So, today, I was thinking about all of this when I was walking around with my LX. I had the 19mm Vivitar on it, as I've not really used it to take street photos much. It was, to say the least, interesting. It really makes one interact with the subjects; they can't help but know you're there!! Of course, you can also use that lens for "stealth" work, since you can hyperfocus, and then not even look throught the viewfinder as you thrust the camera at people and snap - well, that's not really "stealth", but almost "guerrilla" photography. But, I digress.
I took a few shots of street people, which I usually don't do. On both occasions they asked me. I offered to give them some coins, which they said they would accept, but that payment wasn't necessary for me to take photos. So, I felt comfortable taking their photos on that basis (and yes, I did give them a couple of bucks each, but that had nothing to do with the photographs). I didn't take their photos because they were street people, but because they looked interesting. One fellow was taking pennies that he'd collected during the day, and was spelling out "Jesus loves you", or words to that effect on the sidewalk. I thought that was interesting. I had a nice chat with him while I took 3 or 4 photos of him and his coin-words. I don't really care if the photos turn out, I really enjoyed talking with this gentle stranger. I got a lot out of the situation.
But, here's my point (yes I do have a point). I tend not to take photos of street people unless I'm 100% certain that they consent. I feel I'm exploiting them otherwise. Other non-vagrant interesting people I run into, I'm not quite so concerned about consent, but I'll chat with them if I have a chance. Of the photos I posted yesterday, I didn't talk with the Asian girl, as she was whizzing by me in a dense crowd - I couldn't have talked to her if I wanted to.
The one of the man (I presume father) reading to the child, I don't think they even knew I took the photo. Stop, snap and walk on. A one shot deal. I really didn't want to disturb their tender moment together, so I didn't chat with them. I wish I had, because I wonder if they'd have appreciated a print of the photo, which I'd have offered to them had it turned out (which I think it did - I'm actually quite proud of that one).
The Boy Scout sellin apples, I felt bad I didn't talk with him. He seemed so cute. I should have at least bought an apple from him (expect I already bought one from another kid I didn't photograph). I guess I'm a bit squeamish about chatting with kids, and of taking photos of them - I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, if you know what I mean.
But, here's my point (again, there is one... <g>). I tend to take photos of able-bodied people. I don't take photos of obese people, out of fear that they'll be offended. Same thing with people in wheel chairs, or street people who are in very rough shape, or clearly intoxicated, or who are in some other way disabled or disadvantaged. But, since I take lots of photos of normally-abled folks, am I not discriminating against "non-beautiful" people? Not to take it to the extreme suggested by Marnie in an earlier post, but I often wonder if by ~not~ taking photos of such people, I'm actually discriminating against them in a certain way?
Any thoughts on this dilemma? BTW, I have taken photos of wheelchair bound people when invited to - they just haven't turned out...
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>Maybe so. May I ask you why you think this lady is interesting? Is it possibly just because she is abnormally fat?<snip>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
