Is there really an unwritten rule against taking photos of homeless people for street photography?
>>4461556Common sense. Why are street photographers always autistic?
>>4461556its overdone, almost never interesting and just shows that you are a bitch and afraid to take photos of people that could fight back
>>4461556It's dishonest, like Woody Allen.
>>4461556How do I become a dark room professor?
>>4461559so is everything. fuck you ill take nothing but homeless people rotting now
>>4461572t. little bitch
I take a photo of a homeless person every roll I shoot. I think OP's adjunct photography professor is just salty because he lives in his volvo and someone took a photo of him wiping his butt with baby wipes in his back seat.Joking aside, I only do it if they ask me for a dollar or cigarette first. I feel bad sometimes.
>>4461556Why the fuck do I want to see a photo of a homeless dude just being homeless?It's useless, it's lazy, and it lacks compassion.If you take a photo of a homeless person without explicit consent, you better be taking a good fucking photo that has something to say or a story to tell.
>snapshit >:(>Snapshit, homeless person :O
>>4461556You should tell your photography professor the same thing applies to all black and white street photos of niggers, taken by jews, through a leica.
yes and i break it whenever i want. like pretty much any photography rule, it's only useful for beginners or practicing limitations. obviously there's a lot of room for exploitation of vulnerable people in street photography, and we should be careful about that. but i don't want to be so afraid of exploiting that i loop back around and erase people living on the street from view. i'm interested in capturing moments and compositions about my area and its people. guess what - these are people in my area. in the end, my policy is simply shoot first and ask questions later. worry about ethics later in the culling/editing phase. the cool thing about photography is that you need to take shots to get shots. but you never need to show the misses
>>4461572as if you take any pictures
> Don't take pictures that highlight the homeless epidemic in our country.> You make it difficult for our government to maintain face.> You are not an ally.
>>4461556It's common sense same like not taking photos of random strangers on the street.
I will take photos of homeless, junkies, drunks, and all manner of bums just as freely as I take a photo of anything else that captures my interest.I will not delete photos of people who ask me to, but I tell them I will.I do not view the above as immoral or unethical. Your hangups are your own.
>>4461707Literally nobody cares lil bro
>>4461717That's a dumb zoomer thing to say. The thread is about this. Plebbit thinks X, /p/ thinks Y.
>>4461675You’re not highlighting anything, everyone is aware of homeless people. It’s just low hanging fruit for photography. Pretty much any photography class in middle school high school college etc will tell you to not do it because it’s on top of being questionably ethical its extremely lazy.
>>4461556It's a good practice to at least offer a tenner or something
>>4461727>But GUYS didn't you know there are HOMELESS people EVERYHWERE? You just don't see them!>This uninteresting snapshit of a homeless crack addict flinging turds off the overpass will SURELY help people EMPHAHISE and HELP the needy homeless>I MUST get word to the PEOPLE of the INTERNET
>>4461727> It's old news move on> It's was on TV like quarter a decade ago> YaaawwwnnIf redditors object so much to taking photos of homeless people, it's valid to do it just because it's always valid to do the opposite of what redditors say.
>>4461731Feel free to share all of the amazing photos of bums you’ve taken that the redditors were too scared to take.
>>4461556Why would you WANT to take pictures of homeless people in the first place? Does this give you clout to get employed by some shitter blog or what?
>>4461738It’s a hack way of injecting emotion or message into what would otherwise be a total snapshit.
>>4461741Injecting emotion to "What" exactly?
>>4461743Idk, drama, intrigue, sadness, whatever into an otherwise uninteresting photo. It’s just cheap and exploitative.
>>4461741its not about injecting an emotion or a message into a total snapshitits about taking photos of bums to laugh at later
>>4461746>literally meyeah, a delusional faggot. It fits.
>>4461747a delusional faggot who kills hookers. correct.
>>4461745Dude you're not shooping a hobo on a photo. You are TAKING a photo of a hobo.You don't need to take the hobo photo. Yet you do so. A "photo" has no value in itself, unless the one with value is the photographer's name. Taking a photo of a hobo is wanting a photo of a turd, a random street, a blank paper. I wouldn't take a hobo photo because it just isn't a subject. That's why I ask why would anyone snap hobos, or random people off the street for that purpose. I don't understand the appeal of street photography at all, that's why I ask if it's just bloating portfolio to get hired and take newspaper pictures of crime scenes and other utility shit.
>>4461556No, liberals unironically just want to discourage it because then people will see how many homeless people their cities have. I'm not even memeing, that's the actual reason.
>>4461559Homeless people are the most likely to attack you out of everyone. You can also tell that it's because of this: >>4463007 because you always try to sidestep the fact that you could just ASK them if they're alright having their picture taken. Though, I suppose they'll invent some asinine reason why they can't consent to it despite being an adult.
>>4461675This 100%>>4461727The fact that they drill it into from such a young age proves it's a propaganda technique
>>4461738Personally, I like to see what the streets look like in the areas my potential elected officials are currently in charge of. No homeless people? Probably someone who knows what they're doing. A LOT of homeless people? Probably not going to listen to that guy.
>>4463009>I suppose they'll invent some asinine reason why they can't consent to it despite being an adult.Out of all kinds of people, I find left-leaning types the most likely to patronise others and attempt to make decisions on their behalf. It’s a sort of arrogance that is particularly liberal.
>>4461766>[Homeless people] just [aren’t] an [interesting] subject, [in my opinion].FTFY
Homeless people have no place for privacy, for the most part give them some respect and don’t photograph them.
Shoot more homeless people. Capturing the testy and entitled side of vagrants is something that should be done. The world needs awareness that there's a difference between the permanent transients posted up just off subway stops and widowed mothers. Shots of the "homeless" just vibing only serve to reinforce propaganda of sympathy.I can't stand the one that always tries to interrupt my conversations at 2nd Street station in Philadelphia and then mutters about how we're rude for ignoring him. What service am I paying you for sir beggar if you're not even going to pretend to be polite to me for a handout? I need to get his expression somehow but I'm not sure how to get a candid in that circumstance.
>>4463655That's not stellar reasoning. There are always shelters, bridges, whatever. If they're tucked away somewhere, maybe I won't shoot them. If they're on a downtown corner bench with their cart, they haven't at all sought out privacy.>>4463671Nailed it.
People try to say there is because they want to legislate morality. Truthfully there is good pictures of homeless people and there are bad pictures of homeless people. I think saying never take pictures of a homeless person is dehumanizing though as it's basically saying they should be treated in a way that makes them easier to be discarded. The real advice is to only take pictures of homeless people in an empathetic way that actually shows how they live and how they got there. You won't stop people from becoming homeless by hiding them from view and pretending you don't see them. All that does is quiet your complicit conscience.
The worst thing you can do is take photos of people’s backs. It doesn’t say anything but the photographer is a fag and creep
>>4463757There isn’t much objective reasoning to be done on this, but it’s an appeal to basic empathy like >>4463778 is making.
>>4461675It depends on the purpose of the photo. If it's for documentary/journalistic reasons and not just for le artistic reasons, then it's fine, but most faggots that do it are posting it on Instagram or YouTube just for "liek if you cry every tim" reasons.
>>4461559Second post best postAmericans are afraid of their own shadows because they have been programmed by social media and MSM to live in a constant state of fear and hate everything and be angry about shit
is it frowned upon to take photo of american eat hot dog
