photographing homeless people

Hugh_C

In the interests of fairness to the OP, I'm starting afresh:

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I can see a thousand pictures of the homeless or beggers and just get f*cking depressed, it's not some amazing exposé, oh my god there's homeless people, who would have thunk it!? Is it art? Is it right to treat poor people as art?

I don't have the answers, I just think it's a cheap way of building what people seem to think is a clever dichotomy, but it's not clever, it's cheap and easy.

There's a contrary opinion though and that it that it raises awareness, most of us in here are presumably mostly blissfully unaware of what life on the street is actually like, with the possible exception of thebaz who seems to have devoted himself to taking telling, sometimes harrowing and often gorgeous portraits of people less fortunate than us. We're cosseted and cocooned from the gritty reality of homelessness.

So I don't see it as a dichotomy, I see it as part of a document of what's going on around us, like it or not. You can choose to step over them at the cash machine, or you can give them a few bob (I don't) or give them some food (I do).

I've a lot of pictures of unnamed Ethiopian kids on my flickr and I stand over my position of awareness-raising in that regard. Looking at your pix.ie stream Popey, there are a few street shots of kids on Paddy's Day, presumably unknown to you. So, does the fact that they're not obviously homeless make it OK to take pictures of them? Does that make them art? Just asking ...


Hugh_C

TelePaul

There's quite a big difference between capturing something to create awareness or for the sake of posterity, and capturing it because you, at least, think it's a good shot (for whatever reason). I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable doing it, and I don't think it can be likened to other reality-shaping photographs of famine, displacement and such. People are well aware of the plight facing the impoverished on Irish streets - maybe that's why 'beggerography' does very little for me; I don't need to see the photograph, the reality is so common place that I have become desensitised.

Contrast that with photos of, shall we say, pestilence in a Burmese refugee camp - something I have had little exposure to - and you have the reason as to why candid street photos are largely lacking in my opinion. I enjoy many of Barry's photos, not necessarily for the, ahem, 'gritty reality' that's so oft-harked about (and not by Barry), but because they are excellent portraits; he could take photos of business men, and it wouldn't matter, so long as he continued to capture the innate characteristics of his subject matter.

Giving someone food or money in exchange for taking their photo is probably the most condescending thing that I could imagine doing. All just my opinion.

Hrududu

I'm sure each photographer has their own reason for photographing people that are at a very low point in their lives. Maybe it is to raise awareness. Maybe they consider it art. I see it as someone with a camera who looks at a human being in terrible circumstances and thinks "That will look great if i frame it like this and convert it to black and white." I think its tasteless.

TelePaul

Hrududu wrote: »

I see it as someone with a camera who looks at a human being in terrible circumstances and thinks "That will look great if i frame it like this and convert it to black and white." I think its tasteless.

I'd certainly be more of this persuasion.

Hugh_C

TelePaul wrote: »

Giving someone ... money in exchange for taking their photo is probably the most condescending thing that I could imagine doing.

Tell that to Naomi Campbell ...

Just for clarity, I was not suggesting giving people money or food in exchange for taking their picture.



HC

TelePaul

Hugh_C wrote: »

Tell that to Naomi Campbell ...

Just for clarity, I was not suggesting giving people money or food in exchange for taking their picture.



HC

Oh okay sorry, that's how I read it.

slumped

I'm feeling quite proud that an image of mine has thrown up a major discussion! Thanks for not hijacking my original thread!

My thoughts as the photographer on this

I went out that day and shot some lovely photos of buildings in Trinity. I studied there and wanted to capture the mood of the place which I think I did quite well with the bell tower.

Leaving TCD I shot a few candids around College Green, people crossing the road, standing talking etc. These people could have been poor, or affulent, or HIV positive or gay, or straight, or homeless, or murderers etc.

The shot I took of a young man begging was a chance photo. I was 30 yards away and glanced across the road - already with camera in hand I instantly saw an opportunity to capture an image that in some ways shows the way we treat homeless people in this country - through ignoring them.

This is the only shot I've taken of this subject matter and stand by it 100%.

If were to only take photos of the well off in society, and not those marginalised then that would not be right either.

There is a fine line here - invasion of privacy and shots that are tasteful

I would stop well short of taking images of people asleep under blankets or lying asleep on the ground - but a shot of a guy who is sitting in a public place, looking for public money during the day and not trying to hide away is fair game I say.

Thanks for all the nice comments on the other thread too by the way!!

ThOnda

Well, we post many pictures. And if somebody gets angry about pictures of homeless people, that only means that it provokes some emotions in his mind. And that is good.
Our World isn't nice place to live. Why should we hide what is not so nice?

DotOrg

Hrududu wrote: »

I see it as someone with a camera who looks at a human being in terrible circumstances and thinks "That will look great if i frame it like this and convert it to black and white." I think its tasteless.

have a look at : http://www.tomstoddart.com/iwitness.html

as he says, 'it is sad but necessary that these photographs exists'


Picture credit: Tom Stoddart/Getty Images

PaulieC

DotOrg wrote: »

have a look at : http://www.tomstoddart.com/iwitness.html

as he says, 'it is sad but necessary that these photographs exists'


Picture credit: Tom Stoddart/Getty Images

Jesus, those famine photos are profoundly disturbing...

RealEstateKing

My favourite area of photography is travel photography, and within that, I generally find that the old adage "The best photos are of people doing stuff.", holds. I'd usually rather see a woman bending down to pick up grains of rice, than just a plain rice field, if you will.

Now, it also is often the case that in travel pix, the most interetsing pictures are usually of the less prosperous people - nobody wants to see a picture of a Vietnamese guy in a business suit yammering into a mobile phone - it's the lady in the conical hat that takes our fancy. (You can of course argue this, but I mean in general)

In first world countries, taking photos of people in the street will largely get you in trouble: Particularly if you take pictures of women (pervert) , or kids (possible pervert)

In poorer countries taking photos of kids is fun for them, especially if you've a digital camera you can show them, or will send them the image.

So I can understand taking candids of homeless people in Ireland, cause it's difficult to take candids of anyone else. A frind of mine used to take them so often we'd call them "Jayxploitation pictures" (his name was Jason)

Valentia

Familiarity does numb the senses. There is no doubt about that. Governments all over play off that fact. I would disagree that poverty can't be art or that there is no merit in composing a difficult subject in a creative way. The two can go hand in hand.

As for the subject matter. I see way more photos of mountains, sea and manly footballers and rugby players here than gritty shots of disadvantage. That's why I find it difficult to see why a particular style should cause annoyance over another.

I'm with HughC on this. I don't see any kind of dichotomy.

When I was younger the images, both moving and still, of Northern Ireland and Vietnam and ,say, the travelling community in Ireland, showed the reality of the situation. Now the media is sanitised apart from the odd corner of the internet. We are being fed an unreality. The truth about what's really happening in Iraq is being hid. Likewise if it wasn't for people like Peter McVerry and John O'Shea we would be blissfully unaware of the real truth about homelessness or corrupt aid agencies.

I think documentary photography is probably the most important kind there is. As I have said before any history of photography would be very short without it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hugh_C wrote: »

In the interests of fairness to the OP, I'm starting afresh:



There's a contrary opinion though and that it that it raises awareness, most of us in here are presumably mostly blissfully unaware of what life on the street is actually like, with the possible exception of thebaz who seems to have devoted himself to taking telling, sometimes harrowing and often gorgeous portraits of people less fortunate than us. We're cosseted and cocooned from the gritty reality of homelessness.

So I don't see it as a dichotomy, I see it as part of a document of what's going on around us, like it or not. You can choose to step over them at the cash machine, or you can give them a few bob (I don't) or give them some food (I do).

I've a lot of pictures of unnamed Ethiopian kids on my flickr and I stand over my position of awareness-raising in that regard. Looking at your pix.ie stream Popey, there are a few street shots of kids on Paddy's Day, presumably unknown to you. So, does the fact that they're not obviously homeless make it OK to take pictures of them? Does that make them art? Just asking ...


Hugh_C

Thanks for taking the time to look at my pictures Hugh.

I was trying to capture the event of the St. Patricks Day parade, including both the participants the spectators. Which would include children, both the delight they have in enjoying the day, and the sometimes amusing vantage pionts they seek.

I feel that the 'beggar beside the cash machine' shot (and I'm not talking specifically about the OP's pic) does nothing to raise awareness about the homeless. We can see them ourselves when we are using the cash machine.

I'm not a big fan of thebaz's pictures, but at least he goes to deprived areas to take the pictures, and trys to find the soul in the person. Go to any major city in the world and you'll see somebody begging or even sleeping beside either a nice building, a cash machine or a well to do person who isn't looking at them. It's cheap and easy in my opinion. I feel like it treats the person in question as stock subject matter, along with landscapes and architecture. I also think there would be a major difference in capturing a moment involving a homeless person, maybe a smile of thanks, or enjoying a joke with a friend, the same as any other person (see thebaz). The simple money/no money dichotomy is repeated over and over in the real world, and, unfortunately in my opinion, also in photographs. I wouldn't claim to be a good photographer, I'm just starting out in this, I'm talking as a viewer of images, not as a producer here.

As regards your travel photos, I think you're documenting both your journey and the people you meet and see, and how lives are lived in foreign places. Which I think is a valid objective.

---

Just to be clear, the dichotomy I'm talking about is the one presented in the images in question

i.e. Money/No Money, Haves/Have Nots etc. etc.

thebaz

Thanks Hugh , for the kind words , coming from someone who's work is right up there with the best here , IMO. I'm not doing photography that long , found a niche i like documenting , on the street . With a few exceptions , i do not like much of the stuff i took a year ago , i had just come out of a dark period in my life , marriage break up , heavy drinking , where i came close to losing all . Coming through it, and with a new found love of photography, I fealt a connection with the less fortunate, can speak to many in a non patronising way on life , struggles , and hope . With the economic downturn, drugs and homlessness can effect , anyone , and thats what i was hoping , maybe unsuccessfuly to capture . I am kind of moving away from just a "homeless" shot , more should be revealed , in my opinion, than just a snapshot by the bank or bridge , which i havedone in the past. I may not like criticism, like many , but it does help you improve , but i despise cheap shots at the subjects. Many of the homeless were ordinary joe's like me and others , who following a family crisis , ended up on the street , in what i believe is a more selfish society thn we had a decade ago. its a crazy world out there :eek:

RealEstateKing

I think it's the attitude of the photographer that counts: And whether that comes through in the photo.

If he's just going "Oooh there's a homeless guy. Juxtapose 'im with the cash machine and Bingo!" it's bad.

If you took some time to get to know him, and the photo was taken in a way that really seemed to have a deeper message, then it's OK.

Its like the difference between a tasteful nude shot, and a porno shot.

Valentia

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I think it's the attitude of the photographer that counts:

Yep! Totally agree.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Valentia wrote: »

Yep! Totally agree.

Me too!

Let's hug

RealEstateKing

*gives cold stiff hug*

*ahem*

Yeah, so any of you guys see that Local Sports Team, How about those guys?

*playful manly punch on shoulder*

DadaKopf

Aye, I think the trend among amateurs to photograph homeless people is appalling. It's not that it's wrong to raise awareness about deprivation in society. But its the severe limitations of photography and its misuse that's the problem.

Problem 1: photographs do not, and cannot on their own, explain the causes of poverty. This necessarily objectifies the people in the photo and defines them by their appearance rather than their being, their personality, their life story, the wider social context in which they live. The only relationship, therefore, is not between the subject and his society but the subject and the photographer, which is a relation of power.

Problem 2: such photographs are therefore exploitative. It is a photographer applying his gaze (which is never innocent) to another human being in a position of extreme vulnerability. In effect, the photographic language in these pictures judge and categories and do nothing in themselves to challenge the causes of the visible sympoms the image records. In actuality, the act of photographing them reinforces the causes.

Problem 3: most photos of this 'genre' erase the person's identity, either deliberately or unconsciously, which amounts to the same thing. Though I've seen efforts by boards.ies here, these photos very rarely give the people's names, ages, life-stories or refer to much beyond their external markers of poverty. It's not that photographers may not feel empathy, but the end product is something which reinforces social stereotypes and diverts attention away from the causes and solutions.

Problem 4: the photographic language within the frame also reinforces inequality. For example, photos of beggars in Dublin or refugees in Africa are often shot from a high angle looking down. This reflects an 'infantilisation' of people experiencing poverty, i.e. poor people are not seen as full human beings. Other compositions reflect social power-relations, think, for example about the photos of John O'Shea of Goal holding poor black babies (the white saviour mentality). What do such photos reveal about the causes and effects of poverty?

This is all something I feel very strongly about. There are ways around the issues, though. First, don't allow yourself to give into clichee. Think very carefully about how you compose and shoot, and your whole approach in the first place. Think about the importance of text, description, and how your project fits in with a broader socio-economic and cultural context. For example, if someone here were to take the work of documenting poverty seriously, it would best involve spending time with the people, reading and researching, very critically analysing what positive or negative implications might arise from your approach and visual style. You also have to think about who the audience is. And, most importantly, protect the essential dignity of the people you're photographing.

There is no such thing as 'objective photojournalism'.

If anyone is interested in reading more about this, I'd recomment Photography: A Critical Introduction, the Dóchas Code of Conduct on Images and Messages and this Comhlámh guide.

Edit: I hadn't see the Stoddart photo when posting this. Note the downward angle and lack of specificity about the image - it reflects the power of the 'rich' photographer, while also putting the viewer in the 'shoes' of that power. Notwithstanding, the image does portray the crime of famine and does make the viewer feel very uncomfortable. There are no easy answers in image interpretation, and I have always been in two minds about this photo. It's worth considering, for example, whether this photo is actually damaging when displayed on its own, but means something more positive when situated within a larger photo-essay or book. Contrast this approach to photography with the excellent Hide that Can exhibition by Deirdre O'Callaghan about homeless Irish people in London.

RealEstateKing

I agree with some of what your saying, but you do sound a little like the Marxist literary critics I had to read in college.

There is a political angle to almost any picture one could take that involves a human being.

Take a photo of a nude woman: Nice, art. Tilt the camera 3 degrees and suddenly Im a patriarchal oppresor exploiting her.

While of course we all know that in extreme cases some photographs could be exploitative, that sort of rhetoric can have a flip-side: Suddenly any time I take a photo of someone that is poorer than me I'm exploiting them.

Well of course photography cannot explain the context of poverty, that's not it's job. In the same way music cant explain the complexities of politics, but would Bob Dylan have been better off writing a PhD thesis on the Military Industrial complex than "Masters of War." ?

DadaKopf

I agree with some of what your saying, but you do sound a little like the Marxist literary critics I had to read in college.

Well, whatever. Honestly, I don't remember many other philosophies rigorously investigating the linkages between visual culture and politics so convincingly. Liberalism turned a deliberate blind eye to it. And I'm not sure Roland Barthes would have identified with Marxism - phenomenology and structuralism, perhaps (though Marxian thought is derived in part from Hegel and phenomenology). But enough of that.

Well of course photography cannot explain the context of poverty, that's not it's job. In the same way music cant explain the complexities of politics, but would Bob Dylan have been better off writing a PhD thesis on the Military Industrial complex than "Masters of War." ?

If it cannot explain, then what is the impact of the continued creation of such images? The photographer Thomas Ruff says photography can only record 'the surface of things'. If you agree that each medium has its limitations, it's simply not an excuse to shrug your shoulders and assume such images aren't having an impact. If the common representation of 'the poor' followed a different visual language, that would create and reflect a different social ethic. The irony is that the codes encrypted in these photos do point to the real cause: social attitudes. But very often, photographs operate by marginalising this interpretation. But this occurs mostly in commercial photography: how many people think of the exploited workers involved in manufacturing the latest Levi's jeans they see in a fashion magazine? Reality is repressed.

There is a political angle to almost any picture one could take that involves a human being.

Take a photo of a nude woman: Nice, art. Tilt the camera 3 degrees and suddenly Im a patriarchal oppresor exploiting her.

As I tried to say, unsuccesfully, probably: it's all about context.

How exactly different elements inside and outside the frame interact, and the mode of transmission (museum, website, book, magazine, leaflet etc.).

Martin Parr, one of the most idiosyncratic photojournalists documenting British culture, admitted himself that his profession is by nature exploitative but still believes in what he does as being something socially and artistically progressive.

Again, I'll say, there are no easy nor definitive answers. Only problems and possibilities. But the freedom to photograph vulnerable people also brings responsibility. Consideration of the impacts of images is important.

I just think its important to raise these realities clearly and unapologetically.

Valentia

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Me too!

Let's hug

RealEstateKing

As you say context is key.

Problem 1: photographs do not, and cannot on their own, explain the causes of poverty. This necessarily objectifies the people in the photo and defines them by their appearance rather than their being, their personality, their life story, the wider social context in which they live. The only relationship, therefore, is not between the subject and his society but the subject and the photographer, which is a relation of power.

As I said, explaining is not something photographs do well - just like instrumental music doesnt tell a story. Why do you assume there is a relationship of power between subject and photographer? Of course there may be situations in which this is the case, but it isnt always true. The subject is also providing the subject matter, without which the photographer is nothing.

It is a photographer applying his gaze (which is never innocent)

Why is his gaze never innocent? Is there something wrong with looking at things? Reminds me of all that old guff about 'the male gaze' that used to be so fashionable.

Note the downward angle and lack of specificity about the image - it reflects the power of the 'rich' photographer, while also putting the viewer in the 'shoes' of that power.

You can interpret it that way if you wish, but that doesnt make it true. Maybe the photographer is taller than the person he's taking a photo of.

sasar

I don't understand what the big deal is?

I am taking pictures of homeless people and everyone else that I find interesting. I don't think that their financial status makes any difference.

DadaKopf

Why do you assume there is a relationship of power between subject and photographer?

I think of it this way: would the person by happy with the way they'll be portrayed when they're stuck up on a flickr account or boards.ie? Were they explicitly asked for permission to be shown (in a particular way)? What opportunity have they been given to choose how the world sees them? What power does the person have over withdrawing that photo?

I'm conscious not to impose rules, but I feel questions like these should be considered especially, and choices justified, when photographing vulnerable people. I think these are sensible questions which involve an element of power between photographer and subject.

I am taking pictures of homeless people and everyone else that I find interesting. I don't think that their financial status makes any difference.

If your financial status were radically reversed, and people were taking photos of you in your condition, how might you feel about it then?

Hugh_C

DadaKopf wrote: »

I think of it this way: would the person by happy with the way they'll be portrayed when they're stuck up on a flickr account or boards.ie? Were they explicitly asked for permission to be shown (in a particular way)? What opportunity have they been given to choose how the world sees them? What power does the person have over withdrawing that photo?

I'm conscious not to impose rules, but I feel questions like these should be considered especially, and choices justified, when photographing vulnerable people.

This is not always practical, as you probably know judging from one or two of your own flickr images.

Also the high angle line (Problem 4 above) is, ummmmm, how do I put it? Not right. Documentary photography is frequently a spontaneous reaction to a particular situation, and rather than miss it altogether, I would rather any angle than none at all.

TelePaul

RealEstateKing wrote: »

would Bob Dylan have been better off writing a PhD thesis on the Military Industrial complex than "Masters of War." ?

Probably - that's a really bad song.

RealEstateKing

I think of it this way: would the person by happy with the way they'll be portrayed when they're stuck up on a flickr account or boards.ie?

Yes but the way you phrased it in your post, you made it sound as if every time somebody takes a photot of somebody who is poorer than they are, there is a power relationship involved.

This is classic so-called vulgar Marxism.

DadaKopf

Actually, most of the ideas I'm referencing have little to do with Marxism. And hardly vulgar. That's quite an arrogant statement.

There is always some kind of power relationship involved. Most of the time, photography is so rubbish and used purely for personal use that it doesn't matter. But when it does, it does.

And I feel that any amateur thinking of getting into this stuff should think really carefully. If they're that into photography, they'll consider it part of the craft.

sheesh

this conversation reminds me of a poster who agonised about photographing a hunt with horses (because it is cruel) but had no problems photographing homeless people.

I think there is a certain level of people patting themselves on the back when taking pictures of homeless people which annoys me sometimes. I would have more respect for a photographer that goes out and talks to the person before photographing them and maybe forms some sort of relationship with them. Not just a person that takes the picture and runs.

Calina

The question I would ask myself is "how would I feel if someone took a photograph of me at this point in my life?" irrespective of what point that is. The vast majority of people object to having photographs taken of themselves at certain points, be it when they have no make up on, when they are out with someone who may not be their official other half, when they are falling down drunk, when they just don't feel happy or when they are sure the photograph will not reflect the reality they feel within themselves.

Is there one person on here who has never wished someone would not take a given photograph of them? I trust Al to take good photographs of me because he does. On the other hand, a lot of point and clickers - particularly at parties with automatic flashes - take appalling photographs of me that - if I didn't happen to know how the game works - would have a dreadful impact on my self image.

I know that thebaz generally asks permission to take the photograph. If you're specifically talking about people who are homeless, the question you need to ask first is "how would you feel if it were you?" People have pride, they have dignity and they are more than just the object of your lens. And yet, much of this discussion - particularly when you are into the area of "raising awareness" is close to objectification.

What makes it different now is how the pictures go around the world and how long they hang around. In years, someone could happen on a flickr shot of themselves that they might never have known existed, that has an impact on their lives then far beyond what you imagine now. And it might not be good.

TelePaul

sheesh wrote: »

this conversation reminds me of a poster who agonised about photographing a hunt with horses (because it is cruel) but had no problems photographing homeless people.

Yeah it's funny how that happens.

Valentia

TelePaul wrote: »

Yeah it's funny how that happens.

Funny? Why? Can't figure out the statement myself, but funny isn't a word that pops into my head. Incoherent does though. And exagerated maybe, like "agonised" sounds pretty painful. And disconnected is another word.

As to how a person feels about themselves being photographed in particular circumstances in a public place: well if we want to give some clue to the next generations of what life is really like now, we have to capture reality and pass it on. Surely? Isn't anything else cheating?

thebaz

i'havn't read all the threads here , but what i will say any snaps i have taken of "homeless" people , are usually just that , or another word rubbish.
But when you get talking to them , and try and capture a bit of there soul , thats what works -- hard to do when permission is granted , but next to impossible without -- we all have a bit of soul in us , the good , the bad , the rich and poor -- or so i like to think -- for me when photographing people, if there is no communication , there is no photograph.

TelePaul

Valentia wrote: »

Funny? Why? Can't figure out the statement myself, but funny isn't a word that pops into my head. Incoherent does though. And exagerated maybe, like "agonised" sounds pretty painful. And disconnected is another word.

As to how a person feels about themselves being photographed in particular circumstances in a public place: well if we want to give some clue to the next generations of what life is really like now, we have to capture reality and pass it on. Surely? Isn't anything else cheating?

Funny, beyond or deviating from the usual or expected. Extraordinary. I'm assuming the status quo is that the social plight of impoverished people is deemed of greater importance than the the plight of animals?

RealEstateKing

Little misundertstanading. I wasnt calling you vulgar or a Marxist!

"Vulgar Marxism" is a term people use to describe an attitude that sees everything in the world in terms of power/class and money.

I basically agree with what your saying about photographing homeless people, it's just that in your original post you seemed to imply that anytime anyone takes a photograph this sort of stuff comes in to play.

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote: »

As to how a person feels about themselves being photographed in particular circumstances in a public place: well if we want to give some clue to the next generations of what life is really like now, we have to capture reality and pass it on. Surely? Isn't anything else cheating?

if i read this point right, i couldn't disagree more. apart from the notion that an amateur's photographs will teach future generations being somewhat tenuous - the notion of placing the dignity of a person down on their luck behind a hypothetical future generation is nonsense.

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote: »

if i read this point right, i couldn't disagree more. apart from the notion that an amateur's photographs will teach future generations being somewhat tenuous - the notion of placing the dignity of a person down on their luck behind a hypothetical future generation is nonsense.

Good point, and besides, I'm pretty damn sure my kids will see homelessness in the every day way that I do.

thebaz

dignity for me is the key , taking hip shots of less fortunates , and running is wrong IMO, although sometimes the realness of a situation will be compromised by a posed agreed shot .
Doisneau photographed many Paris less fortunates with dignity , and recorded a timeless era now well gone.
One of Irelands top artists specialises in painting the less fortunates world wide , with great dignity.
Its obviously a very emotive subject , but if you can morally hold your head high , thats the challenge.
Its like nudes , they have a place when done correctly , but its something i would stay well clear off

sheesh

Valentia wrote: »

Funny? Why? Can't figure out the statement myself, but funny isn't a word that pops into my head. Incoherent does though. And exagerated maybe, like "agonised" sounds pretty painful. And disconnected is another word.

As to how a person feels about themselves being photographed in particular circumstances in a public place: well if we want to give some clue to the next generations of what life is really like now, we have to capture reality and pass it on. Surely? Isn't anything else cheating?

maybe incoherent yes. My point was this person agonised (yep, theres that word again ) over the morality of photographing hounds and a hunt, but did not agonise over whether it was right or wrong to photograph someone at a low point in there life. Fair enough if your argument is that these people are in public and as such are fair game.

If someone belonging to you was homeless would you be happy seeing their picture on the internet?
As for the argument that its our duty as photographers to inform future generations of what life was like during our time thats laughable,

How long after your death do you think your images will last? Especially in an electronic format? (yours are probably a bad example as they are so good future generations might see them but none of them are of a social commentary theme) Your website content will be gone within a year of your death, flickr account too. all that will be left is what ever was held on storage media you have in your home which will probably become unreadable once its obsolete. no pun intended but posterity my ass!

I take pictures because I like taking pictures, it gives me pleasure. The point I was making is that isn't there an ethical consideration as to how this hobby might effect the people you photograph or people they know. I think it is similar to photographing funerals or people suffering. Does the value of the image outweigh the effect on the person being photographed. Mostly I would have to say no.