Please Critique - In The Gutter

Alex,

<p>My sincere thanks for the time you took to explain this to me. I do want to learn. I find it hard to get any constructive criticism here, and yet just when I am about to give up you step up. I will learn from this and perhaps improve. Thanks again.

Lack of intimacy with the subject almost made me feel that the Greyhound buses were as

important to the shot as the gentleman sitting in front of them. I was actually a little

annoyed that the secondary "subjects" were out of focus. The eyes are the windows to the

soul, and all that.

 

[soapbox]

 

I know you said he couldn't speak, but next time sit down and talk to him anyway, if he

doesn't object. If the man is interesting enough to take a picture of, he's gotta be a lot

more interesting to spend some time with. You'll get better pictures, too.

 

I once spent some time out of doors, and can identify with digging for a smoke. I sure as

hell wouldn't have wanted anyone taking pictures of me fishing butts out of a public

ashtray or off the street, though. Passersby generally had enough courtesy to preserve my

dignity by pretending not to notice.

 

[/soapbox]

I can concieve of no reason to take a photo of a person in this situation. When I review past photographs I have taken, they evoke memories, or please me by their beauty, or are informative. I would not want to stumble upon photographs like these in my files, beause I would find them depressing. I mean no disrespect, Henry, and am not passing a moral judgement, but these scenes are not why I enjoy photography.

<center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/1.jpg"></center><center><i>~~~</i></center>

 

<center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/2.jpg"></center><center><i>~~~</i></center>

 

<center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/3.jpg"></center><center><i>Ahhh, fu*k off!</i></center>

Henry, I am sure you expected the moralists to tune in, and they did. For my part, I find this type of image disturbing, which makes it effective, and IMHO, justifiable. If humanity is to respond in any way to misfortune and disaster, we need to be aware of it. This style of photography is the only way a lot of people will ever become aware. So much for the moral issue.

 

I only like the first image. To hell with whether the 'imortant' bits are in focus, it worries me not. The message is powerful, thats what's important. The tilt adds to the impact of his position in society, as somehow, does the inclusion of the Grehound buses. He is counterpoised against the racy ordered symbol of 'our' society.

 

A previous critic scolded you for using your 'expensive' camera to photograph him. Well now you know to use your cheap one next time. :-))

Morality Tale: Sometime back, I saw a man in similar condition- didn't respond when I asked him if he was okay. And a woman standing near (and apparently not related) had difficulty talking also. So, being the good Samaritan that I am, I put in a call to 911. Whereupon a couple of policemen came out, loaded both people in a squad car, and hauled them off. So I suspect I didn't really help them any. It actually didn't occur to me that the guy would just be too drunk to walk, but evidently, that's what it was. Anyway, the fact that you talked to him, and found that he wasn't evidently in dire need of an ambulance is a good thing.

 

But I'm not sure what you're really after with the photos. Are you trying to arouse sympathy for the guy? Or show his inner strength? I don't really see any theme like that coming through, and so it's just a drunk on the street, and doesn't do much for me.

 

I like the second shot best. But to be honest, the man could be in that same pose, and sitting there watching, say, a football game- it's a man in an unusual pose looking off into the distance.

 

I'll make a suggetion that I've made before. There seems to be no end of "homeless people in the doorway" type shots. That's okay, I guess. But how often do you see a shot of someone trying to help them? To me, there's an undertold story there, about people that do try to get these guys back on their feet again.

Incredible what people can read into a pic.

And what of all those PJs taking pic's of the suffering in the Tsunami, war, starvation zones while sleeping in four star hotels? Is this more ethical? The guy in the gutter has safety nets, no matter how minimal. He chooses (voluntarily or not) not to use them.

 

I for one, do not take pic's of "homeless" people, although, I make it a point of buying one a lunch once a week, at least, and contribute to charities (even my car). I have no objection to Henry's pic's, but don't like them very much. Level of perspective, focus, framing and tilt aren't very good, IMHO.

But taking cheap shots of women's butts are ok? Or shooting people sleeping in a train with the camera on your chest and pretending to look elsewhere? Or shooting people from the back because some ain't got the guts to face them anyway?

"And what of all those PJs taking pic's of the suffering in the Tsunami, war, starvation zones while sleeping in four star hotels? Is this more ethical?"

It could be argued that those PJs, by helping publicize and humanize the disaster, helped ensure more relief funds from governments and charities. Some governments and citizens will give more money when they see a human face on a tragedy. (Though maybe not: see Susan Sontag's "On Photography" for an alternative view.)

 

Henry's pictures are unlikely to be widely viewed, and hence are unlikely to have any impact on public policy, charitable giving, etc. Again, I ask why Henry is interested in photographing "people that are outside society."

 

And for those who lament that the morality of this is even discussed, and for the one or two posters who seem to implicitly claim that photographs do not have moral dimensions, well, I can only guess that these people are so caught up in the equipment of photography that they never think about the photography itself. Anti-intellectualism is nothing to be proud of.

The homeless are a natural product of the new modern transnational merito-industrial

economic complex, that lays waste to whole segments of population that don't measure

up,no matter what country.Henry,I think we should use your photos of the homeless to

finally clean up this mess.Lets collect them all and process them into food pellets.We'll call

the campaign,"Feeding the Deserving with the Indigent".How's that sound?Overseas

workers making our God given cheap consumer goods in exchange for food in the form of

our detoxified and processed homeless.Good deal,eh?Just Do It!

War photographers have no problem with showing pics. of some unknowing soul with their limb blown off (and maybe win photo of the year). Leica forum loves to see "street photography" I think this is complete Street photography. I think eye contact would have made a much better pic. but I think it was an effort to try to catch a valid shot. Thank for putting up.

Skinny

FWIW from an amateur, best of the lot is #1. But tilt or no, the subject matter - man, rounded structure at right, busses, and receding buildings at left/center - does not come together well from your chosen perspective. Greater DOF would improve the image, but the composition can't be helped by any change in view angle up or down, IMVHO. Tightly framing the man with very shallow DOF might have been another option from your existing perspective, but as another poster said this risks removing all context. Perhaps the suggestion of nothing but human misery and pain through such framing might have been effective, but the moralists would then descend like locusts ...

 

Pay no attention to the moralists, Henry. You're free to choose your subject. If you're inclined, buy the man lunch or give him what you will. Or drive him to a clinic for medical care, if he's willing. Whatever moves you. Read Sontag, not posters' drivel, if the "purpose" of photography concerns you. But keep shooting, I'd say. Thanks for putting yourself out there. Shows courage.

I think the amateur tourist videos (not really showing many dead and/or relatives and chaos from what I've seen), gov't statistics of the death tally, and first hand interviews would have sufficed, called journalism. Why show suffering, thirst and starvation when the PJs (looking for that Pulitzer?) and TV stations on-scene and at home are comfortable? The Tsunami story has disappeared from the air waves. I guess the average "Westerner" and the suits at the networks have about a two-week attention span. Now that I'm back, news is thin.

Some posts while I was "writing". Henry's pic's, or any others, will not change the state of homelessness/hunger in this or any other country. We've all witnessed it in any semi-large city in the world, even if we chose to photograph it or not, no?

Skinny's right. The photos would have been much better if he'd had a limb or two

missing.

Henry, is it not your sworn duty to help and protect as a police officer? What did you do for this man?

Henry Chavez,

 

One of the ways I would rate a photogrpah of a subject that normally would have no real interest for me. Is to see what the reaction to the photo it while others are looking at it.And in this case I would have to rate this is a very very powerful photo. Look at all the talk this one has created.

<i><blockquote> dog shots flower shots bride shots broken window shots dead bunny

shots.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Jeopardy format: What's in a Marc William's wedding album?

<i><blockquote> I would have to rate this is a very very powerful photo. Look at all

the talk this one has created. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Yes, this is almost as powerful as a Pancake Bunny thread.

<I>The photos would have been much better if he'd had a limb or two missing.</I><P>

 

That's what the limb-be-gone clone tool in photoshop is for.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3055657-lg.jpg"></center>

First photo is heartbreaking. Slant and all--his bodily position makes visual sense despite the sloped terrain. Don't care much for the sepia.

 

Second one makes you look more like a voyeur Henry. From your description it seems like he needed immediate medical attention.

 

I just scanned the controversy so I hope my question hasn't been answered: did anybody bother to help him out?

Time to chop off a toe and win some awards!

i didn't really get much from the pix to be honest. moral issue: there is none. to say

there is, is to make assumptions about this man's disposition, health, state of mind etc.

that's like mind reading and ignorant people do that. i don't bother anymore, but when i

shot some people on the streets, they looked so happy, so peaceful. i also went about

documenting how resourceful, organised and 'together' these ppl are over here. they

collect discarded comics, umbrellas etc and sell them on the street to 'regular', happy

people like you and me... bollox - the map is not the terrority.