Untitled

Usually the homeless are invisible and we don't want to see them for a slew of reasons. This allows the viewer to really take in the experience. I read the guys message!

 

Thanks,

 

Bob

Aldo -

 

Shoot whatever the hell you want to shoot. Please don't consider anything but technical criticism of your picture. Quite a number of people on this site have HUGE pyschological and emotional hangups that they like to project onto others. (I have my share of them as well, I just keep them to myself.) The large contingent of the "holier than thou" crowd LOVE to preach the gospel of humanity to us wretched souls. I hope I can speak for you when I tell them to save their breath. Shoot what you want, when you want and how you want. When judgement day comes, you are the one who has to live with your choices. As do each of us. I'm quite sure those pillars of morality and ethics critical of your "tactics" are out there as we speak selling their camera and computer equipment so they can donate the proceeds to Habitat for Humanity. Bless them. I'm sure Saint Peter is setting aside a special place for them up above.

 

I liked the picture. Would have been better, IMO, without the car.

 

 

A good example of dedication to homeless peoples' life is given by the work of Moyra Peralta. If you have access to the british journal "Black and White Photography", you find her work in the 2002 February issue. Online photos can be found at http://www.insideeye.demon.co.uk/mgallfr.htm With zero work posted, I myself have no justification to criticise the photo. My main problem is that the important and unusual message being communicated comes from the board of the subject and the added value of the photo seems to be proportionatly smaller than that of the board. Here the contribution does not seem to be artistic, but shows me something objectively that I might not otherwise see. I personally see such things quite often and so do many others probably. Having said the above, I do like that a picture like this made it POW and hope to see more.

Just trying to push the thread to 300...

I'm sitting here wondering why I always go to the trouble of trying to qualify my statements by adding words like (some). Some people like this photo and some do not. Some people can relate to it and some can not. Aldo, did you ever really believe that 100% of the people who saw this photograph would admire and appreciate it? Again, please don't take this the wrong way but I think you are being a bit naive. It may be more beneficial to postpone your conclusions until you have received a complete sampling of opinions. I think that in the end you will find that the pro and con comments are more or less evenly split (dang, another qualifying statement). You have chosen to present a controversial subject so you should not be surprised with the range of responses it has generated.

 

The other thing I don't quite understand is why people are so opposed to the car in the background. I think I must be missing something about that element of the photo. I was of the opinion that the car added a contrast between the "have" and the "have nots." This guy is barely able to walk and the people around him are riding in comfort. Is it just a compositional thing?

 

I am still curious or troubled by the man's sign. I remain of the opinion that it is critical to the viewer's perception and general response to this photo. Because I know that (some) people will be quick to disagree I decided to perform my own (unscientific) experiment. I also surmised that (some) people would not take kindly to me altering Aldo's (documentary) photo, so I decided to have a go at it myself. I concluded that if I walked a mile in the photographer's shoes I might also learn something useful. So what if it had all been done before? I haven't done it so who am I to criticize?

 

I found a cooperative subject and even though he said he was not especially hungry he agreed to participate in my experiment. I asked if I could offer him a few dollars for some food but he reiterated that he was not very hungry and in fact felt a bit constipated. We arrived at a compromise when he informed me he was on the way to the market to pick up some bran cereal for the aforementioned problem. I asked him if he would at least let me pay for the cereal and he graciously accepted.

 

I wanted to bring up the subject of homeless pets, but before I got the chance he asked if I would mind walking a few blocks to where he had left his dog sleeping under some stairs where he was staying. I was quite excited to explore yet another fascinating aspect of my new friend's lifestyle. I snapped a few photos as we walked along the street, trying to gain a new perspective and understanding of my subject.

 

When I first saw his little undernourished dog, I told him I was somewhat surprised because I had been told by some foreign wag that all homeless pets were fat and overfed. He just laughed and explained that this was his new dog and the old one was indeed quite plump at the time it was killed. I said I was sorry for his loss but he just smiled and gave me a knowing look that I assumed came from living a hard life. He assured me that this one would soon be just as plump and strapping because he was feeding it canned Spam from the food bank. I snapped a few more photos just to show foreign wags that not every homeless pet was fat, though I guess they all get that way eventually.

 

I asked my new friend if there was anything else I could do to help him before I left and he said, "Thanks, not really." As I turned to walk back to my car, he asked if I would like to come back and have a party with all his friends when his new dog was big enough to be barbecued.

 

Something was said up above that I agree with. It really is too bad that the only consideration some people give the homeless is how much their going to cost in taxes. Everybody else in the world is paying $6.00 a gallon for gas, and we're so whiny, look at the fight we put up when we are asked to contribute anything to the welfare of another human. Godforbid that you should have to take your stupid McBurger without cheese in order for someone else to eat. I think I am starting to gain more and more respect for the bum's. They don't consume natural resources, they don't spend there lives in that souless shithole that the free market has become. If they lie about their condition, well, as Principle Skinner said, "Welcome to Dick Cheaney's America." He was kind of an ass about it, but I agree with Gary. I WOULD rather give a buck to a bum than to Starbucks.

 

Gluttons.

I think your argument that bums as you call them don't consume any natural resources is going to be hard to substantiate. They may not spend their lives in that soul-less shit-hole referred to as the free market, but have you ever been in a parking garage stairwell where they do pass their time among other things? People (like me) who have families to support may feel like they are already carrying their fair share of the load. Regardless of that I think there is a lot of support available, perhaps not enough and perhaps somewhat less under the current administration. I think you are making broad generalizations that do not prove your argument.

 

You said that you would rather give a buck to a bum than to Starbucks and that makes me wonder if you ever have, or if you are planning to in the near future? I can understand the way you feel but I don't agree with everything you said. Don't worry though, because I won't stop you if you offer to buy someone's lunch this week.

 

Note: skinny dog.

Everytime one of them asks me for money, I give it to them, maybe in exchange for a photo.

 

I just don't see a whole lot of bum's driving Massive, wastful SUV's. I don't see them spending money of Microsoft. Maybe it's because I read "My Ishmael" rather recently. Maybe it's because I have never tried to support a family. But when I walk down the streets, I just see so many overweight, overendulged people who constantly complain about what they pay in taxes. I just think that I hear WAY too much complaining about economics from a country that, really, doesn't have much to complain about. I know this is a statistic that everyone has heard at lease 27 times, but we makeup something like 15% of the world's pop, and consume something like 60% of it's resources. Do you know how easy it would be to help not only the bums in this country, but all the people starving in the world? It takes something like 2,500 gallons of water to produce ONE POUND of red meat. Not one cow, ONE POUND. Cattle consume about HALF of all the fresh water on earth. If Americans reduced their meat intake by just 10%, the sixty million people who starve this year could be fed (by the way, I got those stats from a George Carlin book, so I would like to think they're pretty accurate).

 

But see, most Americans aren't willing to do that. They'll just continue to insist on their 29 cent cheeseburgers. They'll continue to spend amazing quanities of money on Land Rovers, and use them to drive a block to the store to get milk. I mean, you can't deny how astounding the amount of resources we consume is.

I don't know. Maybe when I get out of college, I'll stop giving money to the bums, and I'll stop voting Green party. Maybe I'll start eating meat again, and maybe I'll buy Nike shoes. But until then, I'll continue to be discouraged.

 

Sorry for straying so far off topic, and sorry for preaching.

I had determined to sit this entire POW out, but here are some things I'd like to add:

 

1) The US food distribution system is the most efficient, economical way to feed people in the world, to blame it for people starving is ludicrous. A $.29 hamburger means that a person can get a square meal for working 5 minutes at minimum wage. Maybe what starving countries need are more McD's. :)

 

2) The 2500 gallons of water per pound that a cow drinks (or is used to water feed plants) over it's lifetime (I'll assume your statistic is correct) doesn't just disappear into nothingness, Most of it is passed by the cow and some evaporates, some replenishes groundwater supplies, some flows to rivers and replenishes those supplies, some stays in the cow and is in turn passed on to humans who pass it through the sewer system and then drink it later. So the actual amount that is 'destroyed' is probably more on the order of 1 gallon per lb.

 

3) Worldwide pollution has declined over the last 100 years while productivity has increased, mostly due to western technological advances.

 

4) Without western technology, there would be no way to distribute that 10% of meat that americans could conceivably save for the hungry. And yes, I realize that there is a good chance that you mean the water it would save would be enough to grow crops for the 60 million starving people in the world. But in a lot of cases, there is water to grow food given the technology and infrastructure to use resources efficiently. (Wells and irrigation are two things that are often lacking in poverty-stricken areas)

 

5) Obesity is no longer a sign of opulence. In fact I believe there is a negative correlation between wealth and deviation from normal in terms of bodyweight. This is primarily due to people being able to afford $.29 hamburgers vs. healthier gourmet cuisine.

 

6) When 'bums' are driving their land rovers, they probably don't wear their street clothes and leave their signs at home :)

 

I too, apologize for going so far off-topic.

I, too, have decided to sit out POW's, mostly because I was busy doing a story on Thailand's disspearing island culture.

 

I have to add to this thread now that it is close to hitting the 300 mark.

 

Did big oil pay you to say that pollution has dropped? That it isane! I have spent the last 9 months traveling and photographing the world as I see it. I have constantly asked folks from all walks of life and all countries what they think of (1) our newly elected furor. (2) our country in general.

 

You had better wake up and smell the Carbon Monoxide.........we americans are not viewed all that well....especially after electing an enviromental "Hitler" for president.

 

At this rate, we humans will not exsist on this planet in 100 years. My father is in nuclear science and has done research on this.

When I do return to the U.S. in a few months.

I WILL personally start removing people from thier SUV's and start a large movment to disable them, legal or not.

 

As for the photo. It gets your attention initially but I find the subject to be pretty common and the car in the backround to be distracting.

 

Word to the wise. If any of you own a pig-a-thon Ford "Explosion" get out if you see me coming, I will physically remove you from it and it won't feel good!!

 

In London now getting all my stuff scanned from S.E. Asia, 2,0000 slides, ooof!

 

Have a great day:-)

 

 

I must be doing a good job here. This is why I know.

For the third time I've had my (admittedly checkered) portfolio visited by a new account(s) for the sole purpose of teaching me a lesson. And that lesson might be?

Well, first of all, let's get our players straight.

The account I refer to this time is identified as one

Ian Murphy.

As we can see, Ian joined us on Thursday, 21 Friday 2002. Ian is another one of the "0" boat people who appear out of nowhere to arrest our senses with their puny comments and scores from time to time, often enough on the POW thread when the discussion (apparently) becomes to emotionally taxing (vicious, some would say) for (I assume) one or more of our regulars (i.e., normal account holders).

Anyway, now we have "Ian" amongst our merry group and I'd just like to say welcome, Ian, and thank you for visiting my portfolio and leaving your opinion on my work within the Arches of London folder. I invite you to take the time to visit the rest of my folders and favor me with insight in these places as well. I'm sure that exercise will prove itself to be similarly instructional.

As for the 9/9 grade you've also left on this week's POW, I would tender further thanks. For you see, had there been any doubt in the minds of some this site's dimmer lights before that accounts of your description were definitely being run with vigor then at least we can rest assured now that such is no longer the case. Not that any of our dimmer lights could really care when it all boils down, but I thought I'd touch on that point just to get it into the record. Again.

To the person running "Ian Murphy" and to those people who continually play this same silly game on Photonet, I invite you all to visit my portfolios and leave your own puny scores and pathetic remarks on my work. Indeed, the more the merrier. Far from feeling distress I feel certain satisfaction (in a black sort of way) that events have moved in this manner, for you see I have no intention of ever asking this site's administration to erase these crippled attempts at adult editorial but instead will merely hold them up in the open for all to see for what they manifestly are.

And since this site insists to play these games, I feel free to take off the gloves, as it were, and to play with "you people" in like manner. Accordingly, allow me to relate the following story.

One of this site's higher-ranked photographers (Austin Den Herder, ranked #8 as I compose this comment) once pulled (as far as I know) his entire portfolio and then re-uploaded same. Why did he do this? I don't know exactly. I do know that Austin approached me via email one day and enquired why I had given him such low marks on a few of his pictures. Austin at this time implied that perhaps I had done this because he had graded a couple of my pictures without taking a "good look at them" (winkwink) and so, Austin went on, if I'd just take the time to re-evaluate his photographs then he'd be glad to "re-evaluate" mine . . . and so on.

At that time I didn't know who Austin was exactly, but when I checked, sure enough, I'd assigned Austin a number of 5's and 6's and 7's on some of his stuff--these are actually not bad grades, by the way, if taken within the context of my grading sensibilities, indeed, represent relatively high scores.

Be that as it may, instead of taking Austin up on his proposal to "swap re-evaluated scores" I instead wrote back that while I had no taste for that I would go back to his portfolio and leave corresponding comments on all of the pictures I'd graded in an effort to make my position clear. And this I did.

Some time later Austin wiped his slate clean and then uploaded all of his stuff again. Magically, all of the same people who had graded him previously immediately resbumitted the same grades previously assigned and Austin was, as they say, up and running again. In a flash!

I say the "same people" right away rushed to grade Austin's work. Well, not exactly the same people. One of my complaints with Austin had been that 1) he was not only self-rating his own work with 9-9's and such but it was apparently the case that either his wife or daughter was also providing his portfolio(s) similar service to the tune of 10-10 across the entire spectrum of his work. Austin didn't bother to respond to my email, but instead elected to simply pull all his pictures (easiest way to rid himself of my comments which mentioned this idiocy for all to see), then simply put them back up and like that.

I made mention of this business (in passing) to, if I recall, Geraldine Allen on a POW a couple months back--I'm not sure if Geraldine responded directly, but one could check if he was interested--for sure, Mary Ball did respond at the time. Typically for this (warped) group, though, no serious notice was given to this event and it was pretty much just swept under the old Photonet rug and in due course forgotten.

Of interest, due to a shortcoming in the way the software for this site was coded it turns out that while Austin was successful in eliminating any trace of his encounter with me on his images a track record of those times does still exist . . . in the form of a record of my comments left on this site, and these may be accessed simply by clicking here:

General Comments by Tris Schuler

Of course you'll need to do a bit of leg work as I've left more than a few comments along the way, but if you persist in your effort to scroll down the page soon enough you'll arrive to the pertinent section of the list. For whatever that might be worth.

I bother to mention this sordid business with "Ian Murphy" and Austin Den Herder not in the mistaken belief that it might rid the server of ghost accounts or the people who run these things, or that it might in and of itself deal effectively with the issue of the many different kinds of petty people who reside on this server. That's part of life and one must simply accept that (if he wishes to remain sane). No, I mention it for the reason that this site is, unhappily, no closer to being what it purports to be, a site devoted to the general appreciation of and instruction in photography, than it was the last time this business came up, no closer, I suspect, than it shall be a few months down the road when this nonsense surfaces (as I have no doubt) again. I mention it also because I am continually obliged to read the favorite apology for and rationalization of the grading system employed by Photonet, namely, that it affords users a convenient way to access "the best" photography on the server. Well, it might at that in its own convoluted way, but ask yourselves this: at what ultimate price?

I wish all of you a nice weekend, and see you on the next POW.

This photograph demonstrates one of the problems with a social welfare program. This man is in an urban setting where he will be seen (and photographed) by many. Therefore, this is the face of poverty to most people. The truly poor people in America are not in the cities, and are infrequently seen by the urban masses. The above depicted individual is what might, in other countries, be called a professional beggar. As hard as it may be to believe, there are many layers of genuine need below him. Let's save our passionate compassion for those that deserve it.

Noticed your raisin brand shot was taken in St. Louis. Hope this person wasn't a result of betting on the Super Bowl.

.....stuff of a general nature.

I too, have noticed that certain photographers who are really concerned with ratings have taken Austin's route. I think that is merely a symptom of insecurity. I used to give a rat's rear end about those silly things.....I don't anymore. I live the dream that Austin is so desperatly seeking in his style of shooting that is born of pouring through all the pages of "Outdoor Photographer magazine." I feel I have a long way to go in my own work but I do take tons of awards, have my boss at the paper in Aspen begging me to come back and am working closely with Amy Toensing of National Geographic to get my Thailand story published.

 

If you are Frans Lanting, Jim Brandenburg or Ansel Adams, you don't have to put "Please rate" on every one of your pics.

 

I am about to upload some more pics from my travels as I sit here in my new temporary home In Covent Gardens, London.

 

Sorry about the "Horn tooting" but I, like many on this site, have worked hard to be a good photographer.........I don't have to re-upload my work, it speaks for itself.

 

Cheers Tris,

 

Daniel

Daniel - I drive a silver Toyota 4Runner. I live about 20 minutes outside of NYC. You are more than welcome to try and remove me from it. Just don't be so sure that it will be *me* who doesn't feel good after it's over.

I'd give a 6 to the photographer for taking the photo and a 9 to the guy for making the sign. I guess this all goes to the debate of what's more important, the subject or the photographer. In this case I think it's the subject as I think the photographer didn't have to do much to get a photo like this and could have done better. In that case why praise the photographer. I've seen images like this before and the only thing that makes this different is the sign.

 

As for the SUV comment. I'm with Bill Mahr. After so much money spent to try and educate people about depletion of our natural resources and polution, animosity from people in oil producing areas against us that historically has led to some interesting times and probably some interesting policy on our side, you would think people would be more into looking for better alternatives and making their own positive changes.

 

Maybe this photo actually ties into this tangential discussion. It's easy to notice something but does that make anything change? People have been taking photos and raising the awareness level of them for a long time but can we say the problem of homelesness has gotten better because of it?

Average shot well caught -

I refuse to participate in all the other crap however

 

Mo

I certainly hope that gig with National Geographic works out, Dan. You're a good enough shooter and it'd be fun to view the work of someone I've met (so to speak) in an international publication of that quality--and for all I know your piece might up the standard from there!

 

 

Dan Bayer may be one hell of a good photographer, but he's walking on damn thin ice when he starts telling people what to drive. This is a free country I live in and SUVs are a very legal form of transportation. If and when I start breaking the laws in my country, let me hear about it. Until then, keep your stupid threats to yourself, Mr. Bayer. I'm with Ron Lysek

 

Mike Kany

but he's walking on damn thin ice when he starts telling people what to drive.

This free country that lets you drive anything you want also lets people say almost anything they want. Obviously Dan's comment wasn't to be taken literally.

"According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of the most important things you can do to reduce global warming pollution is to buy a vehicle with higher fuel economy. This is because every gallon of gasoline your vehicle burns puts 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Scientific evidence strongly suggests that the rapid buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is raising the earth's temperature and changing the earth's climate with potentially serious consequences. Choosing a vehicle that gets 25 rather than 20 miles per gallon will prevent 10 tons of CO2 from being released over the lifetime of your vehicle. Passenger cars and trucks account for about 20 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions"

From another source:

"Get SUVs off the road, and you could cut out Saudi Arabian imports," said Robert Paaswell, director of the Transportation Research Center at City University in New York. "Looking at energy is the most patriotic thing we can do. We need to see energy in a totally different sense."

Think of that next time you replace the tattered plastic flag on your SUV.

Poor Aldo here is getting his guts ripped out for

taking a picture. Now, we have Dan Bayer, a

richly portfolioed, highly esteemed member of the

Photo.net community physically threatening people

for what they choose to drive. As for the "environmental Hitler" remark, I have neither

read, seen, or heard of ol' GW ripping women and

children from their SUVs. Maybe Mr. Bayer could

impress us with a POW showing the current administation doing that in crisp, blazing color.

But, ofcourse, that won't happen because he's out there doing that himself...." I will physically remove you from it(SUV)and it won't feel good!!"

 

Mr. Bayer, I would rather you do what you seem to

do best....make beautiful pictures.

 

 

I only meant that I will pull you out of one of those giant Ford or chevy aircraft carriers, not a Toyota 4-runner. I am a nice guy, love the world I live in, but you DO NOT have the right in my opinion and heart felt believe, to mess up our teetering on the edge planet. I am sorry, it's my world too and I just don't buy "Davey Crocket" politics anymore. The "Right's" crap is going to Actually do America in if it continues to be abused.

 

I HAVE pulled people from thier Ford Excursion's and Lincoln Navigator's before, put huge notes exclaiming my dismay on their windows for all the world to see.

 

We all have our causes, that's mine.

 

Ronald, don't sweat your 4 runner, if it's a 6 banger, it's gonna suck a bit of gas but it's not excessive. the others I have mentioned are...plain and simple.

 

I take pictures to make people think. I get them published and even if it makes them stop for just a moment, that is good.

 

Chill out, it's not a threat, it's a fact. When home in Aspen, once a week I cause some ignorant rich glutton a bit of discomfort and some major public embaressment, make them think.

 

Live with it, I have to live with the greed for now.

 

A human bieng

 

I think you are missing the point Mike Kany. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Mr. Bayer to take beautiful pictures as long as we are raising the smog levels. I agree that we are hypocrites by saying how much we enjoy those pretty pictures in National Geographic and then continue to pollute our environment without a conscience.

 

And as to the "environmental Hitler" remark; you obviously misunderstood it because you got it backwards. Its about what the US is NOT doing to limit pollution as opposed to countries and people who DO care about our environment.

 

The Hitler comment is quite funny in this discussion. Durring WWII the us government was very active about promiting self sacrifice as far as gas, food, metal and other items that were important in the war effort where now we are being told to go out and spend more. They had created a lot of posters around those goals. One of them said "If you're not in a car pool you're riding with Hitler." The first half is paraphrashed from memory but that's pretty close. It had someone in a convertible with a partially translucent Hitler in the passenger seat.

 

You have to love the weird tangents POWs discussions create :)

 

This photo definately makes you think about other things though so it does have merit.