Please Critique - In The Gutter

I've been trying to capture some street scenes around my office using

the following technique:

<p>

Range/Scale focus<p>

B/W film (c41 for now)<p>

wide-angle lens(28mm)<p>

Trying to look for people that are outside society.

<p>

I'm trying to cut back on the gear and focus on photographing more.

This is hard for an addict like me, but I'm trying. I feel like my

technical side needs work as the following photos clearly show. I

would appreciate any constructive criticism.

<p>

<center><img

src="http://home.houston.rr.com/henricus/Photos/In_The_Gutter.jpg"><p>In

The Gutter<p>

<img

src="http://home.houston.rr.com/henricus/Photos/BoogerEyes.jpg"><p>In

The Gutter (Sepia and Crop version)<p>

<img

src="http://home.houston.rr.com/henricus/Photos/InTheGutter.jpg"><p>In

The Gutter and Needing a Smoke</center>

Poor guy, why don't you buy him a lunch instead of using him for target practice?

a good techique is to put a few bux on the end of a fishing line and make em crawl for it.....those are usually where i get my best shots...

I agree with the previous posters...These are cheap shots. If you haven't got the guts to stand there and put the camera to your eye, and perhaps even talk to the guy, you're gonna get lousy pics that look exploitative (like these).

 

What is your point in making these photos? To demonstrate that you are a "real" street shooter?

Agree with above statements.

When you get comments like that it means you are on to something! Keep going.

dog shots flower shots bride shots broken window shots dead bunny shots. it doesn't matter to me what others shoot. just shoot whatever turns your crank, i pass no judgement, unless it's a butt shot of course.

As I said, people outside society. This particular person could not speak. I asked him if he was okay and he did not respond. He had a tremendous eye infection. So much so that they were crusted over green. I was about three feet away from him. I did not look through the viewfinder (Bessa L) not because of "guts" as you said, because I didn't need to. I've also used an SLR to photograph similar scenes. I was disturbed by Grant's post, but he usually is rude so I ignored it. Douglas you are intitled to your opinion.

dude asks for constructive critique on photo, not moral nor ethical judgement, imvho.

Judging by the tilt in the photograph, I think you must have shared whatever he'd been drinking before you shot. They appear to be cheap shots to me too - certainly nothing to be proud of.

What a bunch of self-righteous and hypocritical B.S. These are no better'n worse than any of the photos any of use guys take of the same subject or other bottom feeding. What you really don't like is the way he presented it for viewing. Grant's idea? Not bad:)

"So much so that they were crusted over green. . ."

Shoulda used velvia, could have done lots with that in photo shop.

Cheap shots, oh brother. Suddenly there is a morality in photography.<p>The tilt was unintended, but I liked it when I first saw it so I left it. I could have fixed it like I did on some of my building shots.

"These are no better'n worse than any of the photos any of use guys take of the same subject or other bottom feeding."

 

How the hell would you know? Have you been rooting through the 40,000 negatives down in my basement?

 

Okay, here's a critique: these photos appear to have been shot "on the sly" since they create no connection between me and the subject -- his eyes, no matter their state, are not visible in either shot, and his face is entirely obscured in the second shot. These photos treat the subject the way that most in society treat street people -- with apprehension, from a distance, deliberately not making eye contact for fear of actually having to interact. In the second photo, a woman who appears to be in scrubs, with a white smock, is running toward the man, seemingly to help him...A juxtaposition which mocks the photographer's apathy and exploitative picture-making.

 

I believe your explanation of the situation and your reaction to it, Henry, but a critique rests on the photo -- its appearance, its impact on the viewer, etc. The above is my interpretation. Again, I question the motive for pictures like these. Is this guy just fodder for your camera? Just a chance to practice your technique? Can you imagine how this makes him feel?

Thank you Douglas. I appreciate your perspective and instruction.

They look like hip shots. Next time put your eye to the viewfinder like your supposed to. Squat to get a low angle.

Heather I don't always use the viewfinder on my Bessa L (uses a shoe type). Especially when I'm close, no parallax(sp?) adjustment.

Hypocrits on their high horses. Who are you to judge people on mere intent?

Why not use it? From what you said, it wasn't like you couldn't. Better to use it when you can than not. I can hyperfocus most of my cameras, but I still look through the viewfinder to make sure the framing is decent.

Henry

 

Long ago I took some pictures in a similar situation, but sat down on the street with "James" and we actually connected for about 1/2 hour. I learned a lot about him and his situation, and got some good pictures of him, with eye contact and even a few smiles.

 

When I left I put $5 into his burn-stub fingers. The negs are long stashed several moves ago and at the bottom of the basement.

 

To quote the notable American moral philosopher, Larry

Flint: "Opinions are like A**holes: everybody's got one".

 

Cheers

From a technical standpoint, I don't think the scale focusing is

working. You got his shoe in focus, not his head. Other than that,

it's a pretty interesting shot (the first one, the other aren't good at

all), but I'd have gotten down on his level and shot him, with my

eye to the camera. He's on a public street in a public place,

which, at least in the states, makes him fair game, whether he

likes it or not. It's not exploitive. For chrissakes, it's the way

homeless people live!

Pathetic.

The images don't tell me anything, other than that I am pretty happy to be able to type out

a response as I sit in a relatively comfortable seat.

Henry,

 

First, let me address the morality question, one that I have had to deal with as well when photographing homeless and poor people. Like it or not, we do carry a certain moral burden when we point our expensive cameras at people who are suffering. This is when the ever-present question of why we photograph strangers becomes acute. The fact is that we are getting something out of these unfortunate people and they are getting little or nothing from us. So when we do photography like this it has to be for some purpose beyond simple aesthetic pleasure. HCB said he would not photograph people in distress. He made an exception in the US because he ended up hating this countries smug nationalism.

 

This is not to condemn this photograph. I do not think it goes out of its way to degrade this man. I do, however, feel very uncomfortable with the expression "in the gutter" as this is generally used as a moral put down--these days generally not of poor people. (Example: "Neoconservative ideology is in the gutter.") I would not have used this expression. And, technically speaking, this man is not in any gutter.

 

The major problem I find with the first photograph is not moral but technical. In short, I think it is badly framed. It is at an odd angle, which throws everything off. The crop is too much, leaving out too much. The bus station is important information, as it establishes the man's environment. The crop also looks unsharp and full of noise. The sepia is unnecessary. This is also largely the problem with the last photograph.

 

 

 

There seems to be an uncertainty and nervousness in the photographer when photographing this man.

 

I liked your story about interacting with this man, Henry. This is a case where a few words are worth a thousand pictures. You did try to communicate with the man. You tried to help him and what you told us about his health was hearbreaking. I wish the compassion you actually felt for this man could have translated itself into these photographs.

 

This is not an easy subject to photograph.

The first shot is the best. There is a sense of design, (the circular brick structure, the

bricks themselves, the line of Greyhounds, the vertical poles and shadow, etc)

information--it's outside a Greyhound station in what appears to be a large city, and

emotion--well, just read all the emotion generated on the forum. By cropping it you lose

context-- information--and the design. The third shot has no real design, little

information, while still showing some emotion.

 

I see no reason that a shot from the waist is by definition any better or worse than one

from the viewfinder. If tilt is what one objects to, then you would have to dismiss a lot of

Winogrand's work, for one. And I certainly don't know why you have to have eye contact. In

street photography, one is usually trying to avoid eye contact.