Homeless Man Sleeping: New York

gvf

Homeless Man Sleeping: New York (Fuji gw690; 6x9 film)

Padge

gvf wrote:

Homeless Man Sleeping: New York (Fuji gw690; 6x9 film)

Is the noise deliberate as it doesn't seem to work?

I would prefer to lose the detail in the shadows and lose th noise.

adbsgicom

The focus is immediately drawn to that bag, which took me a while to parse as a bag since I was expecting his head to be there. His head is almost missing in the picture. A long, long, long time ago, a homeless fellow thought I was taking his picture (back in film days), and got very upset (ran right at me -- I was 19). I promised him that I was not taking his picutre (which was true) and that if he were in any pictures it was an accident, and that I would destroy them. He didn't want to be in anyone's art project. He believed me and didn't press the issue. Tread carefully in this genre.

thoth

I like this image a lot. I would have rather not been told it was a homeless man sleeping, though. I feel robbed of the mysterious potential by knowing what to expect.

Well done on the photo, though!

gvf

Yes, the photo was over-corrected actually, that's where the noise-look comes from, re-sized, too sharpened, too de-noised etc. The original digital got lost, but I'm going to dig up the negative and re-scan it.

The basic problem: I like the photo a lot, but it was shot at night hand-held and slightly blurred because if that.

And as to taking photos of homeless people: yes, it is very much an affront to many of them - and many are mentally-ill, and I feel odd taking them at times when they are unaware. I do a few anyway, just because the problem of homelessness is so severe, and often hidden - and a "picture is worth...." etc.

Thanks for the comments!

bdcolen

gvf wrote:

Yes, the photo was over-corrected actually, that's where the noise-look comes from, re-sized, too sharpened, too de-noised etc. The original digital got lost, but I'm going to dig up the negative and re-scan it.

The basic problem: I like the photo a lot, but it was shot at night hand-held and slightly blurred because if that.

And as to taking photos of homeless people: yes, it is very much an affront to many of them - and many are mentally-ill, and I feel odd taking them at times when they are unaware. I do a few anyway, just because the problem of homelessness is so severe, and often hidden - and a "picture is worth...." etc.

Thanks for the comments!

You're right - many are mentally ill; many have severe substance abuse problems. And taking photos of them is, in general, taking advantage. It's one thing if you photograph a homeless person in a way that really tells us something - other than "there are people who live on the street." Everyone knows that, and if they don't, they are so dense that a photo like this isn't going to do anything other than repel, or simply intrigue them.

I'd lose this one.

Photog4Christ

Yes, many of them are mentally ill, but most are not.

Years ago, when I was in college, a few friends and I went into DC with a stack of pizzas. We went around just talking to the guys (yes, there are homeless women, but it seems that most of them are men). Once you get them talking, you'll be amazed at the stories they have to tell.

My wife and I went to a Men's Shelter and helped cook and serve lunch. The head guy asked me to ask God to bless our food. After we were done, they refused to allow us to clean the kitchen and they did the cleanup themselves.

I know I'm just rambling, but I guess that's what I thought of when I read this thread.

customminds

poor guy. I do like the lighting from the gate!

gvf

Hard to tell sometimes when to take a shot or not of certain subjects/places.

I went to Auschwitz a few years ago. I took a few photos but not many because I felt sacrilegious and making a tourist attraction out of the worst place on earth. But I'm glad I did. A women who was there for the first time had had her family killed there. She was a wonderful person. I'll never forget her quiet suffering and her utter lack of anger. At the end I showed her my camera since she asked. She wished she had one and had photos there but could not afford one. I offered to send her copies of mine. She agreed and posed for a last: in front of a window in the main guard tower, the one you see in all the pictures of Auschwitz. I took it and asked why she wanted that particular shot (she had placed herself there). She said "I want a picture of myself at the grave of my family".
So, I'm glad I shot those photos.

Another reason I took them: I'm a college teacher. Before I went I mentioned to a student I wanted to go to Auschwitz while in Poland.
Her response: "What's Auschwitz?"

torags

bdcolen wrote:

You're right - many are mentally ill; many have severe substance abuse problems. And taking photos of them is, in general, taking advantage. It's one thing if you photograph a homeless person in a way that really tells us something - other than "there are people who live on the street." Everyone knows that, and if they don't, they are so dense that a photo like this isn't going to do anything other than repel, or simply intrigue them.

I'd lose this one.

I respectfully disagree.

A lot of homeless are outside our norm for normal. But many are there because of the choices they made (and are still making). Today more families are out there and my heart goes out to them.

Many of these homeless put themselves out in public in their condition and try to commercialize their condition by begging. That's fair, even tho' most get public assistance.

But to suggest they are off limits for photogs when they are not hiding (when they could find an alley instead), I think is going too far

Just my .02, everybody has to establish their own limits. this isn't one of mine.

BTW I think the shot is out of focus and needs fill light and has too much fence (the fence shadows are a good idea)

bdcolen

torags wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

A lot of homeless are outside our norm for normal. But many are there because of the choices they made (and are still making). Today more families are out there and my heart goes out to them.

Many of these homeless put themselves out in public in their condition and try to commercialize their condition by begging. That's fair, even tho' most get public assistance.

But to suggest they are off limits for photogs when they are not hiding (when they could find an alley instead), I think is going too far

Just my .02, everybody has to establish their own limits. this isn't one of mine.

BTW I think the shot is out of focus and needs fill light and has too much fence (the fence shadows are a good idea)

As I believe I've said before I have a "no bums" rule in my classes. I tell students that typical photos of homeless individuals on the street are cheap, easy, and exploitative. IF you want to document the life of a homeless person, spending time with them, getting to know them, and telling their story - fine. If you want to document the travails of a family out on the street - fine. If you photograph a homeless person as part of your street photography work, so that the photo offers us something other than an image of a homeless person - i.e., there's ambiguity, there's surrealism, there's juxtaposition, there's humor - okay. But to just shoot a raggedy homeless guy because he's there? No way.
And yes, many of those on the street did make "choices" - but very few of them made rational choices that weren't somehow related to mental illness or chemical dependency of one form or another.

michswiss

I generally like the shot. My first reaction was to the sense of artistry I felt in the light even though it took a while to gain perspective.

This is liable to sound harsh. I wouldn't taken this shot as I would feel it was exploitive. There is no narrative contrast, no story, no context why the person is there. He's sleeping. On the street. Probably not happy about it. You took his picture. Where's the story?

If I were able to retake a shot I'd be comfortable with, I'd project forward into the morning when he's waking up and packing up his belongings for his day on the street or possibly when he's setting up his bed. That way he's interactive and has the potential to be interacting with you and/or his surroundings.

Just my thoughts and still a technically interesting piece.

Miguel Delinquento

Agree with BD
In a former life I was a social services counselor who worked with the homeless and others at the margins. In my experience the state of rational decision making and ability to take responsibility for decisions among the homeless is along a continuum. Some are just crazy and destined to be dependent upon the public in one way or another forever. Another segment are antisocial criminals who try to manipulate and harm other people. And the third group are folks like us who made bad decisions, or have serious addiction problems, or have lost the social support of friends and family.

I think it is important to respect someone’s dignity, with a camera in hand or in daily social interactions. This is for both their sake and ours. Sometimes I’m a better person not to take the shot, especially when I am not intending to make a larger statement.

I’m certainly imperfect online and in real life, but photography is so important to me—and such a powerful tool—that being mindful of one’s practice has implications for other shooting contexts as well.



M

gvf

I’m certainly imperfect online and in real life, but photography is so important to me—and such a powerful tool—that being mindful of one’s practice has implications for other shooting contexts as well.

It's an interesting discussion. What prompted my picture is the peace of the figure . In the period I took it, I was working/volunteering with an organization that aids the homeless, my part was in the Food Program, driving all over Manhattan in a van with food passed out at pre-arranged stops. The homeless live a very hard life, and the peace of sleep at the end of the day for this man was obvious and soothing, to me anyway. So, that and the found-artistry of the street lighting that helped create this mood, was part of the urge to shoot. There is also the odd juxtaposition of a usual private activity - like sleeping - taking place in public, it humanizes in a city that is so based in speed and movement. Anyway, what all that adds up to I don't know......but the feeling was of affection.

torags

bdcolen wrote:

And yes, many of those on the street did make "choices" - but very few of them made rational choices that weren't somehow related to mental illness or chemical dependency of one form or another.

Hmmm... I think a lot of well meaning Americans believe they know better than other groups in our country (or internationally), therefore they wish to impose their values upon the other group.

Unfortunately they don't realize they are precluding some individual rights that people used to enjoy, in this "free" country. In this case it's a benevolent comment but what's rational to one, may make no difference to someone else.

Most of the people I know who have raised children have realized that; I have. Some people have to make their own mistakes.

The OPs clarification comment is very nice, I would have preferred no defense and allow the viewer to interpret the image subjectively.

So where do you draw the line when not to shot? Smokers - they're going to get cancer (as well as sunbathers); motorcycle racers, bungee jumpers, who may not live a full life.

I'm a biker and old. I can't tell you how many people look at me sympathetically and tell me I should stop riding because they know someone who.......

I choose to do it cause I like it; similar to a drug addict. there may be consequences but I'm willing to pay the piper. Some of the consequences of drug addiction is homelessness. But I can't see why they can't be photographed.

In SF - the Mayor was exasperated because he built shelters and many homeless refused to go in them. They exercised their choice.

good discussion

gvf

In SF - the Mayor was exasperated because he built shelters and many homeless refused to go in them. They exercised their choice.

In New York this is true also. Don't know about shelters in SF but in NYC some would prefer to stay on the street - unless winter cold becomes dangerous. I spoke to a lot of those I worked with and shelters have serious and multiple problem in NYC. Violence is great and I heard many stories of being robbed, or worse. Also, while the street gives physical hardship, some can function better there than in a shelter, which of necessity is de-humanizing, masses living in dormitories, strict rules of times to be back each day. The shelters are also at times way out, in the Bronx or far in to Queens. This can preclude attempts by some homeless to take some jobs, low level or not. Travel-time, transportation money, and the necessity of being back at prescribed hours etc., can work against fledgling steps back into self-productivity.

For these reasons, their not wanting to always leave the street for the shelter makes some sense to them.

One last point: NYC real estate market is made for horrendous tumbling falls if - having lived in a Rent-Stablized apartment for years - it is suddenly gone and you're out. So a woman with little job skills or history of working- and who has 3 kids - gets abandoned by her husband. Her rent for a 2 bedroom "controlled-increase"-lease,might be $800. But she can't bring that in without her husband. So she's out of there, with 3 kids. Or the landlord forces her out somehow. Bingo! The landlord can renovate with a certain requirement in expenditures, and THEN HE'S GOLDEN. That unit is now officially "de-controlled" and he can start demanding market value for rents: say from $800/mos to $2400 for the same apartment. The woman with the 3 kids, now out, is no longer looking to rent another $600 to $800 apt. That's impossible. As a new renter, she's seeing apts at market-value - like her old one now is - and the idea of her and 3 kids coming up with that $2400 money every month....forget it. Add in that she doesn't have many friends or family - and it's a quick trip to street-life.

bdcolen

gvf wrote:

In New York this is true also. Don't know about shelters in SF but in NYC some would prefer to stay on the street - unless winter cold becomes dangerous. I spoke to a lot of those I worked with and shelters have serious and multiple problem in NYC. Violence is great and I heard many stories of being robbed, or worse. Also, while the street gives physical hardship, some can function better there than in a shelter, which of necessity is de-humanizing, masses living in dormitories, strict rules of times to be back each day. The shelters are also at times way out, in the Bronx or far in to Queens. This can preclude attempts by some homeless to take some jobs, low level or not. Travel-time, transportation money, and the necessity of being back at prescribed hours etc., can work against fledgling steps back into self-productivity.

For these reasons, their not wanting to always leave the street for the shelter makes some sense to them.

One last point: NYC real estate market is made for horrendous tumbling falls if - having lived in a Rent-Stablized apartment for years - it is suddenly gone and you're out. So a woman with little job skills or history of working- and who has 3 kids - gets abandoned by her husband. Her rent for a 2 bedroom "controlled-increase"-lease,might be $800. But she can't bring that in without her husband. So she's out of there, with 3 kids. Or the landlord forces her out somehow. Bingo! The landlord can renovate with a certain requirement in expenditures, and THEN HE'S GOLDEN. That unit is now officially "de-controlled" and he can start demanding market value for rents: say from $800/mos to $2400 for the same apartment. The woman with the 3 kids, now out, is no longer looking to rent another $600 to $800 apt. That's impossible. As a new renter, she's seeing apts at market-value - like her old one now is - and the idea of her and 3 kids coming up with that $2400 money every month....forget it. Add in that she doesn't have many friends or family - and it's a quick trip to street-life.

Neither you or Rags are talking about free choice - you're talking about people's desperation. And Rags, it's nonsense to suggest that most, or any but a very small percentage of people living on the street are doing so because that's where they want to be. (And I have raised three kids, not that I know what that has to do with the discussion.)

However - yes, there are people who reject city-provided shelters for a host of reasons, ranging from the quite rational belief that many of the shelters are more dangerous than being on the street, to the irrational fear, based on mental illness, that being inside will cause something bad to happen to them.

bdcolen

gvf wrote:

It's an interesting discussion. What prompted my picture is the peace of the figure . In the period I took it, I was working/volunteering with an organization that aids the homeless, my part was in the Food Program, driving all over Manhattan in a van with food passed out at pre-arranged stops. The homeless live a very hard life, and the peace of sleep at the end of the day for this man was obvious and soothing, to me anyway. So, that and the found-artistry of the street lighting that helped create this mood, was part of the urge to shoot. There is also the odd juxtaposition of a usual private activity - like sleeping - taking place in public, it humanizes in a city that is so based in speed and movement. Anyway, what all that adds up to I don't know......but the feeling was of affection.

Okay - So do a documentary project about the lives of some of these people you were working with. Tell their stories. That is respectful. Just don't put up a single image of someone sprawled on the sidewalk.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

Okay - So do a documentary project about the lives of some of these people you were working with. Tell their stories. That is respectful. Just don't put up a single image of someone sprawled on the sidewalk.

Not that I entirely disagree with you, B.D., because I do think there are some boundaries there (although I can't say that I have decided where they should be drawn), but I have to wonder why these people seem to get exemption status in this regard.

Would it be any less moral to shot a picture of a drunk college kid sprawled out on the sidewalk? Was their decision to pass out on the street any less involuntary than the homeless person? Both, I'm sure, played a large role in their bing where they are. Both, I'm sure, had plenty of outside influence, welcome or not, which also helped them to where they are. I'm sure neither of these people would have made a decision to be on the street but, due to circumstances both within and beyond their control, they are.

Both of these people may have addictions (one substance and one to fitting in, perhaps). Both of these people do have the ability to make smart decisions (one's in college, one plots and plans for meals and such). So what makes them different? Appearence?

Miguel Delinquento

Travis,
I think you are making a false distinction here. Unless there is some kind of a larger statement in the making, I would choose to respect the dignity of a drunk college student as well and just not take the shot.

Now maybe if the student was wearing a T-shirt with some pithy or ironic message, it would be worth taking, but that's introducing meta-messages to the frame and makes the situation more shot worthy.

M

thoth wrote:

[deleted]

Would it be any less moral to shot a picture of a drunk college kid sprawled out on the sidewalk? Was their decision to pass out on the street any less involuntary than the homeless person? Both, I'm sure, played a large role in their bing where they are. Both, I'm sure, had plenty of outside influence, welcome or not, which also helped them to where they are. I'm sure neither of these people would have made a decision to be on the street but, due to circumstances both within and beyond their control, they are.

[deleted]
So what makes them different? Appearence?

thoth

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

Travis,
I think you are making a false distinction here. Unless there is some kind of a larger statement in the making, I would choose to respect the dignity of a drunk college student as well and just not take the shot.

Now maybe if the student was wearing a T-shirt with some pithy or ironic message, it would be worth taking, but that's introducing meta-messages to the frame and makes the situation more shot worthy.

M

Fair enough, Miguel. Perhaps there is less distinction that it seems. Certainly we don't see many photos of drunk college students passed out on sidewalks! I'm sure this principle can be applied, across the board, to taking advantage in any situation regardless of the participant.

B.D., maybe you should change your rule to "no taking advantage of people"!

Miguel Delinquento

Travis,
Photography is a powerful tool. Some judicious behavior on the shooter's part can improve the world. I prefer an approach closer to treating someone the way you would want to be treated yourself or have your loved ones treated.

I've taken a handful of shots of women (friends and passersby) in which the flash or the natural lighting unintentionally reveals too much of an outline of their anatomy. Some of us have seen that Seinfeld episode.

Now some men may just go ahead and publish that, but to me that chips away at their dignity, and reveals much more about the shooter. Fortunately a software fix takes two minutes, and we all get a usable shot out of it. I'm sure you'd do the same.

M

thoth wrote:

Fair enough, Miguel. Perhaps there is less distinction that it seems. Certainly we don't see many photos of drunk college students passed out on sidewalks! I'm sure this principle can be applied, across the board, to taking advantage in any situation regardless of the participant.

B.D., maybe you should change your rule to "no taking advantage of people"!

thoth

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

Travis,
Photography is a powerful tool. Some judicious behavior on the shooter's part can improve the world. I prefer an approach closer to treating someone the way you would want to be treated yourself or have your loved ones treated.

I've taken a handful of shots of women (friends and passersby) in which the flash or the natural lighting unintentionally reveals too much of an outline of their anatomy. Some of us have seen that Seinfeld episode.

Now some men may just go ahead and publish that, but to me that chips away at their dignity, and reveals much more about the shooter. Fortunately a software fix takes two minutes, and we all get a usable shot out of it. I'm sure you'd do the same.

M

Absolutely. I did not intend, in my original statement, to claim that we should loosen the restraint on photographing the homeless but, rather, use more restraint when photographing everyone else. After rereading my post it sure doesn't sound like that is what I meant but that is what I was getting at.

torags

We take pictures, some of peoples behavior. Personally I value that image more, than a posed shot promoting a subjects vanity.

If you want to restrain your craft because of some moral code you espouse, its your prerogative, condemning others with a different moral code.. Hmmmm

The same image with a story one advocates is excepted from the "decency" rule?

WTF, we're just taking pictures....

thoth

torags wrote:

We take pictures, some of peoples behavior. Personally I value that image more, than a posed shot promoting a subjects vanity.

If you want to restrain your craft because of some moral code you espouse, its your prerogative, condemning others with a different moral code.. Hmmmm

The same image with a story one advocates is excepted from the "decency" rule?

WTF, we're just taking pictures....

I don't recall any condemnation going on here. But whatever...

gvf

If you want to restrain your craft because of some moral code you espouse, its your prerogative, condemning others with a different moral code.. Hmmmm

In the same vein, I think there's a danger in defining a type of shot as being off-limits. Being a witness is different than being an intruder - and whether it be one or the other lies in the intent of the photographer, not in the subject.

Some of the greatest photos of the 20th century show the effects of catastrophe on human beings -shots of grieving mothers over the bodies of loved ones (the famous photo of a Russian woman discovering her husband in a pile of dead in WWII), some show the wounded, the dead, the soldier with the "1000 yard stare" etc. Is this intrusive? Would each have agreed to be photographed? The question isn't there when one views the photographs, for they obviously transcend the private and hint at broader realities.

On the other hand, the intent can be voyeuristic and with the same subjects - witness any of the tacky shock-value treatments of people we see in tabloids daily.

If someone doesn't want to be photographed that's a limit that I respect.
In the absence of that, if a public shot feels it has value, artistic - social - whatever, it's a choice to attempt it - even if it fails. My sense anyway....

bdcolen

gvf wrote:

In the same vein, I think there's a danger in defining a type of shot as being off-limits. Being a witness is different than being an intruder - and whether it be one or the other lies in the intent of the photographer, not in the subject.

Some of the greatest photos of the 20th century show the effects of catastrophe on human beings -shots of grieving mothers over the bodies of loved ones (the famous photo of a Russian woman discovering her husband in a pile of dead in WWII), some show the wounded, the dead, the soldier with the "1000 yard stare" etc. Is this intrusive? Would each have agreed to be photographed? The question isn't there when one views the photographs, for they obviously transcend the private and hint at broader realities.

On the other hand, the intent can be voyeuristic and with the same subjects - witness any of the tacky shock-value treatments of people we see in tabloids daily.

If someone doesn't want to be photographed that's a limit that I respect.
In the absence of that, if a public shot feels it has value, artistic - social - whatever, it's a choice to attempt it - even if it fails. My sense anyway....

You've made some excellent points here.
First, let me say that in addition to my "no bums" rule, what I tell the students in all my classes is that there is only one thing we owe our subjects, and that is honesty. We have an obligation as human beings to not belittle people, not intentionally make them look bad, not try to capture them at their worst. Conversely, we do not have any obligation to try to make them look good, to pretend that we live in Lake Wobegon, "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." Photographing bereaved mothers and widows, showing the bodies of dead soldiers, the 'thousand yard stare,' etc. etc. all serve a purpose - they inform us and put us in touch with painful realities.

My issue with taking one-off photos of the homeless is that they are taken over and over and over, are essentially all the same photo, are being taken of people who, on the whole, are deeply troubled, and do not say anything other than "street person." However, if one can take such a photo that conveys something more, that tells a real story, that advances understanding - go for it.

gvf

We have an obligation as human beings to not belittle people, not intentionally make them look bad,

Yes, definitely, the initial respect has to be there.

And yes to this too:

My issue with taking one-off photos of the homeless is that they are taken over and over and over, are essentially all the same photo, are being taken of people who, on the whole, are deeply troubled, and do not say anything other than "street person." However, if one can take such a photo that conveys something more, that tells a real story, that advances understanding - go for it.

That's the reason I always feel odd taking such a photo - and don't take many. We are dealing with subjects who can be hurt by us in shooting them, and yet are sometimes too damaged to be able to express that. So, with any such subject - I think one has to be especially careful and to make sure the attempt tries to bring some generosity of spirit to bear and an urge to create meaning, artistic, social whatever - otherwise, take a picture of a flower.

torags

gvf wrote:

Yes, definitely, the initial respect has to be there.

And yes to this too:



That's the reason I always feel odd taking such a photo - and don't take many. We are dealing with subjects who can be hurt by us in shooting them, and yet are sometimes too damaged to be able to express that. So, with any such subject - I think one has to be especially careful and to make sure the attempt tries to bring some generosity of spirit to bear and an urge to create meaning, artistic, social whatever - otherwise, take a picture of a flower.

Fair enough. Personally I wouldn't have taken the picture, it didn't have enough expression for a viewer conclusion. However I don't think I should be presumptuous enough to tell someone else not to take the snap.

The OP appears to have had some good intending baggage the image did not convey.

If that is the case, perhaps the image would need some text to channel the viewer thoughts.

Seems to me the image is an excellent candidate for a PJ piece

my .02

Rags

gvf

Thanks for your comments.
What is a "PJ piece"? Don't know the term. Thanks

leebase

bdcolen wrote:

Okay - So do a documentary project about the lives of some of these people you were working with. Tell their stories. That is respectful. Just don't put up a single image of someone sprawled on the sidewalk.

That's some high horse you are riding on. Worth perhaps a comment about what you think....but pressing on as if you have some definitive "Truth" about what is or is not "exploitation" etc. When I want sermons, I go to church.

Lee