Untitled

Why does Mr. Enflow feel a need to slander my country in a forum supposedly intended to evaluate photographs?....

Our daughters and our sons are putting their lives on the line to fight international terrorism and as usual our allies turn their backs on us and on the lessons of history and elect to ignore the problem. His comments were classless and totally uncalled for.

why don't you stop answering at ridiculous comments like this in such a personal(and trivial to the topic) manner, aldo. it's a doom loop!

 

i'm not interested in stuff like this!

 

This picture only has the sympathy factor going for it.

Yes, we feel sorry for the homeless, but what are we going to do about it. The car in the background is distracting.

The pic doesn't have much going for it as a photo.

Dustin - yes, that was indeed the one! Obviously fake, but a good joke! ;-)

 

And btw, someone said that the Elves should choose photos that do not spark as much controversy.. Well, their intention is obviously to get a lot of discussion going - if you look at past choices.. The point being, they probably want controversy on photographic issues (eg, should this picture be taken or not?), but they try to avoid political issues.

 

This thread is unfortunately close to a flame war, but several times before good subjects have been discussed at length, such as the "eternal question" of whether a digitally manipulated photo is still a photo or a "digi-image", etc.

 

The weeks where a good, technically and compositionally perfect, non-controversial photo was chosen, the discussion was dull indeed.

 

I'm all for controversy - provided the discussion that follows is good, creative and interesting - and polite, without flaming!

As many people have said, there are several better examples of Aldo's work. For me, either of these would have made worthy PoWs: this homeless man, or this very intense dancer, a superior shot.

One thing I like is that people are looking through Aldo's portfolio and coming up with better examples of PoW. I plan to make this a practice. I've learned about your body of work, Aldo, and I wouldn't have had your pic not been picked. I'm sorry something that is nowhere near your best work got the PoW honor. You should be honored with your best work.

Suggestions to the elves:

1) When picking a PoW, you owe it to the photographer and the rest of us to make sure that the photo is not an inferior representation of the photographer's work. Note that I don't say best work. Just cycle through the portfolio to make sure there's not something better that suits your objectives.

2) Please, get out more. Walk. Take the T. Get out to Hahvud Square, take the Red Line downtown and look around, especially if you want to nominate a street shot. Feed the birds. Go to the StarSchmucks and look around. Go to a different bar, preferably one with snacks. Do something new, something different. These steps will improve your PoW selections all around.

Aldo.

 

One honour you certainly do deserve is that of "Most Ungracious PoW Recipient."

If you can't take criticism, why post work on a public forum?

I don't understand why some photographers like taking picture of the homeless. What are you trying to say from the photo?? Give some money to them or what? If you are trying to show his facial expression, that will be another story...this picture show nothing at all. There are so many beautiful subjects on the earth that you can creat great images from.......but not this one

If this is a photography forum, let's talk about photography. This isn't the place for politics-- Marc Gouguenheim

I successfully removed the political content from this picture. We are left with a stunning picture of a parking lot with a truck in the background. Woop-dee-doo! Your criteria also eliminates half the photographers in the world.

In future, try and choose POWs with less controversial or emotive content. For me POW is about technicalities and aesthetics, NOT ethics. The last thing a POW thread needs is a 'should this photo have been taken or not?' debate. It's impossible to technically critique this photo without trivialising the subject; therefore, it should not be POW. -- Mark Richards

You are joking, right?!? You really think that this site should be limited to landscapes? The problem isnt politics; it is how you deal with it. A lot of you seem to have a problem expressing your ideas with a camera AND words.

To be honest, this is an image that I would never want to hang on my wall, just a photojournalists record of what we see on the streets all too often and it's not telling a new story nor is it done in a unique way.

So what you are saying Norwen is that this site should be censored to evade emotive substance because people cannot be held accountable for their reaction to provocative issues?

 

I think the problem lies more with the manner in which a subject is handled than with nature of the subject itself.

 

What I meant by the above post is that the only real merit this POW has IS political and that it is not necessarily a bad thing. Now you want to take that away because it is too controversial and a few people here dont understand the concept of civility. Whats left is a bunch of polite people with no subject matter. Very boring.

 

I am opposed to the taking of images of people who we assume are "homeless". The best work that I have ever seen on the topic was an exibit at the Civil Rights Museum in Birmingham. I don't recall the photog's name, however he took photos of the environment that homeless people were living in -- the empty soup cans, the clothes hanging on a park bench to dry, etc without ONE shot of an actual person in it. It was amazingly humane and powerful and completely non-exploitative of the people's identity. I mean think about it -- you are on the street, hungry, and a photog with expensive equipment snaps an image of you when you are at your lowest and then goes off to make money off from it. Did the photog offer the man money? Have him sign a release? I doubt it. I see homeless people every day on the streets of DC, and I don't ever take their photos to benefit my career. Just my two cents.....

I live in Australia where these sorts of images are not so "cliche" as someone put it (we have our homeless problems, sure, but obviously nowhere near as bad as you guys).

 

Open you eyes, mate, open your eyes! You don't even have to go to Alice Springs. I live in Canberra and there are more homeless people here than in most places in the US I have been to.

Hi Aldo

 

I know personally a very good street documentary style photographer who does very good work. He spends on average 3 hours with everyone he shoots. He can tell you what they did, why they are there, whether they are happy or sad. While I'm not into it myself I think that Bill Hocker said it best. If you are interested then get involved , just don't scratch the surface.The best landscape photos are not taken from the edge of the road or lookouts. Good try but I can't get emotional about this shot, I have spent too much time in the third world.

"I successfully removed the political content from this picture."

 

I sincerely like the humour of this post.

 

"Woop-dee-doo!"

 

Sorry, that's not in my French English dictionary, but that's because, as you said further, I have a problem with words.

 

"Your criteria also eliminates half the photographers in the world."

 

No, it doesn't. As Morwen tried to explain, you missunderstood what I was trying to say - maybe actually due to a bad usage of words on my side. I was saying that this forum isn't a political forum but a photography forum: which means that we CAN HAVE politically oriented images (no need to remove the political content), but we should then discuss the picture, not the political issue of homeless people directly, and not whether we should or not give money to beggers etc. Actually, even a sentence or 2 in the forum about these political matters are ok, but too much of it becomes a political debate, and no longer a debate about a photograph... That's all I meant.

 

"A lot of you seem to have a problem expressing your ideas with a camera AND words."

 

If that sentence included me as a target, please have the guts to say so, clearly, and to detail your views. It sounds to me like one of those direct attacts that make the present forum so delicious... :-) If you attack people directly on more than an idea they have expressed, I think it is only fair to do it in a bit less allusive way... or even better, to try not to do it at all...

 

 

I'm sorry, but I just have to cut in. I just found this website a few weeks ago, and I am usually content to lurk because watching the comments unfold on this forum is better than watching television dramas, and is just a peg below masturbation.

This has to be those most shameless display of psudeo-intellectualism and the farthest thing from a serious critique of a photograph that I have ever witnessed.

Tris, why don't you just shut up? If what you have uploaded is a sampling of the best work you have ever done, why are you even talking? Take up knitting or something and spare us all the endless paragraphs of drivel that you spend so much time making up. Don't you have a job?

I can't believe that there are actually people out there who think that any relevant percentage of the bums out on the streets are really just lazy people who live in big apartments and drive BMW's with the vast amount of wealth they have accumulated by begging. What is WRONG with you? Even if such charaters existed, I would commend them. Good for them for beating the system. I would much rather give them a buck than give it to Starbuck's or Nike.

 

What a joke.

Regarding your last line, Gary, look in the mirror.

The reason I don't "shut up" ought to be (more or less) obvious to anyone with a functional IQ above a kumquat. No one else around here will dare to say what I say, and it certainly needs to be said to judge from the volume of protest, usually the surest sign in cases of this kind.

This week's POW choice is not an example of proficient photography, it misses on all counts. This week's POW choice is an all-too-typical example of what the POW feature seems to be mainly about. For this reason I continue on. If you can't stand my comments, tough toenails! Find a photography site where all the posts are written by people who think as you do.

I agree with your assessment of those who've delivered themselves to some startling statements regarding the homeless in general. Much of what's been written here of these tragic figures is hopelessly stupid. But what did you expect? Do you live in America? If so, you must be aware of the type of material the vast majority of this crowd digests for its intellectual nutrition, and if you care to know it's not much better (possibly worse yet, depending on one's point of view) in Europe, or at least it is in those parts of Europe in which I have travelled and lived. I've no idea what's coming down in Asia and Africa and Australia and such, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath. Now, place on top of that reality the tendency of most people (no matter where you go) to shut their mental systems down to the lowest possible levels and endeavor to never say anything the least bit controversial, indeed, strain every nerve to say precisely that which others wish to hear and demand to be given--unless, of course, it's to "shut up" social renegades such as myself, and even then they can only do this within the support framework of a larger group--and what could a reasonable man expect?

You act surprised! Do you feign this emotion, Gary? I, on the other hand, am not surprised. I expect this behavior, I expect the idiotic comments, the convolutions of logic, the pathetic mouthing of popular wisdom read in some commercial slick or gobbled up conveniently from the TV, I expect all this because these patterns of behavior are the norm.

Wake up, Gary! (andwhileyoureatitidliketoseesomeofyourwork)

Gary, you are a on thin ice if you slam peoples work and not have any up yourself. Put up or shut up

Hey Jeff, you might want to cut and paste that last comment to about half the people here this week.

 

The only point on which I directly disagree(d) with you Marc is when you said This is a photography forum, and then you said, This isnt the place for politics. It sounded to me like you viewed them as oil and vinegar. However, your last comment is more clear, TY.

 

I agree that it is unnecessary to discuss politics here despite the obvious notion that this is a politically oriented picture. I do however believe that it is fair game to examine whether or not the photograph is successful in its own context. (i.e. The World Wildlife Federation uses a cute, docile Panda as its mascot not a sabre-tooth tiger, Seal hunters arent pictured in the same evening twilight as vacationing white collar fishermen, ect.)

 

The photographer seems very reluctant to explain his objectives and the photograph is equally dissimulative. I think we basically agree that the technical and compositional aspects of the photograph are slightly lacking so I have to assume that the image is merely intended to evoke sympathy for the individual. I do not think it is successful in that respect either because there is no interaction of any kind and his personality is as evident as his face.

 

 

"Social Renegade?" Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Don't kid yourself. Edward Abbey was a "social renegade." You, my friend, are an artfag spending WAY too much time in a dorky internet forum.

Excuse me I was unable to find a serious critique (of the photo) contained in the body of your comments. All you seemed to do was complain about the other posters going off the subject. Does that make you []better than them []the same as them []a spiritual leader in a third world country []confused.

 

On a more personal note your self abuse sessions must be somewhat unimaginative if they can be compared with this forum. I think you should seek professional help.

Geez man. If you dislike this forum so much, don't read it. If nothing else, post a couple of photos for us to look at. I think it acctually takes some balls to ask for critiques here, because we don't have to look each other in the eye when we give them. As for Tris, I agree that he can be somewhat wordy, but at least he has 100-something photos uploaded, so maybe he has kind of has some leway (spelling?).

This picture brings home the unnoticed poverty that exists in the richest countries on the planet.

The richest notice the cost of the poor, but tolerate them to keep the cost labour down.

However ape-kind does not exist to serve the economy.

Now ask yourself, is there anyone without proper shelter or hope in your land?

Uplift them so they can stand with dignity.

 

 

Sacrifice no one for the sake of your counters or soon it will be you. Ref: Ape of Man

 

Aldo. One honour you certainly do deserve is that of "Most Ungracious PoW Recipient."-- Vuk Vuksanovic

 

What a terrible thing to say. I think he's been in there boxing with the best. He's missed a few sucker punches, and flailed a bit, but Ungracious! No.-- Henri Mathieu

 

I believed Vuk's comment to be a compliment that I had not previously thought him to be capable of - who wants to be gracious?