FRAGILE

An excellent documentary shot Alf! Superb detail, excellent B&W work, and a great story. Well done guy!

All the best,
Neil

ALBERTO

Many thanks for your visit, I'm very pleased you liked it.

Take Care!

Alf

ANABELA

Sincere thanks for your thoughts and kind words. I happen to agree with you, we all live in our comfortable bubbles, but now again we get to see just how volatile life can be.

Best Regards

Alf

RAJAT

Many thanks for your visit and for your gritty alternative image, an interesting and worthy addition to consider.

You are astute in your observations, thier humour and grit was what impressed me also. The fagility that I refer to though is not Mick and Jim in thier current circumsances, but more towards the fragility of life in general for all of us. We all walk a fine line, between what we know, cushioned in our various comfort zones, and the very different circumstances that with one twist of fate, could be ours to experience first hand. Again you are 100% right in my opinion, you summed it up very well by saying "the fragility is the viewers"

Best Regards

Alf

MARJOLEIN

Sincere thanks for your visit and for sharing your thoughts and suggestions, all very much appreciated.

I presented the the image with the accompanying narrative for two reasons. One, I thought it was a great story, I walked away from Mick and Jim feeling good and I wanted to share that. Two, I didn't like to think of people looking at the photo, and making judgements purely on what they could see. Ok thats fine as far as the quality of the image and it's various faults are concerned, but photo's are sometimes too one dimensional, they can require explantion, otherwise misinterpretation is inevitable, and I didn't want Mick and Jim's situation or indeed thier demeanor to be misinterpreted.

On reflection perhaps a wide angle lens wasnt the best to use at the given angle, it's just what happened to be on my camera at the time, a 50mm prime in my bag would have been far better choice. I did crop the image slightly, there was a bit more space around them, but it didn't seem to add anything. But I do like your suggestion of a more classic type portrait shot, and if I get the opportunity it's something I'll try.

Best Regards

Alf

MEIR

Many thanks for your visit and thoughts. I believe there are times when an image needs no explanation or title to convey it's meaning. A beautifiul landscape or a fantastic architectural image hardly needs explanation. However things are not always as they seem, and in this particular instance, I feel it warranted explanation. Of course you didn't have to read it, it wasn't compulsory. : - )

Best Regards

Alf

MARJOLEIN

Thank you once again.

It's an interesting debate, text or no text? titles or no titles?.  On this ocassion I felt that the added text was relevant, pertinent and mildy amusing. As for titles, well I'm in favour of them too. They do two things for me, help indentify the photo when I'm searching through files, and two, to convey my own interpretation of the image. If this is counter productive to getting a sincere first impression, then so be it,  I'll settle for an insincere one : - ) ....You see I just can't be taking myself too seriously for long lol.

Best Regards

Alf

RADU

Sincere thanks for your visit and kind words, much appreciated. You are right there must be hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in similar situations, most of them don't get to tell thier stories, I'm glad I got the opportunity to say a little bit about these guys.

Best Regards

Alf

NEIL

Many thanks for your support and positive feedback.

 A bit different than the pretty lakes and tree's that I usually post, but whilst I was way out of my compfort zone with this one, and there are various faults with it, I did really enjoy the day in the big city with my camera, something I might do again.

Best Regards

Alf

Well, my friend, you've made my evening!  I'm feeling poorly, both from a bad upper respiratory illness and from a bad fall I had yesterday (a story for another day).  I read this, and with all of the horrible things happening in the world right now, I found this very uplifting in a strange way.  Despite their hardship, they haven't lost their dignity or their sense of humor.  And they are so devoted to each other!  Of course, your image tells a story all by itself (albeit probably not as interesting as the one you told), but that is the sign of a great photo in my mind.  The fact that you've added this touching story to enhance it is just special.  You're an extraordinary person, Alf, and you did a great thing for them that night just being yourself.  My sister once took a street person for a meal.  He was begging, and she told him she would not give him money but she would buy him a meal.  She's never afraid of the street people, which I often am.  To be sure, some of them are aggressive, but many are just people who have come upon hard times and are doing the best they can.  Thanks for a touching story, and I think if this is any indication, you should be doing a lot more street photography.  :-)

I like photos with beautiful "gray scale" tones which is why I like this photo. Usually I can care less about the context or content of an image and subjective titles "irk" me (is that a word). I did not  read the text mostly because I cannot read very well -not because reading is optional.

Excellent work Alf!!!!!

Alf...  A lot of helpful advice has been offered and I'll admit to not having any to add, but will comment that I like it as is.  You have enough peripheral information to establish location and condition, excellent body language and eye contact... very natural.  Of course the b/w tones are well done... Mike 

CHRISTAL

I'm really sorry to hear your unwell, and wish you a speedy recovery! Respiratory illness is so debilitating, I've experienced it first hand so you have my genuine sympathy, and then to fall as well.......sheesh you are "In The Wars" as my Gran used to say.

My whole experience with these guys was as you aptly described it "uplifting" I wasn't at all sure that a photo would tell the full story though, people tend to look and make snap judgements, it's only human, we connect to what we see, and sometimes theres more to it than what meets the eye.

I loved the fact that they could make me laugh, and they seemed to enjoy every minute of the banter as much as I did. I would love to meet them again, to get a really good portrait shot of them, and who knows maybe I will.

You are right to be cautious though, there are some agressive people about, and I don't recommend that anyone emulates what I did. I know the city and I'm generally street wise enough to avoid the dangers. In this particular case I didn't feel threatened in any way, despite carrying some very vaulable eqmt.

As for more street photography.....well I have to admit I enjoyed the experience much much more than I ever thought I would, but my love of the countryside and wide open spaces seems to be in direct conflict with this particular genre. On reflection though, it's something I'll have another go at in the not too distant future.

Get well soon Christal and take good care!

Best Regards

Alf

MEIR

Many thanks for coming back with some clarification regarding your disdain of text. I understand now why you would consider it as irksome, and yes "irk" is a word, it means "annoy, vex, displease, trouble, bother, nag, rile, rankle"  any or all of the former. But it is reassuring to know you like the photo, thank you!

Regards

Alf

GEORGE

Many thanks for stopping by and for your kind comments.

Best Regards

Alf

MIKE

Sincere thanks for taking a look at my clumsy first attempt at street photography, and yeah I am fortunate to have recieved some good tips from some very well respected photographers. Of course your approval of the b/w tones is very well received as it's something else thats comparatively new to me.

Cheers Mike!

Alf

A superb image. That black jacket looks 'rich'! H-m-m-m!

"....Jim had just done 31 years in prison for armed robbery............" , "...........didn't seem like a bad person to me........"  I think I'm safe in assuming it wasn't you he robbed.  :-)  While I think it's true that, as this one does, a good photo speaks for itself, I find your narrative enlightening, entertaining, and funny.  I'm happy the situation unfolded so well for you.   A fine way to fill in some blanks, as it were.   I also feel you've done a fine job with your original post but can also see merit in the tighter crop & higher levels that Rajat has provided.  Even with his tighter crop there is still enough information here to provide context for this shot.  The advantage I see of this tighter crop is that it gives greater precedence to your subjects and thus provides the viewer with a more intimate feeling. Without the intention of becoming their new 'best friend', I think I would be inclined to revisit this pair and present them each with a copy of this photo (wallet sized of course; I mean where would they hang a framed 8x10?)  Would an additional gift of coffee & donuts be taking things too far?  Best,  LM

TONY

Many thanks for looking in, not the usual pretty picture, but perhaps theres beauty in all things........and ahhh yes the coat, I did wonder myself about that, but didn't feel quite brave enough to ask where he got it! : - )

Cheers Tony

Alf

LEN

It definately wasn't me he robbed......... had that been the case the picture would have been very different..ie: Jim stripped of all his worldy goods with only his wooly hat to cover his modesty. : - )

But seriously as the story unfolded, it turned out that the robbery went horribly wrong and a guard was killed, Jim's brother was the perpetrator, but Jim took the rap for it, hence the heavy sentence. I asked Jim why he confessed to something he didn't do, his simple answer was "He was my brother, what else could I do".........I just didn't have an answer for that one.

On reflection, I agree a tighter crop would have given a more definitive precedence to the main subjects. I am hoping to catch up with them in the near future, with the intention of carrying out a bit of an experimental portrait shot if I can get them to agree to it.

I think the wallet sized photo is a great idea, but I haven't ruled out the framed 8 x 10. In fact I could just see them with a silver candle stick, illuminating the framed photo, whilst they squat on a small persian rug and make reference to the price of donuts as they study the Financial Times : - )

I think the coffee and donuts is a good Idea too, not least because I like coffeee and donuts too!

Good to hear from you Len and I'm glad you enjoyed both photo and narrative.  

My Sincere Thanks for your imput!

Alf

Hi Alf. You def should post more street shots! In my opinion, including the story behind this shot gives a good insight into these guys circumstances leading up to the shot.  Ok. I spose you can try different crops/angles, make it more artistic but for me I like the realism of this shot and the poignant story.

Hope you managed to get a good competition photo!

All the best. Sarah.

Thank you for your interest and encouraging comments. I actually enjoyed my experience in the big city for the day, not least because of these two guys. But I think it could become addictive, and it's hard to juggle time. I guess I'd have sacrifice some precious landscape time.....oooh even the thought hurts! : - )

Cheers Sarah!

Alf

I don't know which touched me more - your photograph or your account of Mick and Jim.  As to the photograph, it sensitively portrays two people who could have been lifelong friends, but instead met in an alleyway.  The tonality and detail are right on the money.  The leftover package wrapping aptly ties in the title with the subject-matter.

As to your describing meeting with these gentlemen, I too have had such experiences, albeit none that led to any photographs being taken.  What I've learned that homeless people, like the rest of us, have human identities and the dignity that comes with them.  At the very least, they deserve to be addressed by their names.

Well done, my friend . . .

michael

My comment is more about the story. I'm glad you took their picture on your way to shooting something else, and only because they solicited your attention. I also like that you took the time not only to get to know them, but thought it important to not just tell their story, but tell it from their points of view. These are all great achievements besides the pitcute.

      As far as the picture goes, I think you could work a bit more on this genre, as I think the image does not live up to the story--or your usual standards. For one, I think the lighting is not so great, and the two kind of blend into the background. Secondly, I think the pose does them a disservice, as this kind of languid pose portrays them as slackers and never-do-wells, which your story does dispel. So, we have an image that yells "discard" next to a story that says "there, but for fortune goes you or I", and it is this disconnect that I think weakens the story-picture.

     Personallv, I would have chosen a more dynamic pose, since you spent so much time with them--something like this:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10854430 or this:  http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5784947 

    Both are homeless men I have photographed over the years.

      Still, I love the story.

MICHAEL

Sincere thanks for your visit and compassionate thoughts and comments.

The humanity of these people became more and more evident as the conversation deepened, but overall thier humour was a priceless commodity something lacking in a lot of people and not to be taken for granted.

I echo your sentiments in thier entirety regarding thier diginity and identities, I think the message that I wanted to get across here is, what you see isn't always accurate. A picture paints a thousand words, but are they the right words?

Thank you once agqin Michael

Best Regards

Alf

EMMANUEL

Many thanks for your remarks.

I'm very pleased you enjoyed the story.

As for the image, this shot was taken exactly as they were sitting, without any contrived poses or suggestions from me that they should move, nor did I feel the need or the inclination to ask them too to do so, and indeed I don't think such an image would be a true acount of what I saw (surely this is what street photography is about....isn't it?)

I also don't think I could have entered into relaxed conversation and discussion if these guys felt they were being manipulated in any way.

As for anyone assuming that these guys as "slackers" or "never-do-wells" .........you only have to read the text, thats was the reason it was there .....simple really.

I don't think a "Dynamic Pose" is really what was required here. These are not paid models or puppets to be cajoled for my purposes, (not that theres anything wrong with paid models, but that is a definative career choice) these are human beings with dignity and deserved to be treated with the respect that I hope I delivered to them.

I must stress also, this is the streets of Liverpool, and the background of these guys can be read in the narrative. Not the kind of people you'd want to ask to "Pose" ....and particularly not on a first chance encounter. I spent 15 minutes with them .........I don't really think that entitles me to take liberties.

As for the lighting, it was a bright day, I darkened the image slightly in order to convey the mood of the image, but it's chrystal clear on my monitor (calibrated 3 days ago) , there is no part of the image with detail hidden by darkness, even the crumbs on Jims pants are in evidence. Have you had your monitor calibrated recently.?

Maybe you haven't read all of the comments and my responses, understandable really there are quite a lot! However if you had you'd find that I agree with one or two former comments regarding the angle of the camera and a more up close and personal portrait shot, (albeit from a longer lens than was fitted to my camera at the time)

Your comments As for my "Usual Standards" baffles me somewhat, as you won't find another street photograph anywhere on PN taken by me to make a direct comparison and arrive at your mysterious conclusion.

If you are referring to my landscape shots, then you must realise that a composed and often contrived landscape differs enormously from a very natural candid street shot.

The composition could have been better, and we should all strive for better, but "discard" was never an option. It isn't the best street photo in the world by a long way, but it isn't the worst either. It does a job, it delivers the facts as they were, and not how you or anyone else would like to see them.

So in summary you might view an image that yells "discard" , but theres another 30 odd people that have commented that obviously think it's worthy of some interest....but hey ho ....it's all subjective ...everyone can't like it.

I agree I need to work on this particular genre of photography, still.....this image raised a great deal of interest for a first time attempt  So I think there may be a faint glimmer of hope for me yet : - /

And finally lets be positive Emmanuel, if I had discarded the image as you suggested, you wouldnt have got to read the story you enjoyed so much : - )

Regards

Alf

Life is fragile in many ways.  The crumpled box tells the story for me, almost as much as their crumpled faces.  The text adds to the story, but I think the photo stands alone.  The "larger" figure seems so contorted within his clothes and situation, whereas the man on the right seems relaxed with his crossed feet and hands.

Many Thanks for adding your thoughts and comments, much appreciated!

Your observations are quite astute and accurate. Mick (the larger figure) seemed much more emotionally affected by lifes turn of events, divorce, losing his home, who wouldn't be eh. Jim on the other hand, seemed to take what life threw at him in a more controlled way, maybe 31 years inside is a major schooling in coping with lifes harsh realities and unexpected twists and turns.

Cheers Jeff!

Alf

My intention was not to belittle your efforts or suggest that you were wanting in skill as a photographer. I merely commented on this particular photograph. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "discard". I was not implying you discard the picture, but that the photograph makes the men come across as "discards" from society, and not just two guys who could be you or me.

  On the particular points you made, I have to disagree with you that my implication was not that you "pose" them to look like models, but that you, as an experienced photographer recognize the connotations of the finished product. I do not agree this was merely a "found" photograph, as a "found" photograph, to me, would be if you found them across the street and shot the image with a telephoto. Once you got to know them, this became a portrait session, since you are making a comment not about 'the homeless', but these particular two guys.

   What I suggested was that looking at the image, your overall impression--not knowing these two--is, 'well, what a couple of loafers', an impression that would have been largely dispelled if you had suggested gently that you would like to take a couple of shots of them standing up. My intention was not to imply you did anything 'wrong', but that the image, as I see it, could have been stronger.

I love the story - it certainly gives that extra dimension to the image.  Whenever I feel a bit sorry for myself I will try to remember how positive an attitude these guys have. 

Believe that the cropping is just right - there is sufficient of the environment shown to give the feel for it.  The tones are very good indeed.  The few bits of white happen to give it extra impact.

Whilst landscape is your passion it is good, I believe, for you and us, for you to try your hand occasionally at other types of images.

An image very well worth sharing !

Jim

Hi Alf

I returned to read your response to my critique and was a bit shocked when I happened upon Emmanuels critique,  my first thought was,  is he viewing the same picture as  the other 30 odd have commented on!?  I will adress further comments to Emmanuel,  my first being,  "Work a bit more on this genre"  Alf made it perfectly clear this is his first ever attempt at "Street Photography" and I have to say,  for a first attempt,  it's not a bad shot!  Jeff has it spot on with his comment "The picture stands alone" the narrative,albeit very touching,  witty and informative,  was not necessary in order for you to connect with this image,  however,  I took the liberty of looking at the links you posted of your images of "Street People" and I have to say,  this one http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10854430 looks rather like my local Rabbi and this one http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5784947 has an uncanny resemblance to my wealthy Uncle Frank!  In making a comparison Emmanuel I would have to say Alfs image "screams" street people at me,  whereas yours unfortunately do not.  In your second critique you say you were not attempting to belittle Alfs efforts and how you merely commented on this particular photograph (and left links to your "Street People" which implies to me that you were saying "here's how it's done properly).  As a fellow photographer I would have thought you would have given constructive critcism and advice.  In my opinion your comments bordered on insulting,  suggesting the guys in the picture come across as "loafers"  I would be interested as to how you concluded that from two guys with only a cardboard box between them and a cold concrete floor!  You seem to feel you are adequately experienced to make a comment like that when your portrait shot of Jay Hoin doesn't exactly "scream" street person at all,in fact,in my honest opinion,not even a whisper!  I have taken the liberty of posting your image links for further comparison and contemplation.  Keep up the excellent work Alf!

Regards

Jacqueline 

In order to avoid further confusion, I shall now endeavor to respond to your fiurther comments sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph where applicable, as follows, your text marked in intalics and bold: -

My intention was not to belitte your efforts or suggest that you were wanting in skill as a photographer.

Your intentions were never called into question in my response, therefore I see little or no relevance in this particular statement.

I merely commented on this particular photograph.

Fair enough, and I merely responded to your comments, as indeed I do again now.

I think you misunderstood what I mean't by "discard" I was not implying you discard the picture, but that the photograph makes the men come across as "discards" from society, and not just two guys who could be you or me.

Now this is where I feel you have gone wrong not only in your analogy of the given situation, but also in your choice of words. The fact is I haven't "misunderstood" anything you have written, your meanings may well differ from what you stated (as you now claim) however that does not constitute any misunderstanding on my part. I will attempt to clarify this point. The word "DISCARD" is a verb, a verb is a word that describes an action. The particular action that "DISCARD" means is to throw away, dispose of, reject, cast aside and therefore when you stated "So, we have an image that yells discard" there can be no mistake in the meaning, no matter what your intention. Furthermore you do not refer to the subjects in the sentence, you refer to the image, this reiterates my original conclusion and confirms I did not "misunderstand" your sentence, and at best your interpretation of the word "discard" is entirely flawed and used inappropriately. Just as a side note there are endless Nouns that could have been used to describe these gentlemen, Outcast, Vagrant, outsider, etc, however I feel that "homeless persons" whilst simple is probably the most fitting. In conclusion of this particular point, I think it would have been far more magnanimous of you to admit making  a mistake in your choice of words, rather than pointing to any misunderstanding on my behalf.

On this particular point you made, I have to disagree with you that my implication was not that you pose them to look like models, but that you as an experienced photographer recognise the connotations of the finished product.

Let's look at this sentence in more detail shall we. If as you had previously suggested that I ask them to "pose" I would immediately be asking them to conduct themselves in a contrived prefabricated manner, and the resulting image could them be described as unnatural or set up. The image you see before you is what met my eyes when they called me over, nothing more, nothing less. "Experienced Photographer" << as previously stated and emphasised, not in this particular genre.  "Connotations" The only connotations that are evident in this image to me and indeed to everyone else that has viewed the image, is that these are homelsss people, and thats exactly the result I wanted. You have referrred to these people thus far as "never do wells, slackers and discards" These are assumptions that either you arrived at yourself or, you feel that other PN viewers may arrive at from just viewing the image. Personally I give much more respect and credence to the viewing members of PN, and invite them to make up thier own mind about what they see. (Interesting to note that to date nobody has referrred to Mick and Jim in such derisive terms)

Just as an exploratory investigation into all possibiltities regarding "pose" I looked at the two links you kindly provided for your images. These I take it, are supposed be shining examples of what homesless people should look like and how they should be photographed?

Though I have little to say about thier aesthetic qualities, other than they seem like good portraits. (Not that I'd actually know) What puzzles me is how you could honestly expect anyone to recognise them as homeless from these images. Other than your rather obvious title "Homeless man" theres doesn't seem to be a scrap of evidence to support it. no environment, no flavour of the street, no atmosphere, in fact nothing but the two faces from which the only conclusions I could draw is that one looks like a freindly but shy person that averts his eyes from the camera, and the other looks like and aged person. In fact there is a distinct lack of any "connotations" to be gleaned from these images at all. Now I am wondering at this point if you have fully grasped the concept of "Street Photgraphy"  ....or is it me that has misinterpreted this genre in it's entirety? But for the avoidance of doubt,  please note this image was posted under "STREET" and not "Potraits"

Ahhh healthy debate...how very refreshing, I am enjoying this immensely.

I do not agree this was merely a "found" photograph as a "found" photograph, to me would be if you found them across the street and shot them with a telephoto. Once you got to know them, this became a portrait session, since you are making a comment not about "the homesless" , but these particular two guys

If you read carefully again my original narrative, it states " I took a couiple of shots and then started talking" At this point  they hadn't moved from where they were sitting, I merely stopped besides them and took the photograph. Your interpretation of a "portrait session" couldn't be further from the truth and I'm intrigued at how you arrived at this conclusion after reading my narrative. So far it would seem you make an unprecedented amount of assumptions, and unfortunately all of them are wrong. Furthermore fifteen minutes in my humble opinion is scarcely enough time to acquaint oneself with another person, let alone "get to know them". Again I will refer back to my original narrative, to point out that the ONLY images that were taken was before I entered into conversation with them. These paticular guys are "homeless" this would indicate to me that therein lay a and seamless common theme, inextricably combined, and not a definitive choice of either component of the subjects or the image.

What I suggested was that looking at the image, your overall impression-not knowing these two- is, well what a couple of loafers', an impression that would have largely been dispelled if you had suggested gently that you like to take a couple of shots standing up. My intention was not to imply you did anything worng, but that the image, as I see it could have been stronger

Emmanuel I am somewhat disheartened to to read your continual reference, or assumption and conjecture that anyone else would interpret the image in such a derogatory fashion of the subjects. To date you have referred to them as "never do wells, slackers, and discards and it would seem we can now add "loafers" to the growing list of misappropriated labels. This so-called "impression"  you have, or that you might envisage other people having, has only been illustrated thus far from your seemingly somewhat jaundiced perspective, and it's not a view I share. I would further add that thankfully most people take a more compassionate view of homeless people.

So, this "impression" would be dispelled if they had stood up? If we take your view to its ultimate logical conclusion, it would seem that homeless people that sit down could all be viewed as "loafers and slackers" etc. I think this an exceptionally narrow view and again not one that I share. As previously indicated I didn't feel it was appropriate, to ask them to "pose" in any way at the time. This could be something that could be explored after visiting them on a number of occasions, but then, I would post the resulting images under another relevant section.

As for me doing anything "wrong" ....I do hundreds of things wrong, I get it wrong all the time, that is how I learn and progress. This image has many mistakes, and I will learn from them, and from the informative words of many of the talented photographers that have taken thier time to point them out in the form of constructive critiques. I had hoped that I could learn soemthing from the links you posted, but sadly as portraiture wasn't my intended destination, it was not to be. Lastly "the image, as I see it could have been stronger" Well something we agree on at last, but as a final footnote and a thought for quiet reflection and contemplation. Show me the photographer, that doesn't feel they could have done thier work better and stronger, and I'll show you the person that has ceased to learn. Many thanks for your opinions, no matter how misguided or inaccurate, they were nonetheless entertaining and provided good material for debate.

If you should like to respond, please do so in the above format in order that I can draw reference from the relevant text.

Best Regards

Alf

JIM

Sincere Thanks for your kind words and encouraging comments, I'm really pleased you liked the story.

These guys are an example to us all in some ways, we think we have problems, but they pale into insignificance when I consider what these guys face night after night.

I'm glad that you feel the environment shown gives it extra authenticity, thats exactly what I intended.

I will take note of your recommendation to try new things Jim, I believe they are wise words.

Cheers Jim!

Alf

JACQUELINE

Many thanks for your added contribution and vote of confidence, much appreciated.

Whilst I cannot entirely disgree with your analogy of Emmanuels contribution, I think there could be a case of some misinterpretation of the image and it's subjects along with a communicative problem that hasn't really helped. I have attempted to clarify the matter above and hope that this will provide ample explanantion for all concerned.

I am touched by your compassion and empathy for Mick and Jim and I'm pleased that you have averted the attention back to them, as in all honesty, I think we may have been losing sight of what this image was all about.

Best Regards

Alf

"Ahhh healthy debate...how very refreshing, I am enjoying this immensely."

And, that is the very point of posting a picture for critique. I have no problem with a debate, and I also have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. What I have a small amount of problem with, though, is someone going to such great lengths to accuse me of bad faith when all I did was candidly and honestly state my impression of an image. I think that violates the spirit of an honest exchange of ideas. If you want me to restrict my critiques of your images--no matter my personal opinion--to "great job, wonderful, excellent", then come out and say so, but, surely, the amount of effort you have put into questioning not just my impression of this image, but reminding me twice that everyone else came to a different conclusion evidences a thin skin that I think is not exactly flattering. But, again, I think both our posts speak for themselves. You end your series of personal attacks thus:

"Many thanks for your opinions, no matter how misguided or inaccurate, they were nonetheless entertaining and provided good material for debate."

I suppose the message to me is "join the crowd", or keep your "assumptions" to yourself." I now get it. Thanks.

Ordinarily, such open gratuituous insults would be offputting to me, especially when I had made what, I believed, was a good faith effort to critique particular things about an image, but I believe this is a forum, and all the posts speak for themselves.

I will respond to a few things, though.

"In conclusion of this particular point, I think it would have been far more magnanimous of you to admit making  a mistake in your choice of words, rather than pointing to any misunderstanding on my behalf."

It was a a wrong choice of words, and I apologize for it.

"The only connotations that are evident in this image to me and indeed to everyone else that has viewed the image, is that these are homelsss people, and thats exactly the result I wanted."

Fair enough. That is your prerogative. But, I stated that, to me, the words seem at odds with the image, in that the pose gives off a different impression from the story. This view may be just mine, but why is it wrong for me to have this subjective view? I mean, I can look at a Michaelangelo pieta and state that, subjectively, it is a revolting sight of an incestuous ideation, rather than an touching image of a woman mourning her son. Is this subjective feeling wrong? Should I refrain from stating it because it is different from that which Michaelangelo intended? Should I be reminded that "everyone else" who viewed it came up with a different impression?

"I looked at the two links you kindly provided for your images. These I take it, are supposed be shining examples of what homesless people should look like and how they should be photographed?"

No, the links are not "shining examples" of anything. I merely illustrated what I wrote verbally by giving an example of it. Obviously, this is not the only way to shoot homeless people, as I point out, but a way in which I shot particular homeless people I ran into. You do not have to do it that way. But, you also did not have to use such derisive language toward me, as I was respectful in everything I said in my posts to you.

"In fact there is a distinct lack of any "connotations" to be gleaned from these images at all. Now I am wondering at this point if you have fully grasped the concept of "Street Photgraphy"  ....or is it me that has misinterpreted this genre in it's entirety? But for the avoidance of doubt,  please note this image was posted under "STREET" and not "Potraits"

But, that is the crux of the matter. Again, speaking subjectively, I believe that, if your intention is to do a straight "found" picture of two homeless people, then the long story seems out of place. If the intention is to tell the story of these two, as you eloquently did, then I don't think it's preposterous to suggest that a variety of poses rather than the stock "homeless man reclining against a wall" shot. Again, these are merely my opinions, and does not in any way suggest that everyone has to agree.

"So far it would seem you make an unprecedented amount of assumptions, and unfortunately all of them are wrong."

They are my opinions, and none of them are any more  "wrong" than the above statement, which is merely your opinion.

"Again I will refer back to my original narrative, to point out that the ONLY images that were taken was before I entered into conversation with them."

That is fine, and you have the image you have, and you are pleased with it, as, apparently, is everyone else. Next time, I will remember to echo them.

Your points are well taken. Rereading the comments, they come across as a bit harsh. But, my comments are not as out of place as you and Alf suggest. Reread the comments of Marjolein Martinot and Meir Samel.

In fact, the ideas I suggested are also illustrated by this link by Marjolein

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6413739 ,

and by this http://christthekingcincinnati.com/2008/05/bvotd-14-the-homeless-man-is-your-boss/

and this http://mfdesignstudio.com/portfolio.php#homeless_man_lg and by this http://www.123rf.com/photo_4774095_homeless-man-in-a-city-street.html.

These are just images I got by doing a google images search of "homeless man" Obviously, what Alf did is one way to do this, but not the only way.

This is another image of the same homeless guy in my portfolio:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8372198

"In making a comparison Emmanuel I would have to say Alfs image "screams" street people at me,  whereas yours unfortunately do not."

But, that is my point. His image "screams" "street people", but the text screams "Jim and Mick". My own images were not supposed to "scream street people", but were particular portraits of particular men, who just happened to be homeless. The first guy, I met in Portland, Oregon, I paid him $5 and spent about 2 minutes with. We did not speak much. The second "shy" guy, I spent the better part of two days with in Lansing, Michigan, and shot, like two rolls of film with. My point is not that all homeless pictures should be done like that, but that, this story of Mick and Jim, to me, would have been better illustrated with a different image.

"In my opinion your comments bordered on insulting,  suggesting the guys in the picture come across as "loafers"

But, they come across as loafers, to me. Are you suggesting they would rather prefer to be portrayed lying on cardboard boxes than the careful portraits I made of the two homeless guys that tried to present them with dignity? It is a fair point made by Alf that his intention was to portray them as "homeless people", and it is also a fair point that he didn't have the time to do otherwise, but to say that I am wrong in suggesting a more dignified pose is a bit surprising to me.

I will again answer your views as before, though I think now you may have over laboured the point somewhat.

And, that is the very point of posting a picture for critique. I have no problem with a debate, and I also have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. What I have a small amount of problem with, though, is someone going to such great lengths to accuse me of bad faith when all I did was candidly and honestly state my impression of an image. I think that violates the spirit of an honest exchange of ideas. If you want me to restrict my critiques of your images--no matter my personal opinion--to "great job, wonderful, excellent", then come out and say so, but, surely, the amount of effort you have put into questioning not just my impression of this image, but reminding me twice that everyone else came to a different conclusion evidences a thin skin that I think is not exactly flattering. But, again, I think both our posts speak for themselves. You end your series of personal attacks thus:

I seem to have touched a nerve, you seem to have gone to such great lengths yourself in establishing  what my imagine depicts, therefore I thought it only fair and deserving that I should pay you the same respect in return. Now the fact that you don't like what I have replied doesn't detract from my content and PN viewers will no doubt make thier own mind up about what is and isn't a true account. What doesn't speak doesn't lie, and therefore all the facts of your previous statements remain to be viewed by all. There has been no suggestion that you "restrict" your critiques in any way whatsoever, but do not be mistaken, I will not stand by and be told that I made mistakes when it is crystal clear what you typed in the first instance. No one accused you of "Bad Faith" what ever inference you make with statement that is lost on me. Unless of course you know something I don't.

You are free to air your views, but don't forget I am also free to respond to them.  You don't have to read them either again it is your choice.

We agree on one thing our posts do speak for themselves

The fact is I invite all to comment and offer positive advise, and constructive critique I will not enter into debate by dragging other peoples names in our discussion (as you have seen fit to do here)  But suffice to say the advice I had been offered by previous posters had been forwarded in a positive and pratical manner, and I like to think I have learned something from their imput.

I still maintain there was nothing positive about you critique, other than your perceived  enjoyment of the narrative.

You might seek to be viewed as some sort of victim here by by continuing to misquote me (inverted comma's depict a quotation and used in the following sentence that you have used are entirely inacurate and inappropriate) 

I suppose the message to me is "join the crowd", or keep your "assumptions" to yourself." I now get it. Thanks

I never typed anything like that statement above and twisting the truth yet again will not fool anyone. The best part of this is anyone with  an interest can easilly check.

Ordinarily, such open gratuituous insults would be offputting to me, especially when I had made what, I believed, was a good faith effort to critique particular things about an image, but I believe this is a forum, and all the posts speak for themselves

I have proven without a shadow of a doubt that your comments are inaccurate, the misguided part comes from your own admission of meaning something other than what you have previously stated. The so called insults are of your own concoction, there was no insults, intended or otherwise.

If you wish to view this as "gratuitous insults" that is your perogative, but everything I have stated is proven by your own previous posts.

This is indeed a forum, and I agree all the posts will speak for themselves

I thank you most sincerely for your belated apology, for your choice of words much appreciated!

Fair enough. That is your prerogative. But, I stated that, to me, the words seem at odds with the image, in that the pose gives off a different impression from the story. This view may be just mine, but why is it wrong for me to have this subjective view? I mean, I can look at a Michaelangelo pieta and state that, subjectively, it is a revolting sight of an incestuous ideation, rather than an touching image of a woman mourning her son. Is this subjective feeling wrong? Should I refrain from stating it because it is different from that which Michaelangelo intended? Should I be reminded that "everyone else" who viewed it came up with a different impression?

Your views are welcome, as are all. If you care to view every single image of the 160 I have posted you will note I don't normally enter into debate. But in this case I have made an exception because your "Subjective view" simply wasn't accurate, and you went to great lengths to show me how it should be done. Putting it quite simply I didn't agree with you. You might not like that fact that I refuse to back down when i think I'm right, but if you offer a view, then you can expect a response from me. I might not like your critique, but then I'm not the one suggesting you  refrain from posting anything, thus far you have been the only person to suggest this. I am more than happy to discuss this and will continue to do so.

No, the links are not "shining examples" of anything. I merely illustrated what I wrote verbally by giving an example of it. Obviously, this is not the only way to shoot homeless people, as I point out, but a way in which I shot particular homeless people I ran into. You do not have to do it that way. But, you also did not have to use such derisive language toward me, as I was respectful in everything I said in my posts to you.

I really think you've over-played the victim card here too many times now Emmanuel. There simply is NO derisive language used in any of my responses. I have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the english language, I really don't need to use "derisive language" in order to get my points across. If you would like to point out the particular words that you find derisive I will be more than happy to provide a meaning for them.  But as you have broached the subject of "derisive language"  I notice you have failed to provide any explanation for the words you used to describe homeless people i. e. "Loafers, slackers, and never do wells" etc, in fact any reference to these particular points are perhaps significant in thier absence in your response.

But, that is the crux of the matter. Again, speaking subjectively, I believe that, if your intention is to do a straight "found" picture of two homeless people, then the long story seems out of place. If the intention is to tell the story of these two, as you eloquently did, then I don't think it's preposterous to suggest that a variety of poses rather than the stock "homeless man reclining against a wall" shot. Again, these are merely my opinions, and does not in any way suggest that everyone has to agree.

My response to this is quite simple, the story and the image are intrinsically linked, one compliments the other in my opinion. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as I am perfectly entitled to disagree with it. In cases like these I always think the photographer is in a far better position to judge, that is, behind the camera. If your opinions are  taken to thier logical conclusion as I have previously inferred. I could post the image without the story certainly, but you as one of many enjoyed the story, it would seem a shame if that story wasn't told at all. And to reiterate further, I don't think theres a facility on photo.net to just tell stories. The story and image can be viewed seperately or not at all its all at the discretion and preference of the viewer. I just don't think it's a good idea to suggest that either one should be omitted. Viewers can simply make up thier own minds. The poses that you did suggest, didn't indicate to me anything about homeless people and you will appreciate that is my opinion. Of course there are alternatives to shooting any subject, but I like to keep the theme relevant to the subject where possible.

They are my opinions, and none of them are any more  "wrong" than the above statement, which is merely your opinion

Your opinions are one thing Emmanuel, and I whilst I don't agree with them all, I still welcome open healthy debate. Your assumptions are quite something else entirely. I have painstakingly gone to great lengths to point out the differences in your "assumptions" and the facts in my previous response

"Potrait session" This was an assumption you made, there was no mention of it in my narrative.

"Loafers, slackers and never do wells" more assumptions from you.

"I do not agree this was a found photograph" another assumption

"once you got to know them" another one.

I could go on and list every single assumption, but I don't really see the potential for further enlargement as you haven't answered all of the points from my last response.

That is fine, and you have the image you have, and you are pleased with it, as, apparently, is everyone else. Next time, I will remember to echo them.

There you go with your assumptions again Emmanuel. I have never stated anywhere that I was "pleased with it" quite the contrary when people have bee