Untitled

Aldo, you're calling me out! Guilty as charged with "door installation". Sorry man, didn't mean to ruffle you, just giving an honest opinion.

I've seen him as well in SF. He is almost "frightening" to see in person because most people do not want to see individuals in this condition. That's a very busy corner, as you can see by the cars coming down from behind. I have to give Aldo a tremendous amount of credit for pulling this off. If you look at some of the great war photos (i.e. naked girl running in Vietnam) you'll notice that style and minor imperfections are not important. The photo is great because it speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitor). I give this a 10/10. I want to see more.

you hit the nail on the head, aldo!

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".

There is some (little) truth in what you say, Aldo, but mostly you seem to miss the point.

Your photographic subject was not especially well conceived and the actual execution which went into its makeup is sorely lacking even by this site's sophomoric POW standards. Cropping, exposure, focus, overall composition . . . all of these elements are lacking at the severe limits. Someone pointed out that this picture for him invokes the image of a Photojournalism 101 hand-in on our student's first assignment, and I could not but agree with that. This picture is, in a word, terrible.

And that's just considering technique. The political animal which raises its ugly head whenever a shot of this type draws attention is quite another story, and part of me feels pity that you are compelled to weather that force. Unfortunately, this goes with the territory which POW wants to encompass.

It has been pointed out many times that the photographer should not be blamed for a choice of material not left up to him but to an individual (or a committee of oversight--I can hardly stretch my imagination to view this collective, assuming it exists, as a group of "individuals" in the best sense of that term) who apparently is not possessed of the photographic sense and experience this assignment calls for, and the responsibility for that rests squarely and only on the shoulders of Mr. Greenspun. Meanwhile, the POW process has degenerated into nothing short of a fairy's farce and serves no higher purpose than to point initiates to our hobby in the wrong direction by holding up examples of bankrupt photographic technique and dubious artistic expression to be something other than they actually are.

In a perfect world you might take this otherwise bitter POW experience and transform its dementia into something enlightening, beneficial--perhaps if you filtered out the worst of the nonsense and listened closely to the sober commentary, but I don't know. One thing should be clear, though: there are reasons why this effort of yours not only doesn't pass photographic muster but for all intents and purposes remains AWOL from formation. Unless you get that seminal message and understand its import your future as the photographer of anything more dynamic than a chrysanthemum in a hot house strikes me as bleak.

Finally, I considered sending this message to you off line to spare you further embarrassment; in the end I decided that would be insufficient for my purpose. For you see, this missive is not addressed so much to you but the entire Photonet community and most especially the Photonet staff. (Not that any of our principles necessarily cares to listen, but the effort ought to be made.)

P.S. I've passed this same unfortunate man times without number. Indeed, I go back to the days when this man still had both his legs, even to before he first began to hobble pathetically around with a horrendous open sore, if that's worth anything to you. (The picture was apparently taken from the perspective of you standing in front of the door to Mel's Diner, looking west, on the corner of Geary Street and Van Ness Avenue.) At that, there might be a good documentary study there, and I have not come to belabor my social agendas, either. It is the low objective quality of your effort that I object to and which threatens (in my eyes at least) to lead the POW feature into territories murkier and less worthwhile still. And again, that's on the people who constantly make these crazy POW choices.

You're right about the "0 Photos Uploaded" comments, Aldo. There is this to say for them though: you tend to get as many gushing comments as bad ones. I think you received generous portions of both in this thread.

As to ratings by the "Zero People", I think they should be limited in their ratings to between "3/10" as a minimum and "7/10" as a maximum until three pictures have been uploaded and resident for at least a week. That would almost immediately sort out both casual bastardry and some of the nepotism we see from time to time around here.

Fully-qualified members (those who have the requisite numbers of pictures posted) should be limited to two "10/10" ratings per week and the same number of "1/10" ratings (or something along these lines). I mean how many "perfect" pictures - perfectly good or perfectly bad - does one see in any 7-day period? Limiting ratings largesse would force photonettari to be more discerning in their accolades, the main problem with ratings being that they are a "magic pudding": no matter how many generous slices are cut off and spread around, it never gets any smaller. You can always dip in and cut off a 10/10, anytime you like.

Back on the POW shot, I can see the idea that some have speculated might have been in your mind - to make the picture somewhat universal by obscuring the face - but feel it lacks a certain oomph in the final execution. There is the slight top heaviness in the composition and some annoying specks and hairs around the final print. The thighs seem to have been burned in far too much, as well.

On the up-side, I really like the way the crutches convey a certain strength and almost dignity to the image. The way the man is carrying the placard in his teeth is somewhat pathetic, too. On the whole, though, the picture falls short in the "originality" department. Perhaps a shorter focal length lens (and corresponding closer positioning of yourself to the subject) might have lifted it. If it wasn't possible to get closer, then perhaps you shouldn't have made the shot at all?

Don't take too much notice of Tris. The picture isn't "awful". It could just be a lot better. Don't forget you're raiding his "patch" here (i.e. The Streets Of San Francisco) and that's almost guaranteed to get his hackles up higher than usual.

I disagree with some of the above commenters who have suggested that you (and anyone else who wants to take these types of pictures) should go and share in the lives of their subjects. This is not only impractical, but unnecessary. If we were to be disqualified from taking photographs of subjects that we were not intimately involved with - including emotional "invasion of privacy" situations like this POW - there'd probably only be pictures of family members and pets posted here. No, the trick is to make it look like you were involved, and thereby to vicariously involve the viewer. Put less cynically-sounding: especially in street photography, you're the reporter, not the subject. You've done your job if the picture is effective, your conscience is clear and your viewer is moved. The more you affect your viewers, the more successful your image will be.

Wow! What can I say? I am suddenly saddened by looking at this shot!

Tris,

 

I also considered sending you this message offline to avoid you personal embarrassment but decided that your enormous ego could withstand it. The biggest problem people whose photos are awarded POW status have is to ignore and filter out comments of people like yourself who use these boards not in an effort to communicate something educational or constructive but as a forum to vent their inadequacies, jealousies, and psychiatrically challenged egos to a captive audience. In other words, you could write pages and pages of comments and still be unable to convey a single worthwhile point other than the fact of confirming to many that you are an arrogant, pompous jackass. Now please take your medication, drive your taxi to your favorite wall, set up your tripod, and get creative. And don't forget to list yourself as an "interesting" person in your own workspace.

I've seen your work and in two words, it sucks. Where are your credentials? You are way off the mark with your comments and obviously do not understand photo journalism. If you looked at the photograph, you would see that the the cross walk is in back of the subject and the picture is straight on. There are many cars coming from behind in that direction. Both subject and photographer were in the middle of the street at a very busy intersection. If you dared to go out walking in SF taking these type of pictures, you would understand how quickly you must react. As I stated before, the thing speaks for itself, just as with any journalistic type of shot. If I'm wrong, show me your credentials, your portfolio certain doesn't exhibit an expertise in this area.

It is easy to do street photography . . . .

 

You couldn't be more mistaken, Frank.

 

Tris, you have quoted this out of context. It is easy to do street photography in the way this POW is done - but it is hard to do it well!

 

You might wish to re-read my initial post. I have the highest regard for street photography.

 

 

 

 

Aldo: your remark is atypical of the decorum this feature is in dire need of if it's to serve any useful purpose to the community. It is shabby enough to witness the blatent personal attacks conducted by those who haven't any stake in the POW and who choose to totally ignore the subject photograph and instead simply vent for reasons peculiar to their special needs, but your feedback plays host to a feebler purpose yet.

None of that will change the nature of this and other POW selections or your photographic prowess and I suggest you try to exercise the discipline required to refrain from these emotional outbursts. If you can't stand criticism, get out of art. Or stop showing your art publicly.

Tony: there is never anything personal in my writing here, at least not coming in--I often respond in kind to shots taken at me, but why not?

As for your remark re my "territory" and how that consideration might affect my remarks here: to get around an apparent ulterior motive you could easily (and probably do) harbor, I will only respond that nothing could be further from truth. This picture is on the awful side, and it certainly is a rank example of the kind of sloppy material the POW feature is repeatedly inflicted with. Now go ahead and give the poor guy this week a 6-6 or 7-7, pat him on the back and encourage him to do better next time. And more power to you in the process. But that will not make this shot anything other than it is: appreciably bad photography and hardly worthy of POW status.

What is this place to some of you, a joke?

Frank: I did read your entire remark and yes, you did go on to more or less qualify your appreciation for the demands made on good work in the street. I wanted to emphasize, though, that this kind of photography is not "easy" in any manner, shape or form. Call it an observation in passing and nothing more, endless apologies if it struck you as something else and like that.

 

 

For someone whose displayed photos are so truly truly awful, you surely seem to feel that you're a valid critic. The shot, while not my favorite, is powerful, interesting, topical, and well composed. I would suggest that you think twice, in the future, before you post flamebait like this.

Dennis,

 

Get out of the way or you'll get hurt here. I've got some Bob Dylan "Billy the Kid" music on for inspiration...

Tris:

 

Please stop teasing us all--post some of your real work! All that stuff in your folders can't possibly be yours! It doesn't live up to any of your own hypercritical standards! Lets see the real stuff.

 

Or stop posting such pompous/pretentious advice so consistently.

 

Please!

Dennis,

If he's counting his money then he's got X-ray vision.

To all, in defence of Tris,

Whether or not he has any decent pictures doesn't matter when it comes to his making a critique. It's enough that he's up there on the board.

(I'm listening to Mozart. I remain calm).

Eric, this man is standing where he often stands, about three or four feet off the curb on the southeast corner of the intersection of Geary and Van Ness. It's a popular hook for the street beggars as relatively lots of traffic passes at any given time of the day and when he's not there "on duty" somebody else is (as often as not an older woman, who also hangs out habitually at California and Van Ness).

In actuality and upon further reflection I suppose the photographer might well have been placed down the sidewalk and east of the entrance to Mel's. So what? None of that changes anything of substance.

My credentials? I've worked in the street a lot, for my living when I was younger. You apparently have not. In any event, your remarks have little enough merit on their face. If you think my work sucks (such eloquence, but then at least you didn't spell it "sux"), troop over to my folder, pick a photograph and begin to articulate yourself in a gentlemanly manner--assuming you both care to and are able, which I doubt on both scores. While you're at it, address all of my work and try to deliver your criticism sensibly (i.e., with something approaching a general aura of intelligence and specific insight). At that juncture and in such event I would be pleased to respond to you accordingly. This thread, however, is not the place for such business, and if you cannot understand that, which is obvious, then you need to get your act together better--and fast as far as I'm concerned--good luck on that if you're past your teens, though.

Crossfire? Not at all. I'm taking your advice straight away in the morning and finding myself an agent--this all cries out for middle-America coffee-table treatment in the worst way.

This is exactly what I suspected; fear dominating compassion. This could be a portrait of one of the nicest people in the world but we will never know because nobody has the guts to actually get to know him. I am disgusted by such prejudicial comments like I have to give Aldo a tremendous amount of credit for pulling this off-- Eric Johnston as if he is some sort of monster or zoo animal outside his cage.

 

The primary object of interest in this picture has as much personality as a scarecrow. In fact, I contend that there would be no difference if it were a scarecrow.

 

I am being so harsh because I work with these people on a regular basis. They are as diverse and interesting as any other group of people in our social structure. I have had some of the most intriguing conversations with these people while I peeled their two-year-old underwear off and bathed them. I simply do not understand why you would NOT talk to them, get their story, and ask their permission to take their picture especially since you claim to be interested in them.

 

The bottom line is that I just dont see a story here and I dont think you are really interested in the story.

 

Tris,

 

I don't think anyone in middle america would spend their hard earned money for a coffee table edition of a book containing your "photographs"...maybe someone will pay a dollar for your autograph, though, if you insist and persist that you are a famous person or photographer. sowcow

Tris, you seem to be very hurt by my request see your talent. I keep looking, and it isn't there. Is it the so called Bay Bridge? Or is it the commercial for Nortel on the car. I'm eager to learn from a master. Please show me how street photography should be done!!! Inquiring minds want to know.

Aldo,

 

Fine shot, I like your other work as well. Don't let these folks get to you. Thousands of folks check out these pages although few actually jump in here with the sharks. These guys are weird. The clearly get a kick out of dumping on people and love to go on and on about how constructive their techno babble is. Some of the better photographers here have convinced themselves that they have some kind of grand insight that puts them above having to show common decency. Mary Ball is about the only one of the usual suspects that I would suggest that you remotely pay any attention to. She's not only a pro, but also seems to be a decent person who offers something worthwhile regardless of whether she likes the shot or not. The rest of them just sprout a lot of crap that more often than not is just aimed at impressing themselves. I would assume they realize they just look like a bunch of clowns to most that visit this space.

 

i am not particularly bowled over. in my country beggary like any other is a proffesion. we hear of beggars are created,children are stolen ,maimed , let loose on the streets, favourite spots being around temples.surprise to me is such shots are possible in the richest land on earth. cshrao

Eric, if you insist on discussing my work here then I'll oblige (until the authorities step in and quash it).

The "Bay Bridge" effort is something I whipped up this morning while sipping coffee. It amused me to do so as I tried (once again) to feel more familiar with Photoshop--my editing program of choice happens to be Paint Shop Pro which comes at a fraction of the cost, is easier to use and offers features lacking in the former title.

Anyway, so much for that abstract.

The "Nortel" ad (found on the side of a London taxi driven by an engaging owner-operator named Mark) is clearly labeled as an "establishing shot" to its companion piece Affable Man. Can you not read properly, either?

Moving right along . . . I have discussed the latter photo (somewhat) with Dennis and while I can't recall if he ever asked to see the dollied-out view of that scene I thought it appropriate to include this perspective nevertheless, at least for Dennis, but it's also there for anyone who has viewed the other piece and is interested to realize the larger context of this and similar shots they otherwise are forced to view in microcosm (in their normal presentations). There are other practical uses for these establishing shots, by the way, and perhaps one day that would make for an interesting thread in itself.

Which more or less addresses your two remarks on these photographs of mine. (I'm not convinced Bay Bridge During the Commute qualifies as a photograph but it's certainly an "image" based on a photograph of mine and I decided to include it for your . . . enjoyment.)

I'd have to say this photograph doesn't bring about any real emotion that I haven't already experienced in my own life. If I want to experience beggars on my own, I'd just drive to Dallas, TX, (just a few minutes away,) at about 2 in the morning and spark up brief conversations with the folks who claim the underside of a bridge to be their home, which I've done. Or I'd volunteer at our nearest mission to pour soup for the homeless.

I'd like to see a new concept or original idea for a POW. Either that or an aesthetically near-perfect image.

A photo-journalistic picture like this is about as original as a picture of Fluffy the cat doing something cute.

And if the photograph doesn't tell a good story itself I usually prefer to hear one from the photographer, instead. I've personally received higher praises from people when I tell them how or why I took a picture, rather than simply showing it to them.

With Mr. De Fellipi, it seems he's more worried about covering his own reputation or bashing other people's, like Tris'

Finally, for the sake of being fair, would you discredit the opinion of any person who appreciates art, yet doesn't produce it themself? Who cares what the critiquer's photographs look like. If you wish to limit your comment intake to that of semi-professionals to professionals themselves then you're quite the narrow-minded person. If it is true that you care not for the amateur photographer like myself, then all I can say is you're a Poor Sport, Aldo!

My point is that if Tris believes the picture was chosen by mistake, then why the long diatribe blasting the photographer? Send an offline comment to the individuals who selected it. Make a comment about the photo itself and move on.

 

This photo has accomplished what was intended, thought provoking comments. It is as the photographer said, "a slice of life" captured in a moment of time. Not a portrait. Tris uses assumption as a vantage point to pick apart the photo without knowing the story behind it ("the photographer might well have been placed down the sidewalk and east of the entrance to Mel'"). Bunk.

 

Unfortunately, Dennis, you do this as well in your attempted peacekeeper role.

 

The people who were there know the story behind the photo. It's great to see people trying to figure out that story in their comments. It's lousy to see people making up the story in order to push whatever agenda they may have.

 

As for me, well, let's just say that my comments do not come from assumption or being "behind the group". Leave attempted teaching of individuals to the classroom and -- know your audience.