On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I have no problem with your referencing my photo, and I don't think Shel's > photo is particularly cruel. Although I'm not fond of homeless pics in > general. They're easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel -- or shooting cats > curled up on a chair. No value judgement, but I've come to see pics of > homeless as a waste of time. That being said I still like my SM Jesus pic, > because I found him to be a unique individual in many ways. > > My subject actually did make more than a professional model would earn: $% > for 2 minutes work translates to $150 per hour Not bad. And while this fellow > lives on the street, he's a professional pan handler who "owns" the best > corner in Santa Monica. He also seems to be rather intelligent, although > angry. I suspect he earns in excess of 20K per year. He probably sleeps on > the beach and gets fed both by the free feeds that a local charity group > holds in the park on Ocean Avenue and by people exiting restaurants. (It's > the custom in Santa Monica to request a to-go box then give it to one of the > homeless outside the door.) Santa Monica is probably the best place in the > world to live if one is homeless, and while it's a beautiful city. it > probably boasts more homeless residents per square mile than any other in the > U.S. If my wife kicks me out, I'm heading there.
My friend Candice does the $2 portrait project: http://thomashawk.com/2008/06/introducing-christopher-and-start-of-my.html http://www.flickr.com/groups/2dollarportraits/ The premise is that if someone asks for money you give them $2 in exchange for being allowed to take their photo. But, you also spend a bit of time talking to them and getting to know a little bit about them. Which was the backstory on this photo when she and I were doing a photowalk in downtown LA: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5852038093/in/set-72157627004162622 Ross got into having his photo taken and specifically asked Candice to email him a link or copy to the shot she got of him. He was bumming around, looking to move to Portland. I can't find her version of the shot online, I used a bit of fill flash so the neon sign in the background wouldn't blow out. > Paul > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:05 PM, William Robb wrote: > >> On 21/07/2011 11:36 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote: >>>> On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken >>>>> advantage of. He earned some money. >>>>> >>>> That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though >>>> it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps >>>> some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken >>>> with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? >>>> If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for >>>> modelling? >>>> For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not >>>> commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the >>>> images in the first place)? >>>> >>> Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-) >>> >>> I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change "Cruel" to "sneaky" >>> if you wish. >>> >>> But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did. >>> >>> >>> ann >>> >> >> Sorry, not meaning to jump on anyone, but I am finding this to be an >> interesting discussion. >> Paul, if you want me to stop using your image as an example, I surely can >> search the web for another that will do as well. >> I realize that a lot of people see the type of image that Shel created as >> exploitative and cruel. I think often we see the photograph as a power >> thing, with the photographer taking unfair advantage of the underprivileged >> person. >> When I was travelling in the USA a number of years ago, I came across a >> young man on a pier in Oregon. Just him, his dog and a backpack. He was >> obviously down on his luck, and I paid him a few dollars to allow me to take >> some pictures of him and his dog. >> He freely admitted that he was going to spend the money on booze and >> tobacco, so I went and bought a bag of dog food for his Rottie as well. >> In this instance, the act of paying the subject wasn't going to help him out >> at all, and would more than likely just add to his plight. >> My point here is that paying the subject isn't necessarily a good thing, >> even if you get a warm feeling from doing it. >> Was Shel "sneaky" because he waited for the decisive moment to get the >> picture that would tell the story that he wanted to tell? >> Was Paul "sneaky" because he waited for the decisive moment to get the >> background just the way he wanted? >> How about any street image that shows the subject in less than stellar light? >> >> How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of >> the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? >> >> >> -- >> >> William Robb >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
