Is 'street photography' exploitative?

Steve said:
I'm unsteady on my feet and have had several falls in the street, even though I use a stick. I have always found people very kind and they rush over to help, and although lots of people also just stand and stare, I only recall anyone photographing me once while I'm collapsed on the floor, but I'm not really paying attention to the people around me so could be more. I'ts not dignified and I feel embarrassed and pathetic and just want to go home and hide when it happens.

I am not happy that someone photographed me in this state. I didn't challenge them, as all I want to do is get home and away from everybody, and really don't want to draw any more attention to myself.

My question would be why would someone want to photograph such a thing? It's not a news story, like the victims of 7/7 bombing being helped. It's not a social issue.....I can fall over on a perfectly flat surface so nothing to do with road maintenance. So what would the motivation be to photograph this?
Click to expand...

I have had quite a few fits in the street in my time,depending on how long their last i have come round with a crowd around me,with all sort of different reaction,but to be honest i have never once thought about if anybody video it or photograph it,and i wouldn't have cared less if they have.
 
boliston said:
The only other "no no" is shooting disabled as they cannot defend themselves if they do not wish to be shot.
Click to expand...

Why? Can they not speak? Voice their displeasure? Are they all gibbering simpletons in your opinion? How are you even defining disabled?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why? Can they not speak? Voice their displeasure? Are they all gibbering simpletons in your opinion? How are you even defining disabled?
Click to expand...
OK I guess you have convinced me I must go out and shoot some disabled people this weekend!
Knowing my luck I will go out all ready to shoot and only see able bodied people :D
 
Some of it is exploitative but most is just plain boring. Here is some of my street shots....cue a load of photographs of people carrying tesco bags along the promenade.
 
boliston said:
OK I guess you have convinced me I must go out and shoot some disabled people this weekend!
Knowing my luck I will go out all ready to shoot and only see able bodied people :D
Click to expand...

Ever thought that perhaps you should stop digging? I mean I will get the ladder on standby, for you to climb out of that hole, but given that not every 'disabled' person is not 'able-bodied', you might want to throw the shovel away and have a little rethink of your phraseology :)
 
boliston said:
OK I guess you have convinced me I must go out and shoot some disabled people this weekend!
Knowing my luck I will go out all ready to shoot and only see able bodied people :D
Click to expand...

remember to lead them less than you would an 'able bodied' person , and watch out for ricochets from the wheelchair ;)
 
boliston said:
OK I guess you have convinced me I must go out and shoot some disabled people this weekend!
Knowing my luck I will go out all ready to shoot and only see able bodied people :D
Click to expand...


Words fail me.
 
There are many things that are both 'legal' and 'exploitative'. As one example (IMO) 30+% interest rate on credit cards, and I'm sure we can all think of others. So just because it's legal does not mean it's morally acceptable.

With regards to taking photographs of people who are disabled, I think there are many contexts in which such photographs can be positively inspirational. In the wrong context they would, IMO, just be sick.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If it is the type that is produced with the aim of making the photographer look good instead of actually saying anything worthwhile about the subject, then yes, it's exploitative. Taking a shot of a homeless person (as an example) and making it look cool, just do you as the photographer can get credit for the work, then yes.. how is that NOT exploitative? Did the homeless person benefit in any way whatsoever? If no... then you exploited him. Simple.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean by the photographer exploiting the subject but don't understand what you mean by the subject benefiting some how. How has that ever been a part of street photography. We are talking about taking pictures of strangers that we will never see again. If that stranger had to benefit then I have been doing it wrong for years. I think that is too literal. If that's the case every shot we take unless we're selling it or giving it to someone is a case of exploitation.
 
shaylou said:
I get what you mean by the photographer exploiting the subject but don't understand what you mean by the subject benefiting some how. How has that ever been a part of street photography. We are talking about taking pictures of strangers that we will never see again. If that stranger had to benefit then I have been doing it wrong for years. I think that is too literal. If that's the case every shot we take unless we're selling it or giving it to someone is a case of exploitation.
Click to expand...
Good street photography has often been created with the intention of telling a story or revealing something interesting about the way society works.
To stick with the homelessness theme: a photographer might be creating work which is intended to make people rethink their prejudices surrounding homelessness and poverty. Or they might be creating work which reveals the absurdity of inequality. There are lots of ways in which one could study homelessness photographically.

In this way the subject (who is probably relatively disenfranchised and powerless) benefits from someone with more social capital being willing to stand up and speak out on their behalf.

Too many street photographers are just trying to be edgy and gritty for the sake of their own popularity, though.
I think it should be a general rule in street photography: if you can't tell me something interesting about your subject or their context, it's probably trash. Particularly for photography featuring the vulnerable, but also for all other street photography. Would help purge the genre of old men reading papers and folk carrying shopping bags.
 
Therein is the problem. Define 'interesting'.Some people find 'bird on a twig' interesting, 'car on a racetrack' interesting. Conversely, there are many who don't. All photography is subjective and means different things and holds different values to different people.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Therein is the problem. Define 'interesting'.Some people find 'bird on a twig' interesting, 'car on a racetrack' interesting. Conversely, there are many who don't. All photography is subjective and means different things and holds different values to different people.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem. You can tell if someone has tried to create something interesting, something that goes beyond voyeurism, even if you, yourself, don't find it particularly interesting. It's the intention, not necessarily the result.
 
ghoti said:
That's not a problem. You can tell if someone has tried to create something interesting, something that goes beyond voyeurism, even if you, yourself, don't find it particularly interesting. It's the intention, not necessarily the result.
Click to expand...

To use your example (above) someone photographs an old man reading a newspaper, they may well find that interesting, that's why they may have taken it, you yourself (as stated) are not keen on these...

That's my point entirely photography is completely subjective. Street photography is no different to any other subject. One mans marmite is another mans jam.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
To use your example (above) someone photographs an old man reading a newspaper, they may well find that interesting, that's why they may have taken it, you yourself (as stated) are not keen on these...

That's my point entirely photography is completely subjective. Street photography is no different to any other subject. One mans marmite is another mans jam.
Click to expand...
Photos of old men reading newspapers aren't something I'd say would ever be particularly exploitative. I see this sort of street photography as unimaginative rather than crass.
I think that if someone can talk a little bit about their subject and what it means to them (and not just in glib "I thought he had a lot of character" clichés) then, even if I'm not particularly interested in the theme, I can appreciate that some thought has gone into it.
If someone just finds old men reading newspapers an "interesting" subject in and of itself, as you seem to be suggesting, then I guess that's fine with me. I have no interest in that kind of photography. I can see an old man reading a newspaper within five minutes of my front door on any day of the week, probably. But if someone finds that to be a fascinating aesthetic subject then that's their business (and possibly the business of their psychologist). Like you say, it's not for me to tell them they're wrong.

I suspect, though, that 95% of the time, pictures of old men with newspapers and people carrying shopping bags pop up in "street photography" because they're easy subjects and people are lazy. People want something that looks superficially "street photography"-y so they'll crack off a few thoughtless pictures on the street, go home, convert it into black & white, job's a goodun. Their Facebook friends will think they're HCB. They'll convince themselves they've done something worthwhile. Then the toys will go out the pram when they get real criticism and are asked real critical questions.
 
Specking as a member of the public as well as a photographer,if somebody taking a shot in the street of me was the worst exploitative thing that happen in my life,i think i would be a very lucky man :)
 
simonblue said:
Specking as a member of the public as well as a photographer,if somebody taking a shot in the street of me was the worst exploitative thing that happen in my life,i think i would be a very lucky man :)
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has made the argument that it's likely to be the "worst exploitative thing" that happened in a subject's life, did they?
Exploiting people is generally considered unethical and, at best, crass. It doesn't have to be the "worst exploitative thing" ever to have happened.
 
ghoti said:
I don't think anyone has made the argument that it's likely to be the "worst exploitative thing" that happened in a subject's life, did they?
Exploiting people is generally considered unethical and, at best, crass. It doesn't have to be the "worst exploitative thing" ever to have happened.
Click to expand...

No just saying in the grand scheme things to me its a very small thing,and does not worry me :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I agree, but it's what most think of as street photography these days, and the example I gave above is exploitative.

All this snooping with long lenses and taking pics of old men on benches is bull****. short lenses, involved, telling stories... embedded work that puts the viewer in the heart of the action to give them a sense of what it's like to be there. It shows everything...
Click to expand...

How is this any different then taking a picture from 50 feet away using a zoom? The zoom gets you as close as the 35mm. Think about it, there is no difference in shooting a 35mm 5 feet away than there is shooting a 70-200 30 feet away. The crop is the same. If the original street photographers would of had the great zooms we do today I'm sure they would of took advantage of it. They used what they had the same as we do today. There is no logic to the "snooping long lens" theory. The one thing that the long lens haters never mention is the one major element of street photography that is the true essence of the shot. That is the candidness of the shot. It is very difficult to get a candid shot when you are a few feet away. When you use a zoom it is much easier to get a candid shot. To each is own, shoot what you want because it is the image that matters, not the way you got it. For some reason people like to discredit others that use anything but a wide angle lens to shoot street photography. The ironic thing is, most (not all) that criticize long lens street work do not even shoot street photography. I'm not talking about you, I am making a general statement based on my experience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghoti said:
Good street photography has often been created with the intention of telling a story or revealing something interesting about the way society works.
To stick with the homelessness theme: a photographer might be creating work which is intended to make people rethink their prejudices surrounding homelessness and poverty. Or they might be creating work which reveals the absurdity of inequality. There are lots of ways in which one could study homelessness photographically.

In this way the subject (who is probably relatively disenfranchised and powerless) benefits from someone with more social capital being willing to stand up and speak out on their behalf.

Too many street photographers are just trying to be edgy and gritty for the sake of their own popularity, though.
I think it should be a general rule in street photography: if you can't tell me something interesting about your subject or their context, it's probably trash. Particularly for photography featuring the vulnerable, but also for all other street photography. Would help purge the genre of old men reading papers and folk carrying shopping bags.
Click to expand...

I can't find the photographer now, but I saw an interesting project in a day in the life of a London market, from the stalls being setup, the life of the market and the clearing up, including the homeless rummaging looking for food.
 
shaylou said:
How is this any different then taking a picture from 50 feet away using a zoom? The zoom gets you as close as the 35mm. Think about it, there is no difference in shooting a 35mm 5 feet away than there is shooting a 70-200 30 feet away. The crop is the same. If the original street photographers would of had the great zooms we do today I'm sure they would of took advantage of it. They used what they had the same as we do today. There is no logic to the "snooping long lens" theory. The one thing that the long lens haters never mention is the one major element of street photography that is the true essence of the shot. That is the candidness of the shot. It is very difficult to get a candid shot when you are a few feet away. When you use a zoom it is much easier to get a candid shot. To each is own, shoot what you want because it is the image that matters, not the way you got it. For some reason people like to discredit others that use anything but a wide angle lens to shoot street photography. The ironic thing is, most (not all) that criticize long lens street work do not even shoot street photography. I'm not talking about you, I am making a general statement based on my experience.
Click to expand...

There's a great deal of difference. If you were 5ft away the person would be reacting to you, and from 30ft away they would not, so you would get entirely different results. Also, even technically there would be massive differences... the look of the image: 5ft with a short lens will give the field of view and perspective we normally associate with being there... a 200mm lens does not. It looks totally different. It looks like a long lens shot, and removes any sense of presence from the image. I'm sorry, but for a photographer to say there's no difference in 5ft with a 35 and 30ft with a 200 is.. well.. quite surprising.

We've had great long lenses for some time.... they're not a recent invention :)

Where is this insistence that great street images need to be candid coming from? What a preposterous idea. So if the subject doesn't see you taking the shot its the truth? Really? Care to explain the rationale behind that? Any photographer who knows anything will tell you that there's no such thing as truth in an image alone. You have already edited real life, by choosing the exact moment to press the shutter... what to include, what to exclude. You are merely telling the story YOU want to tell.. not the truth. These candid shots tell me nothing about them. I have no idea who they are, what they're thinking, what kind of people they are. All I have is what you the photographer chooses to give me.

It's just one story... your story... not theirs.

If you are in any doubt about whether the subjects being participants in the shot, or aware of the shot can be more truthful than if they were shot candidly, then take a look at really great work with the homeless... stuff like Margaret Morton (Glass House) or even Dark Days by Marc Singer. If you do watch Dark Days.. watch the DVD version as there's a "making of" film as well. It demonstrates how Singer got the homeless people to actually be the film crew. They rigged up their own lighting, make their own dollies to run along the tracks... they were empowered totally, yet despite this it's perhaps one of the most honest, real films made of the New York homeless... ever.

You don't need to surprise people or sneak around to get honesty. That's one of the rookie mistakes that unfortunately persists in far too many people.

Documentary and ethnography produce the most honest, realistic accounts of people, and both require full co-operation from the subjects being explored. "street" photography that snipes from across the street is just people putting their own ideas, baggage, prejudices, and wants onto other people without their consent. What exactly is "honest" or "truthful" about sniping people from a distance without knowing anything about them, then representing them however you see fit without their consent? How is that "truthful"?

[edit]

BTW.. I'm not saying great images can't be taken without people knowing... just that honesty and truth have f**k all to do with it. You want truth, then get the people being shot to tell YOU what's what.. don't just represent people how you see fit. That's NOT honest... or truthful... that's bulls**t.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Photos of old men reading newspapers aren't something I'd say would ever be particularly exploitative. I see this sort of street photography as unimaginative rather than crass.
I think that if someone can talk a little bit about their subject and what it means to them (and not just in glib "I thought he had a lot of character" clichés) then, even if I'm not particularly interested in the theme, I can appreciate that some thought has gone into it.
If someone just finds old men reading newspapers an "interesting" subject in and of itself, as you seem to be suggesting, then I guess that's fine with me. I have no interest in that kind of photography. I can see an old man reading a newspaper within five minutes of my front door on any day of the week, probably. But if someone finds that to be a fascinating aesthetic subject then that's their business (and possibly the business of their psychologist). Like you say, it's not for me to tell them they're wrong.

I suspect, though, that 95% of the time, pictures of old men with newspapers and people carrying shopping bags pop up in "street photography" because they're easy subjects and people are lazy. People want something that looks superficially "street photography"-y so they'll crack off a few thoughtless pictures on the street, go home, convert it into black & white, job's a goodun. Their Facebook friends will think they're HCB. They'll convince themselves they've done something worthwhile. Then the toys will go out the pram when they get real criticism and are asked real critical questions.
Click to expand...

Your post made me smile to myself, because I battle with trying not to be judged and fall into your categorisation

But I am doomed.. Oops :)


_DSC2955 by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
Don't let them squeeze you into their mould! :)
 
dancook said:
Your post made me smile to myself, because I battle with trying not to be judged and fall into your categorisation

But I am doomed.. Oops :)


_DSC2955 by dancook1982, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's a great image. I like it a lot. It's a great case study though. Its the kind of image often touted as being truthful and honest. It's not though is it. I only have what you give me, and you've edited that quite severely. Why is it black and white? It's an old man on a train and he's ignoring me (the viewer) completely, so I've no idea about him at all. If he as interacting with you (and therefore me the viewer) I'd be able to make judgements - the look on his face, his reactions, his body language...

It's a lovely image, with some cool light... but it's not honest, or truthful because I have no idea about this man whatsoever.. I can invent any story I like, and so can you... and you did.

I'm not criticising your photography... I'm criticising people's assessment and reading of it.

gramps said:
Don't let them squeeze you into their mould! :)
Click to expand...

Isn't that already done for most people? Maybe we're trying to get them to break out of the mould Gramps. :) After all... the street images like the ones we're criticising are out there in their BILLIONS. The ones we're praising are the minority.
 
Last edited:
shaylou said:
How is this any different then taking a picture from 50 feet away using a zoom? The zoom gets you as close as the 35mm. Think about it, there is no difference in shooting a 35mm 5 feet away than there is shooting a 70-200 30 feet away. The crop is the same.
Click to expand...

The crop isn't the same - because the perspective is different. The close in wide angle view shows more of the surroundings. That gives context to 'street' pictures. It's what makes them more interesting than the compressed, distanced, perspective long lenses give.

Try using a fisheye on the street. :D
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's a great image. I like it a lot. It's a great case study though. Its the kind of image often touted as being truthful and honest. It's not though is it. I only have what you give me, and you've edited that quite severely. Why is it black and white? It's an old man on a train and he's ignoring me (the viewer) completely, so I've no idea about him at all. If he as interacting with you (and therefore me the viewer) I'd be able to make judgements - the look on his face, his reactions, his body language...
Click to expand...

How would I do that? say 'excuse me sir' before I clicked?

Or yes as said above, talk to them.

I appreciate your comments I do feel like there's a lot I am yet to explore and understand


Like how to talk to people :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Isn't that already done for most people? Maybe we're trying to get them to break out of the mould Gramps. :) After all... the street images like the ones we're criticising are out there in their BILLIONS. The ones we're praising are the minority.
Click to expand...

So because a type of photography is popular it is unworthy?
People enjoy all sorts of ways of following their desire to engage in photography, whether is be considered street or candid, long lens or short ... it is one thing to suggest another approach but the constant "this is not street" becomes boring.
 
dancook said:
How would I do that? say 'excuse me sir' before I clicked?

I appreciate your comments I do feel like there's a lot I am yet to explore and understand
Click to expand...

First off... I wasn't criticising the image you posted. I thought it was excellent. I'm not saying you should change anything at all. I was merely using that as an example of how in reality, there's no truth in it whatsoever. I have no idea who he is, therefore (as we all do) I merely invent a story to fit. I'll rummage through my life experiences, prejudices, baggage and cultural references and I'll assign what seems to fit onto that gentleman.

Allow me to demonstrate.

View attachment 33243

View attachment 33244


There are many truths one can ascribe to an image, and the fact is, you as the author of the image also have no idea what is the nearest to the truth... you've no more idea than I have.

What is truth? The fact is, that if you had spoken to him... just struck up a conversation.. showed him the picture you'd taken.. then took another... YOU would have an idea of how he was, and may have actually taken a very different image as a result. As it is.. you took it, and treated it as a "photograph" only, and reduced the man to nothing more than an object to be lit, and represented in a way that serves no other purpose than to show your skills as a photographer.

I'm not saying that in THIS instance that's wrong... as the guy isn't being represented in any way that is derogatory or controversial... its just a man on a train. However, do work like this with vulnerable people, just to fit in with your agenda as a photographer making "good photographs" is exploitative, as you're allowing the viewer to infer whatever meaning THEY want onto the image, and as people have very different prejudices and ideals about homeless people, there's a real danger you are not really doing anything other than pandering to their prejudices and cultural baggage.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
So because a type of photography is popular it is unworthy?
People enjoy all sorts of ways of following their desire to engage in photography, whether is be considered street or candid, long lens or short ... it is one thing to suggest another approach but the constant "this is not street" becomes boring.
Click to expand...

Unworthy is a strong word, and one you chose to use. I don't believe I ever used it Gramps.

Take what you want... but when it goes into the public domain, it will be criticised. That's just the way it is. If you don't like it, don't post it. You can just follow the crowd.. do what they do... because it's easier, or because you have no desire to think critically about your work, or you can engage with a more academic way of working, and strive to find ways for your work to say something more meaningful. It's up to you, you're absolutely correct. More power to you. No one is making you do what I suggest are they?
 
So wee back into sekula and exchanging information. Without the story we apply our own cultural influences to make the story.
 
Byker28i said:
So wee back into sekula and exchanging information. Without the story we apply our own cultural influences to make the story.
Click to expand...


Pretty much.. yes. Of course we do that. We look at an image, and we strive to give it meaning. If none is to be found, we will invent one based on what we think we know about people "like that".
 
Pookeyhead said:
No one is making you do what I suggest are they?
Click to expand...

"I" is a bit strong David, there are a number of individuals pontificating on what is right and wrong in the thread.
No one physically twists anothers arm in situations like this but the constant harping on how others' photos do not 'qualify' does it by inference. Take for example what you included in your crit of Dan's 'man on a train' ... you say, "as people have very different prejudices and ideals about homeless people, there's a real danger you are not really doing anything other than pandering to their prejudices and cultural baggage."
Surely there is an equal danger that people will view the image and think in terms of helping the homeless, examining political aims toward ending homelessness, why people become homeless etc.
Does my work need to 'say something'?
Why cannot it make the viewer think and come to their own conclusions?
 
I think too many people seem to be hung up on making individual 'good photographs' to be looked at by other photographers, and it's this taking of single images and presenting them as 'street photography' that is problematic. But this emphasis on the single image seems to permeate amateur/hobbyist photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top