Africa between '90-'94. Also how people in NOLA were exploited after hurricane Katrina by members of the press traveling there and taking photos of what happened to show the world.

I want to say it has a name... Photojournalism? Yeah, photojournalism. What an awful thing. No one should ever take photos of people in dire straits. Ever. I mean, why would you want to draw attention to a cause and possibly expose more people to a potential help initiative? Doesn't really make sense to me. You know, the whole helping people thing. Just sweep them under the rug and forget they exist. 

OP, I like the images. I think they're very well done. Coming from a photojournalist background I can offer only this advice: "No matter how bad it gets, don't stop shooting."


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> If I had been your University teacher this would have been a solid fail - for a couple of reasons
> 
> First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.
> 
> ...



I would agree!


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.



Wrong. 

I think that doing things like this humanizes a population that is often dehumanized via modern media. When you look at these photos you realize that each photo shows a _person, _not a pile of rags or a tax waste. 

While I think the PP is heavy, I do think the subject matter is very interesting.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Yes, he's exploiting the homeless in the same way that photographers were exploiting the violence and suffering of a group of people in South Africa between '90-'94. Also how people in NOLA were exploited after hurricane Katrina by members of the press traveling there and taking photos of what happened to show the world.
> 
> I want to say it has a name... Photojournalism? Yeah, photojournalism. What an awful thing. No one should ever take photos of people in dire straits. Ever. I mean, why would you want to draw attention to a cause and possibly expose more people to a potential help initiative? Doesn't really make sense to me. You know, the whole helping people thing. Just sweep them under the rug and forget they exist.
> 
> OP, I like the images. I think they're very well done. Coming from a photojournalist background I can offer only this advice: "No matter how bad it gets, don't stop shooting."



No, I disagree.
PJ is telling something, placing the faces and people in context, informing the world on something they didn't know.
This is just exploitation specifically because there is nothing more to these pictures than '_*look at the grimy, worn faces. they have it really tough. Aren't you happy it isn't you? Now let me make the color grotesque so you really can put them in a different category from you*_.'

Andrew, as it is his customary behavior, was polite and gentle.
Luckily I'm not like that.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.
> ...



If you were in these photos??? How would you like them then?

You consider the distorted noses / features, and intentionally Gritty PP to be humanizing? I find this demeaning... emphasizing the bad, not the good! They are basically caricatures! 

As in:

A *caricature* is a simple image showing the features of its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way. _see also: politics_
 In literature, a *caricature* is a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others.[SUP][1][/SUP]
 According to the Indian Cartoonist S. Jithesh, a caricature is the satirical illustration of a person or a thing, but a cartoon is the satirical illustration of an idea

Caricature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Are we talking about the OP photos or the practice in general?

The OP's photos are mediocre and way too processed, but the subject matter is interesting. 

Like I said it adds a face to a faceless issue. I do not find it exploitive in the least, maybe if their photos were being used to sell Nike's or face cream, but as a statement it is fine.


----------



## curtyoungblood (Feb 28, 2013)

I am curious about what type of program and class you shot this for. I tend to agree with some of these comments that the photographs are a little heavy-handed for a documentary project. The PP clearly changes the subjects, and makes them look quite different than when they were photographed. However, I'm not as convinced as others that your professor agrees with us. Is this how you are being taught to do a documentary project and how heavily is the documentary style focused on in your program/class?  

For background, I work at a newspaper, and have been watching the acceptable level of photoshop work in photojournalism change dramatically. I realize that I am very strict and maybe even have old-school beliefs, but am curious about what schools are teaching is acceptable.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> No, I disagree.
> PJ is telling something, placing the faces and people in context, informing the world on something they didn't know.
> This is just exploitation specifically because there is nothing more to these pictures than 'look at the grimy, worn faces. they have it really tough. Aren't you happy it isn't you? Now let me make the color grotesque so you really can put them in a different category from you.'
> 
> ...



There's obviously something to the photos if they've compelled me to bring canned goods to the local homeless shelter today. Hopefully someone likes sweet potato and chipotle soup as much as I do.


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

Lew, 

How is it any less exploitive to show photos of starving children in Africa to spurn donation and encourage relief funds?

All too often we live our comfortable lives hearing about statistics about the world's homeless, poor, mentally ill etc... and we just ignore it or think "sucks to be them". Taking a photo and saying "This person exists and it not just a statistic." is just what society needs.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> Lew,
> 
> How is it any less exploitive to show photos of starving children in Africa to spurn donation and encourage relief funds?
> 
> All too often we live our comfortable lives hearing about statistics about the world's homeless, poor, mentally ill etc... and we just ignore it or think "sucks to be them". *Taking a photo and saying "This person exists and it not just a statistic.*" is just what society needs.



I agree with that... but purposely processing them or taking them in a manner that exaggerates the bad qualities... that is disgusting! That and most people that shoot the homeless have no intention of anything other than getting an dramatic image... with no humanitarian purposes involved.


----------



## oldhippy (Feb 28, 2013)

I honestly dislike the images as shown. The photoshop distortion is in itsef a turn off. This is how I felt. Show me a picture of a bag lady, and I'm moved by social inequity.
But don't PS and distort the poor thing.. Just my gut feeling


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Lew,
> ...



Well yes, like I said the OP processing was dumb. But we cannot say how each person seeing the photo will internalize it. Art means different things to different people. You might see a dirty homeless person, but I might see a person who is in need of my time and effort.


----------



## shefjr (Feb 28, 2013)

These photos remind me of "Afghan Girl". I like them because they tell me (in my mind) a story of a rough, weathered life. Even with out the context of being homeless. 
I do wonder though, is "Afghan girl" considered photojournalism? The way I read what Lew wrote (unless I'm missing something) his opinion would be no.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Lew,
> ...



There is clearly a balancing test here.

Showing images of starving children, as they actually are, may verge on exploitative but the greater purpose is to make their situation real and, most importantly, to generate funds to help them.

In this situation, we aren't being shown anything we aren't already aware of, the only purpose is to satisfy a course requirement and the pictures are deliberately distorted.


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I feel like we are splitting hairs here. 

Yes the OP was heavy handed in his attempts but that doesn't make the subject matter any less valid. Regardless of the intent it still is a real person who needs help.

Again your a presuming that the only result here is a course grade. You certainly cannot predict or presume what effects this or any photo could have on a person.


----------



## Mully (Feb 28, 2013)

Find a way to use your photography for their cause... some of the images for me are haunting, the first image the mans face has been burned by the cold. I donate a lot of my time for a Bridges Out of Poverty program and suffering is everywhere.... many homeless have found themselves in that situation due to job loss....it splits up families and has an enormous effect on the children.  I am not fond of the over processing as it changes the character of the subjects.  I work with a group of photographers that help people in need ...... maybe others could do the same.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 28, 2013)

"Here's a coin starving guy, say cheese" 
Maybe the next assigment can be alcoholism and you can offer cans of beer.


----------



## sm4him (Feb 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Lew,
> ...




^ +1.

When I see photographs of homeless people, the ones that I find compelling are NOT ones that have been processed to show just how grimy and poor and homeless these people are, but rather the ones that show the *character* of that person, the ones that make you look in their eyes and really SEE them, as someone's father, or son, or long-lost brother, as someone with a history, with talents and dreams that could still be dreamt. It often strikes me that I'm never more than a couple of decisions away from being right there with them--for me, in a good photo of a homeless person, I see someone who could BE a relative, someone whose story I'd like to know. When I look at the photos the OP has posted, I see some incredibly interesting faces that tell me there are stories to be told here, fascinating stories, but with the gritty style of processing, all I see is "look at how poor and pitiful these people are."


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> You certainly cannot predict or presume what effects this or any photo could have on a person.



That kind of _post hoc_ justification can be made for almost anything, assuming you can dream up a possible consequence.

"Yup, that earthquake was really terrible but it sure did great things for the construction business."

No newspaper editor would accept this amount of PPing, and the distortion means we aren't seeing the 'real' people, we are seeing caricatures.
I am pretty unshakeable in my opinion.


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks for all the replies guys, it really does interest me on how other perceive the pictures i have taken. For me it has really shown me what photography is about, i feel photography is about debate, and that is certainly what has happened here. Of course theres people suffering the world and people struggling to get by. However if i wasn't taking these photos and neither was anybody else, then these people would be forgotten about. This is the beauty to photography, it lets people see what they wouldn't normally see and it raises issues.

Yes, i agree i feel i might have over processed them and made them look gritty to get a better reaction from the general public. I also probably have vignetting them too much. What i'll do though is post the same six again but far less processed and less vignetted and see what you make of it. 

Lew whilst you have a valid point with what you're saying, everyone is entitled to their opinion and some people will love these photos and some will majorly dislike them. Thats what photography is, no one will like every photo and no one will dislike any photo. My lecturers actually mark my piece 3 times with three different lecturers because of this. And i'll share with you what feedback i get from them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

Why don't you give the link to this thread to your lecturers and let them respond?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 28, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.
> ...



I still think it's slightly unethical that he purposefully made them gritty and HDR-ish. Doesn't the processing kind of ruin the photos for anyone else?

I'm not sure that I agree that you should have paid them with food and money, though. Even though, from the average bystander's point of view, that would have been the right thing to do, from a photo journalistic side of things I'm of the mindset to not tamper with the reality of things so that I can document as truthfully as possible. True objectivity is an unachievable goal though, so...I dunno. I guess I'm not very altruistic when it comes to photography...


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 28, 2013)

Here we are;

These two images are pretty much the originals just with a tiny bit more contrast and clarity. For me they aren't as strong as the PP ones because i feel they're just a bit too bland. Let me know if you think these are better then??


----------



## runnah (Feb 28, 2013)

I like those better.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> I like those better.



...as do I


----------



## oldhippy (Feb 28, 2013)

like the said


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 28, 2013)

yes.... REALISM! Not cartoons!


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> yes.... REALISM! Not cartoons!



okay! well thank you, and i'll bear that in mind for my next project!!! I'd never really had a proper go at PP until this project and i think i may have gone overboard with it! ha ha


----------



## invisible (Feb 28, 2013)

ThornleyGroves said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> > Photographiend said:
> ...


Yes, it was sarcasm. There's a small but active group of people around here that will only find faults in the work that's posted. It doesn't really make a difference what the subject matter or the technical skill or the level of artistry are  you just know that if they find your thread their feedback is going to be negative. To make things even more amazing, the photography of some of these people is  for the most part  underwhelming. If they liked some photos and disliked others (like the vast majority of us), then I wouldn't be writing this. But the fact that they seem to dislike 99.9% of other people's photos is what bugs me. Yes, your processing might be a bit heavy-handed and undoubtedly some of the subjects seem distorted, and I can understand people bringing that up. But to question your intentions by just looking at your photos? That's just too much.

A couple years ago there was a poster here that was out of control in his negative criticism of other people's work. Some of the regulars back then (me included) left the forum because of him. In my case I can't even claim that he provided me with his "feedback"  he never posted on any of my threads. But the environment he created with his posts was so toxic that is still resulted in me leaving for a year or two. Others never returned. What's going on around here these days is nowhere near as bad as it was back then, but the similarities are obvious.


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Feb 28, 2013)

invisible said:


> ThornleyGroves said:
> 
> 
> > invisible said:
> ...



Wow, cheers for that! Yeah it's like any site nowadays there will always be people doing the trolling, and when it comes round to them to show their work, more likely than not it will be seriously underwhelming. However that only applies to the ones who are trolling and not giving their honest opinions, as i really do value what the mass majority of people say; as i am not the one buying my own photos!


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 28, 2013)

Hey, I think I saw these two guys on the TV series "Deadlest Catch" making $50k in 6 weeks fishing.

Seriously, if you REALLY want to do a photo essay on the homeless, spend time around them so you earn
their trust, then grab shots of them in their day to day mode. I work daily in a downtown district and the homeless I see are not posing for a portrait. 
I see them digging through dumpsters for supper. 
I see them going through ash trays for a cigarette butt that may have one more drag on it. 
I see them digging through trash cans for aluminum cans to cash in for that next drink.
I see them starring hopefully into space

That's the life of the homeless. Not posing for portraits.


----------



## Mully (Feb 28, 2013)

Look into the eyes of the man with the hood..you see a world of hurt and suffering..... take him for a nice meal and get to know him as a person and that image of him will mean so much more to you... you will be Blessed by doing so.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 28, 2013)

The originals are very nice. At any rate, in my little fantasy world where I can suggest things and people actually do them... It would be completely awesome if there was a way to turn "Photographing the Homeless" into funding local homeless shelters and/or soup kitchens.


----------



## deeky (Feb 28, 2013)

If I may direct things slightly different - for me pictures 4 and 5 of the op stand out as different.  To me, those two individuals have a sparkle in their eye and a slight smile on their lips.  Those are unexpected to me when looking at images of the homeless.  I agree with spending time with them before shooting to get the story, trust, etc.  But I would be interested to see documentation on the happiness in the homeless.  I don't think it would be exploitation as much as understanding.  It's simply something most of us don't see and don't expect.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 28, 2013)

Mully said:


> Look into the eyes of the man with the hood..you see a world of hurt and suffering..... take him for a nice meal and get to know him as a person and that image of him will mean so much more to you... you will be Blessed by doing so.



They are people with life stories. Some are self induced homeless due to drugs, prison etc. Others may have lost a high paying job and lost everything as a result. I've encountered both.


----------



## terri (Feb 28, 2013)

ThornleyGroves said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > yes.... REALISM! Not cartoons!
> ...


Then you've come away from this project having learned something.       Perhaps more than how *not* to PP certain types of portraiture, but how the act of the "documentary style" of photography affects people in various ways, as demonstrated by this thread.   Some will applaud you, some will eviscerate you, some will nod and pass on, seeing little beyond the given image.  

I cannot help but think your instructor(s) will be pleased with what you have learned.   That's why you're a _student_, right?     

Keep on with your journey.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Why don't you give the link to this thread to your lecturers and let them respond?



good form.. i would LOVE to hear the professors opinion on these photos, as well as the responses to them. I would also like to see what the grade given for this assignment is.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

invisible said:


> Yes, it was sarcasm. There's a small but active group of people around here that will only find faults in the work that's posted. It doesn't really make a difference what the subject matter or the technical skill or the level of artistry are  you just know that if they find your thread their feedback is going to be negative. To make things even more amazing, the photography of some of these people is  for the most part  underwhelming. If they liked some photos and disliked others (like the vast majority of us), then I wouldn't be writing this. But the fact that they seem to dislike 99.9% of other people's photos is what bugs me. Yes, your processing might be a bit heavy-handed and undoubtedly some of the subjects seem distorted, and I can understand people bringing that up. But to question your intentions by just looking at your photos? That's just too much.
> 
> A couple years ago there was a poster here that was out of control in his negative criticism of other people's work. Some of the regulars back then (me included) left the forum because of him. In my case I can't even claim that he provided me with his "feedback"  he never posted on any of my threads. But the environment he created with his posts was so toxic that is still resulted in me leaving for a year or two. Others never returned. What's going on around here these days is nowhere near as bad as it was back then, but the similarities are obvious.



I call total passive-aggressive bull-crap on this.
I look back at the comments here and I don't see negative ones that are based on anything but people's well meant and reasoned opinions.
No one seems to be taking baseless shots.

I do see people 'liking' the images without explanation - that is, afaic, even more useless.
I do see this kind of comment quoted above as saying, in effect, 'don't listen to those negative guys, I'm on your side and what I say is meaningful.'
Characterizing the negative comments as being from people whose work is 'underwhelming' is just a backhanded way of trying to make their opinion less important - and thus aggrandize one's own.

Whatever criticism is, if it seems sensible and resonates with the OP then he might consider it.
Reason-less praise might feel good but should be ignored.

As for the idea that one has to be better than the maker to offer sensible critique; if so then photography is the only art form that sets that bar for critics.
It is a silly, even stupid, concept. 
Are Susan Sontag or AD Coleman not able critics because they aren't good photographers?
Whatever someone's ability to create photographs, it is their insight as to why or why not a photograph works for them that is important and useful.


----------



## invisible (Feb 28, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> I do see this kind of comment quoted above as saying, in effect, 'don't listen to those negative guys, I'm on your side and what I say is meaningful.'
> Characterizing the negative comments as being from people whose work is 'underwhelming' is just a backhanded way of trying to make their opinion less important - and thus aggrandize one's own.


I'm not going to waste your time, my time, and everybody else's time replying in detail to your post. I'll just focus on your comment I quoted above and say that I've been posting here for years and never, EVER, tried to do anything like the stuff you're accusing me of. Past behaviour is normally a predictor of future behaviour, so there's a good chance that your inference is wrong. The individuals I mentioned in my post, on the other hand, have been doing this ever since they joined the forum. A few people have already started calling them out. I occasionally have blasted them too &#8211; I don't want the same crap that happened here in the past to happen again.

No one's opinion is less important, and dressing one's opinion up with fancy words doesn't make that opinion any more important than an "I like it". If someone can't back their *constant, unrelenting negative criticism* of other people's work with the quality of their own work, then their credibility is non-existent. And even if their work were flat-out perfect, if someone incessantly posts negative crap then it's only a matter of time until the rest of us become fed up. 

In case it needs to be said, I wasn't necessarily referring to you in my post.

EDIT: One more thing: one of these days I'm going to quote one of these people's critiques and post it verbatim as feedback to one of their own photos. I think it will help illustrate my point well.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 28, 2013)

*Okay Everyone, there's no problem with a healthy debate on the merits of exploitation or non-exploitation, BUT let's keep it professional and objective shall we?  *


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Feb 28, 2013)

invisible said:


> In case it needs to be said, I wasn't necessarily referring to you in my post.
> 
> EDIT: One more thing: one of these days I'm going to quote one of these people's critiques and post it verbatim as feedback to one of their own photos. I think it will help illustrate my point well.



I see you as a very neutral character who I've never seen caught in anything like this. I'm VERY curious to see whom you speak of and citations of said inflammatory posts. Probably before I was an active member here.


----------



## invisible (Feb 28, 2013)

Majeed, check your Flickr PMs.


----------



## Rafterman (Feb 28, 2013)

I just read through all 5 pages of this thread, and felt the need to add my 2-cents. To be up front, I like the pictures. Though over-processed to a certain extent, they accomplish their goal IMHO. I like the more "natural" ones that were re-posted even better. From an ethical standpoint, you could have one of many different views. However, this is real life. The OP obviously asked these people for a photo and provided a small compensation to them. He also spent some time talking with them, which is frequently all these people need to make their day. It makes them feel wonderful to have someone ask their name and be willing to listen to their stories, no matter the reason. Could you photograph them digging in the trash or shuffling down the street? Sure, but when you talk with them, when they pose for their picture with the most honest face imaginable, THEN you are capturing the most powerful image you could ever hope to get.

As someone who donates monthly to the Raleigh Rescue Mission, I can attest to how moving images of the less fortunate can really be. There is nothing wrong with showing the truth in life though, as these pictures depict. Not everyone will like every picture. Not everyone agrees on shooting with a certain technique, method, or style. However, that's why art is what it is and why it's so appealing to so many people. There truly is something for everyone, and it makes us all feel emotions of one kind or another. Even if you truly hate someone's creation though, regardless of the reason, respect it for what it is: their own personal interpretation of the world.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 28, 2013)

Sontag wrote a pretty good book about these issues, Regarding the Pain of Others which should probably be required reading for anyone who wants to make these kinds of photographs. It's far from the last word on the subject, and as is usual with Sontag it's not all right. But it's thought provoking, which is kind of the point.

Basically she says a few things that made sense to me:

- making images of suffering doesn't actually do much to stop suffering.
- much of the time the effect of a glut of images of a specific kind of suffering is to dull our response to that suffering.
- .. except sometimes not, which is odd.

Photographs in general, and thus also photographs of suffering, tend to support our existing prejudices. Mostly, people's minds are not changed by photographs, rather their mind tends to be made more firmly made up. Some photos of homeless dudes might make you take some cans of food to the shelter this week, but it's pretty unlikely that they're going to change your behavior in the long term, and so far despite the millions of them that have been made the homeless problem seems to remain unsolved.

People have made photo essays, and bodies of paintings and etchings and so on, with the explicit and stated objective of putting an end to war. By showing us, right up close and personal, the horror of war, the artist felt that there was simply no way war could go on. SURELY people would SEE and would CHANGE?!! In fact, what happens is that we see, we shudder, and we gives thanks that it's not us, and we keep on goin' on. Images of war prove only that the bad guys are evil and we must go to any length to stop them. Images of the homeless inspire us to not rock the boat, to not drive change, to retain the status quo because -- as of now -- we're not homeless. Sure, they also inspire the opposite desire, the desire to help. But both desires are present. And nothing changes.

All of this simply comes down to this: If you take a bunch of pictures of homeless people, and then claim that while you are being exploitive, it's for the greater good of creating change for the better, you're basically wrong. That's a cloak of virtue that doesn't cover it, although you may be forgiven for imagining that it does.

Only very very rarely do images drive true change, and when they do it is invariably because the pictures makes it into the hands of a skilled propagandist, AND the time is already ripe for change. The picture is only a small element of a larger campaign that tips a population ready to be tipped over into a new point of view.

Again, I should be clear: Taking pictures of homeless people doesn't make you a bad person. Lots of perfectly decent people do it and have done it. Once or twice it even successfully created social change, but you are most likely not Dorothea Lange, and you most definitely do not have Roy Stryker as your boss.


----------



## invisible (Feb 28, 2013)

Back to the drawing board, Thornley.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2013)

To some degree, taking pictures of the homeless is like selective color or vignetting. A relatively new photographer discovers that he or she can produce an effect which is different and, to them, new and powerful and in their _naivete_ assume that it is new and powerful to everyone. 

It is deflating and difficult to hear and accept that what one believes he or she has discovered and prizes is really rather trite and overdone.  Whereas as excess vignetting or selective color is merely laughable, taking pictures of the homeless can be seen as unethical, offensive and insensitive. And to someone who believes that he or she is making 'art', being accused, no matter how gently, of being any of those things is a real slap in the kisser.

Well, that is the way it works.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 28, 2013)

I personally think Portraits shots of Homeless people are different and refreshing. Portraying something that is so taboo some people believe it shouldn't be photographed at all, (homelessness) as beautiful, human and misunderstood... that is what I see here. 

Seeing that inherent beauty in the world around you and trying to translate that beauty in a way that other people will be able to recognize. Even if the pieces originally posted were over processed, the concept alone to me is just seems like the exact opposite of exploitation. Like taking a moment to show others how relatable these people really are. The ones they walk past trying not to make eye contact with. Ignoring them on the side of the street in the cold on their way to work or standing in front of their grocer. 

Part of art is being able to create something that touches other people. I would say this does. And as portraits it shows them as the person rather than the Homeless.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 28, 2013)

I like the way Hooligan Dan approached the subject of Homeless.  Thornley, if PJ is something you're interested and want to capture the impact of homelessness has on people, have a look at his thread.

The photos begin on post #21.
*http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y/159471-sacramento-s-homeless-tent-city.html*


----------



## manaheim (Feb 28, 2013)

Amolitor... while I don't entirely agree with all of your points, I appreciate your thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks on this topic. 



Photographiend said:


> I personally think Portraits shots of Homeless people are different and refreshing. Portraying something that is so taboo some people believe it shouldn't be photographed at all, (homelessness) as beautiful, human and misunderstood... that is what I see here.
> 
> Seeing that inherent beauty in the world around you and trying to translate that beauty in a way that other people will be able to recognize. Even if the pieces originally posted were over processed, the concept alone to me is just seems like the exact opposite of exploitation. Like taking a moment to show others how relatable these people really are. The ones they walk past trying not to make eye contact with. Ignoring them on the side of the street in the cold on their way to work or standing in front of their grocer.
> 
> Part of art is being able to create something that touches other people. I would say this does. And as portraits it shows them as the person rather than the Homeless.



It's really not different, so I'm not sure why you would see it as refreshing.

It's been done, and done to death.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 28, 2013)

Sure there are tons of Homeless Portraits out there, however not very many of them portraying their subjects in a flattering light. They all for the most part seem to play up the ugliness of Homelessness. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hom...TL2QXQo4DoDg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=638

Any how Wabbit, you will find I am less fun to poke with sticks this week. My PMS has passed.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 28, 2013)




----------

