Untitled

I usually try to be very generous w/POW as folks tend to be very critical, but frankly this image does nothing for me. Not aesthetically, not emotionally. Here's why:

 

 

1. The composition is boring. The telephoto lens + the straight on perspective flattened this poor man into a pancake. The car clutters the background. The subject's placement is dead center (or nearly so).

2. It's entirely possible that this is just my crappy monitor, but it seems underexposed, with little or no detail in the darkest darks. Perhaps someone w/a Mac monitor can clarify this for me?

3. I'm not sure I quite understand how this has "spoken" and/or moved so many people, because to me this is about as unemotional a depiction of this subject as one could possibly make. The eyes, or at the very least, the face, are the windows to the soul and should be shown, and while rules like this can be broken on occaision in this case there's nothing much about him that speaks to me or connects with me. It seems instead to objectify him into a symbol of what we've all probably seen, ie, "generic homeless man #325"

 

 

As for politics - well, I have two things to say. 1. There, but for the grace of God, go I (or any of us) 2. Poor is a relative term. Is there poverty in America? Absolutly. Does it, for the most part, come even close to the poverty I've seen in Honduras, Russia, and Ukraine? No.

 

Take care, all.

If a man had never seen a fish before, then surly he would marvel at a photo of Hubert (a resident in my home aquarium)! Likewise with this photograph, were images of the homeless might be "a dime a dozen" in some environments, you can be sure in others that they are not. That is not to say that we should appreciate an image due to its unfamiliarity, just that we should not dismiss an image because its been done before! In my opinion, an image of this nature should evoke a feeling, an emotion or thought, before we pass on and look at the next photograph, a penguin eating a rabbit on some remote block of ice. For me, this image conveys a sense of hope. This is a photograph of a man begging for help, who, whilst in a desperate situation, is still able to offer good advice; a man who is desperate but nowhere near destroyed. The subject is not the man, I believe it to be his message.

 

I myself am new to photography. I am delighted to hear that the negative, of this image includes the rest of his only foot, but Im also surprised, as I would have thought the photographer would not have posted this print due to this obvious flaw. Also, in the darkroom, the printer who is concerned with presentation (I like the toning and range of tones) also ignores the specks of dust in the upper left corner and throughout the image. I think that these two errors are enough to destroy the best of photographs, and therefore I find conclusive fault with its printing. I do like the tones, horizontal white likes, depth of field, all adding to the sense of hope, the man looks like he is in a race, trying to achieve, not giving up, what do you think life is about??

 

Patrick Byrne

I remember the first time I saw a homeless person or beggar in NYC. I was horrified. It really shocked me that people lived that way. As the days and months went by, I became blind to it like so many others. Part of why was that among them were some fakers and there were stories of how some of these people in reality - lived in better apartments than I did as they were collecting lots of tax free money every day. That said, there were other very sad cases that were all too real. I am grateful that photographers continue to remind us that there are some things in this society that need some attention. Giving money is not the answer, of course. Providing a means for these people to make a living would make sense. All to many people are either blind or totally hard hearted to the lifestyle and hardships of the street. Images keep them in front of our faces which is important. I applaud the project of the photographer in his mission to shoot "the street". That said, I am disturbed that the feet/crutch is cut off. I realize it is photojournalistic and you can't always choose the setting.. but the lines in the street are distracting. Personally, the face showing with some kind of expression would maybe salvage this image for me. Perhaps in a case like this if I found myself fixated by a certain subject, I might have kept a ways back, shot with a zoom lens and waited for new moments and might have gone through 2-3 rolls of film and 2-3 hours attempting to capture an emotional/captivating moment/expression.

Although I think this photo is supposed to make a social comment, I'm not sure what that comment is. We know these people exist and, if that's the message, then I agree, this is trite. Usually, to me, effective photos of this sort remind us that these individuals are human, too. They share many of our concerns and problems (often amplified) and are not just objects to be overlooked. And that's where this photo fails, in my opinion. By not showing us his face, he remains an object, not a person. He could just as well be a scarecrow or a clothing store mannequin. His face would make him human. Someone posted a link to a photo above that showed faces with emotion and that made all the difference. There has been a lot of speculation as to whether this guy is legit or or a con artist. We might have more insight into this question if we saw his face.

 

I am not good at this kind of photography but I greatly appreciate those who are good at social commentary, or "ethically evaluative", photography. One thing I try to keep in mind is "why am I taking this photograph?" Do I really care what happens to this man? Do I care enough to sit down and talk to him? If the answer is "no", then my motivation for taking the photograph probably has little to do with true concern for the person.

Politically speaking, I think fake beggars WITH BIG APARTMENTS must be minority or doesn't exist at all. I believe most of them appeal to emotion more than they need (who is honest all the time to "sell our fish"?), but they are truly poverty. Most of them drink lots of alcohol, but again who doesn't? Tax free or not, the job of being a beggar doesn't seen to be so easy(especcially for a cripple), and the profit doesn't seen to be that high.

It seems to me that both the photo and the discussion amplify the complaint of the homeless that they are invisible to the rest of us.

a dramatic picture indeed. i agree there is no need to see the face to get the feeling the image is trying to express, besides he is holding the sign with his teeth and need to keep it visible. the pick up behind is a bit distracting despite of the shallow depth of field used. i was wondering what benefit would this picture bring to this guy?

Unfortunately, homeless people are a "mature" subject. It is much easier to take a picture of a homeless person than a dancer or a football player. For one thing, you have to go to some trouble to find a dancer or a football player, but in most American cities, you just have to get in your car and drive a couple of miles to find a homeless person begging at a street corner.

 

In order to achieve high regard, a photograph of a mature subject should have high technical merit and bring some new perspective to the subject. This photograph is quite deficient in technical attributes such as composition, light, and tonality, and the perspective that it brings to the subject of homelessness is apparently that homeless people are faceless signposts, which is not an especially fresh perspective.

 

This is a site for discussion of photographs. With this one, the elves seem to be suggesting that any old photograph that tugs at middle class guilt and prompts discussion of a political topic has merit enough to be Photograph of the Week. I disagree utterly.

 

Next week we'll probably have a picture of the World Trade Center towers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) To R. Jackson. I feel the same as you do personally about the way this picture was taken. I certainly wouldn't have taken my luck this way, but... You said this: " Usually, to me, effective photos of this sort remind us that these individuals are human, too. They share many of our concerns and problems (often amplified) and are not just objects to be overlooked. And that's where this photo fails, in my opinion. By not showing us his face, he remains an object, not a person. He could just as well be a scarecrow... "

Again, I agree, and I would have shot it your way, not this way... and this surely fails miserably if compared with Salgado's in-depth search of the soul in each social problem he deals with... but just keep in mind that this " scarecrow effect " could be exactly the effect the photographer wanted to achieve... We pass by, and often these people are no more to us than scarecrows or mannequins... Surprise: the mannequin has a message for us...

2) I can only smile about the note I read above talking about " pancake ". Yes, this picture is truly flat... And yes to all the negative comments about the aesthetics... But... again, have we actually read what's on the board carefully enough. To me, if what's written touches you, then the shot is ok. Still bad looking and technically and aesthetically out... YET Ok... Not great, but... OK. I feel we have to acknowledge the importance of the message written in this image... THE SHOT IS THIS MESSAGE.

3) Back to Tris, who said that street photography isn't easy and Mary who said that she would have shot 2 or 3 rolls and spend 2 or 3 hours to get the right image... I certainly agree with Tris here. Might be the most difficult thing in the world, because an instant is short to capture the soul of an action... And YES, I agree with Mary... It MIGHT and generally WOULD (unless we are lucky) need 2 or 3 hours of watching. 2 or 3 rolls of film ? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't actuall matter. I rather click when it's right and save the money that I would spend on films. But the important part is " GET TO UNDERSTAND " the person we are taking a picture of... No understanding means no soul. And for those, if there are any, who would believe that a compassionate attitude for this social issue is all it takes to get it right, I can only say no, no, and no. As long as this man isn't somehow your friend, as long as you haven't gotten used to each single detail of the moves he makes, you won't be able to anticipate and understand fast enough to get THE powerful shot... We unfortunately don't have a Salgado here, but we do have on PN a few great street people photographers... thinking of T.Dummett, Jo Voetz -sorry for the few I miss... I would be glad to read their views on what Mary just said. And I would be glad to know how long the photographer spent here on this particular shot... Might be more useful than keeping repeating that we don't like the image because of the composition etc...

With respect to the photo - what immediately struck me from an aesthetic perspective were the compositional flaws (not-quite centre composition, poor framing at the bottom). Other posters have noted additional technical flaws that, given time, I might have noticed also (i.e. the compressed depth due to as long lens). But what really bothered me was the grab-bag nature of this shot. Go to any large city, anywhere in the world, and you are sure to find countless opportunities to take a photo such as this. For a photo of this genre to succeed in communicating anything beyond the gratuitously obvious, it needs a "context" or some other deeper, personal connection with the subject. Tony Dummett's "Speaker's Corner, London" certainly comes to mind as an example of the former, as does "Intoxicated Man, Auckland" from the same folder for the latter. "Homeless and Pregnant" also touches an emotional nerve with me. These photos truly convey hopelessness and despair and, in the case of "Speaker's Corner, London" the vain and deplorable reaction that the priveleged will often have.

 

In short, I feel it is important to somehow identify with the subject. Unfortunately, shots like this one actually generate a negative reaction on my part. I work in a downtown office building, and what I see when I look at this photo is exploitation on the part of the beggar. As someone earlier mentioned, he is playing a "totally expected role". The "message" on his sign that many have referred to as "powerful" is merely the standard and repetitive jargon that these folks have developed to ply their trade. Perhaps I wouldn't be such a cynic if I had not witnessed a man who begs outside of my office building daily, pack up his crutches at the end of his day and *run* down the street to what I can only presume was an urgent appointment. Homelessness and poverty exist... it's just unfortunate that some choose to make the accompanying pan-handling a way of life and an industry of itself.

 

on a purely aesthetic level, the car in the background bugs me.

The photo doesn't seem particularly exceptional to me, but it's rooted in my instinctive cynicism from life in Paris, France. What I'm really quite troubled (though by no means surprised) by is (the ever-so-dependable) comments of Vuk, Tris, etc., when everything is relative to the likes of composition. The same (haughty, arrogant?) reasoning would insist that only the most gifted orator, poet, or scholar should dare venture to speak, regardless of the merit of the 'ideas' they express. The shape of the words, and not the heart of the matter seems (quite regrettably) to be all that truly counts? Week after week an overwhelming 'elitism' seems to surface, to the extent that people never seem to delve beneath the surface of the pond, so to speak. Too busy distracted by the 'unsightly' ripples I guess?

 

I wonder if it doesn't get cold up there in the top of that Ivory Tower? (Or how the dynamics work WRT to the co-habitation of such liked minded personalities amongst one another in those ethereal, much-vaunted heights?) It's a grievous thing to see such an elitist inability to percieve value in anything even faintly 'tainted' by some common, surface-level blemish, with little regard to what lay beneath. (It seems akin to measuring people by lineage, where no concern is paid, and no address made to the fundamental values of an individual 'personhood' beyond simply chromosomes, skin-colour, and genetic background. Oh, it has an ounce of Asian blood, rendering it all simply inacceptable. Sorry. Reject ... to the trash ... no no no, it just won't work!, etc., etc., ad nauseum.)

 

Just a few thoughts that seem to bubble to the surface selection-after-selection in the debacle that is victim-of-the-week.

 

Kind Regard,

Kevin.

A thousand words? Poor composition, hairs and spots, a guy without a face and half a foot (6 inches?), even an incomplete crutch (poor guy!), we might be lucky that theres some body visible at all If there is anything in this picture that reflects poverty, it is the (lack of) quality of this shot. Almost an insult to the homeless people, I would say. Sorry, but I've seen much better street pics and POWs! WJ

It looks like an assignment for an intro to black and white class.

oh yuck. this guy has a story, and this isn't it.

I don't think this photo is very convincing nor really represents what's usually called "street photography". As others noted, composition is rather weak.

Sorry. This photo does nothing for me. The composition is haphazard. Street photography is not just running around shooting blindly, ignoring composition/framing/etc. It takes thought and instinct.

But more importantly, this photo doesn't work because it lends no humanity to the subject matter. It attempts to make no real connection. You've reduced this man to a few symbols and cliches. You can't expect to connect with the subject when you're using a zoom lens from across the street.

It's as if some of you have never seen a homeless person before. I can see many more "poignant" stories of humanity on my trip up and back from downtown in NYC. Like the couple on 86th Street and 3rd Avenue, or the guy on the Lex who has lost BOTH legs but looks perfectly suited to a desk job or my buddy Rosa who has no kin, she lost her job last recession, or Steve the Vietnam vet/recovering crack addict who reminds me of someone I used to know a very long time ago. They all have stories that can barely fit in a camera lens.

 

This guy doesn't, at least not as presented.

 

My points:

 

Shame on you, elves, for picking just any old homeless photo. I'm sure you can find better examples of homelessness than this in the photo.net archives.

 

Aldo, I will congratulate you on your award as I always do PoW winners, but c'mon, you also can do better than this. The sign is prosaic (I've seen life stories in less room); the setting unfortunate as it provides little context (you don't see his possessions); most of all, there's no face. You absolutely need the face.

 

If this were 1981, you'd have something because Americans had never seen homeless folks in big cities in the U.S. But it is 2002 and after 20 years I'm pretty jaded. There's not much I haven't seen. There's not much I, or any of us, can do that's politically viable.

I just don't get the really bad rap this photo is getting. Is it imperfect? For sure. What gets me is the amount of negatives one particular photo is receiving. I personally feel the POWs of the last few weeks were awful. Last week's in particular. You elves been nipping at the sauce again?

Can't say much more than everyone else has except that the photog should not take too much to heart. The picture is not bad. It's a step in the right direction toward developing your style as a street photographer. In my opinion, it should not be POTW, but then if it hadn't been chosen, you wouldn't have gotten all this helpful "constructive criticism!"

 

Keep shooting.

I am truly humbled by the selection of this picture as the POW. I wish to thank everyone who has posted comments so far. The feedback is appreciated despite the fact that the most severe criticism seems to be coming from people whose apparent "guideline" for deciding whether they like or dislike the photo is derived from such photographic works of excellence as "beached bouy", "frayed pipe", "four bears" "bronson1", "tree@thecoast", "door installations" "1954 dodge", "582345", "street signs", "yellow", "sunset house" and the all time standard classic "o uploaded photos".

[Hurriedly checking titles of pics I've uploaded...]

 

Phew ...

Aldo, Aldo...

 

I think that's your ego talking now. See, criticism is great thing, it boosts your creativity, improves quality of your work and makes you a better man/women overall. That's a learning site; nobody is going to take your market share away. But, what do I know, anyway.

 

Great shot! It captures the essence of that guy really well. Now I'm jealous because I wish I'd taken the photo myself, since I pass that same guy everyday in San Francisco. If I'm correct, that guy hangs out on the corner of Van Ness and Geary right in front of Mel's Diner! Rats.

This image, or should I say the general reaction to it, does three things for me: It forces me to review my attitude to those less fortunate than myself; it teaches me to be more particular about photography technicalities, and it reminds me that POW is not usually the choice of the people.