You've seen them. The hollowed eyes. The dirt-streaked faces of children staring directly into a high-end Leica lens. We call it "poverty porn," though the people taking the photos usually call it "raising awareness." Honestly, images of people in poverty have become a sort of visual wallpaper in the West. We flip past them in Sunday supplements or scroll through them on Instagram feeds between coffee latte art and vacation reels. But there’s a massive problem with how we document struggle. Most of these photos don't actually help; they just reinforce a power dynamic that's been stuck in place since the colonial era.
It's complicated.
If you don't show the reality of suffering, people don't donate. If you do show it, you risk stripping the subject of their dignity. It’s a tightrope. Most fail. They fall into the trap of "pity imagery," which basically tells the viewer that the person in the photo is a passive victim waiting for a Western savior to click a "donate" button.
The Problem with the "Fly on the Eye" Aesthetic
For decades, the standard for images of people in poverty was the "fly on the eye" shot. Think of the 1980s famine relief ads. These photos were designed to shock. They wanted to make you feel guilty enough to reach for your wallet. While they raised millions, they also created a lasting psychological scar on how we view the Global South. Researchers like Heather Grady have pointed out that these images create a "them and us" mentality. You aren't seeing a person; you're seeing a symbol of misery.
It’s dehumanizing.
When a photographer walks into a slum or a rural village and starts snapping away without learning anyone's name, they're extracting value. They get a portfolio piece. The charity gets a campaign. The person in the photo? They get to be the face of "poor" for the rest of their lives.
We need to talk about consent, too. Real consent isn't just a signed waiver. It's an understanding of where that photo is going. Most people living in extreme poverty have no idea their face might end up on a billboard in London or a digital ad in New York. If they knew, would they still say yes? Probably not.
Ethical Photography and the Power Shift
Thankfully, things are shifting. Sorta.
👉 See also: Images of Thanksgiving Holiday: What Most People Get Wrong
Some organizations are moving toward "strengths-based" imagery. Instead of showing a child crying, they show a child at school. Instead of a farmer with a failed crop, they show the farmer using a new irrigation system. It’s better, but it can also feel a bit sanitized. It's the "happy poor" trope, which is its own kind of lie.
True ethical images of people in poverty require a relationship. Take the work of photographers like Fazal Sheikh. He spends months, sometimes years, in communities. His portraits aren't "gotcha" moments of suffering. They are formal, respectful, and often include the subject’s own words. This is what's missing from 90% of the media we consume. We see the image, but we never hear the voice.
Why Context Matters More Than the Pixel Count
A photo of a man sleeping on a sidewalk in San Francisco tells a different story than a man sleeping on a sidewalk in Mumbai. Without context, your brain fills in the gaps with stereotypes. This is where most SEO-driven content and stock photo sites fail miserably. They tag photos with generic terms like "poverty," "struggle," or "hunger," stripped of the political and systemic reasons why that person is in that position.
Is it a lack of affordable housing?
Is it a post-war displacement?
Is it a climate-driven famine?
When you strip the "why," you make poverty look like a natural disaster—something that just happens, like rain. It’s not. Poverty is a policy choice. Images that don't reflect that reality are basically just lying by omission.
The Rise of Local Storytellers
The best way to fix the skewed perspective of images of people in poverty is to put the camera in the hands of the people living the experience. This isn't just some "woke" talking point; it's about better journalism.
Local photographers understand the nuances. They know that a certain piece of clothing signifies dignity, not just "old clothes." They know when a smile is genuine and when it's a mask for a stranger. Organizations like Everyday Africa on Instagram have done a lot to subvert the "dark continent" narrative by showing the mundane, the beautiful, and the middle-class alongside the struggle. It provides a spectrum of life.
✨ Don't miss: Why Everyone Is Still Obsessing Over Maybelline SuperStay Skin Tint
If you're looking at a photo and it feels too "perfectly sad," be skeptical. Real life is messy. Even in the deepest poverty, people laugh, they groom themselves, they take pride in their homes, and they have agency. If an image doesn't show that agency, it's a caricature.
How to Tell if an Image is Exploitative
You can usually tell if a photo is exploitative by asking a few quick questions. Honestly, it's a gut check.
First, look at the angle. Is the photographer looking down at the subject? This literally and figuratively "belittles" them. Photos taken at eye level are generally more respectful.
Second, check the "pity factor." Is the person doing anything, or are they just being "pitied" by the camera? Agency is the enemy of exploitation.
Third, consider the surroundings. Is the person isolated from their community to make them look more vulnerable?
The photographer Sebastiao Salgado is a huge figure here. His work is undeniably beautiful—stunning, even. But critics like Ingrid Sischy have argued that his highly stylized, almost "artistic" photos of suffering make the pain look too good. It becomes a commodity. It becomes something you hang in a gallery. When suffering becomes "fine art," we've entered dangerous territory.
The Role of Stock Photography
If you search a stock site for "poverty," you get a lot of staged photos of people in clean-but-ripped clothes. These are the worst. They are literally profit-driven simulations of struggle. They lack any shred of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). For creators and editors, using these is the fastest way to lose the trust of an informed audience. People can smell the fakeness.
🔗 Read more: Coach Bag Animal Print: Why These Wild Patterns Actually Work as Neutrals
Instead of stock, find editorial photos from reputable news agencies where the photographer was actually on the ground. Check the metadata. Read the caption. If there isn't a name for the person in the photo, think twice about using it.
Actionable Steps for Ethical Consumption and Creation
If you're a content creator, a non-profit worker, or just someone who wants to be more conscious about the media you consume, here is how you handle images of people in poverty with actual integrity.
Audit your sources. Stop relying on the big three stock sites for social issues. Look at sources like The New Humanitarian or Majority World, which prioritize local photographers and nuanced storytelling. These photos might cost more or take longer to find, but they won't damage your brand's credibility.
Demand the "Why." If you're publishing a photo, ensure the caption explains the systemic cause. Don't just say "Woman in poverty." Say "Displaced grandmother in [Location] following the 2024 floods." Specificity is the antidote to stereotyping. It turns a "type" back into a person.
Check the "Savior" Narrative. If the photo features a Western aid worker as the hero and the local person as the grateful recipient, scrap it. That narrative is dead. It’s tired. It’s inaccurate. Focus on the local leaders, the mothers, and the community members who are the ones actually doing the heavy lifting to change their circumstances.
Pay for the work. If you're using a photo of someone’s struggle to raise money or get clicks, the very least you can do is ensure the photographer was paid a fair wage and, where possible, that the community benefits. Some organizations are now experimenting with "image royalties" that go back to the subjects. It's a logistical nightmare, sure, but it's the future of ethical media.
Prioritize dignity over "The Shot." Sometimes, the best photo is the one you don't take. If someone is at their absolute lowest point—mourning a child, suffering a medical emergency, or being evicted—put the camera down. Ask yourself: "Would I want a photo of me in this moment shared with millions of people?" If the answer is no, walk away.
The era of "poverty porn" is ending because the world is getting smaller and the people in those photos are finally getting the platforms to talk back. They're telling us they're tired of being your "inspiration" or your "guilt trip." It’s time to start seeing them as they see themselves: as complex, capable people who happen to be living through a tough set of circumstances.
Stop looking for the misery. Start looking for the person.