> seems exploitative to me It would have been had the photographer made a lot of money off of the images, for instance. He didn't. He was an art professor for

> seems exploitative to me It would have been had the photographer made a lot of money off of the images, for instance. He didn't. He was an art professor for most of his life- certainly did not significantly profit off of his art. He interacted with the subjects and sent prints to them after the fact. Would it be better if shocking poverty is not photographed?