Anybody out there?

Comments are most welcome. Thank you.

done well you can see the pain in his face

Nice work. The context is perfectly presented. He looks too like he accepts the indignity of being photographed.

I like this photo very much. I like the motion feeling. One thing I find curious is his bright new, rather formal, pair of shoes!

Excellent presentation. The feelings says everything. Great take.

Excellent capture. I like movement arround him. Good tone. DDD

Hello Alexandre, the interesting thing is that he is so neat and well dressed. It's rather eyecatching.

 

Well spotted. I hope you gave him something.

Great capture! Bravo!

Admirable work, Alex, I also applaud your guts to photograph him and look into his eyes. The black and white is excellent. On the other side, I express my curiosity, together with other commentators, regarding his neat clothes and appearance. Maybe he's just a troubled, mentally ill person, and not really poor? I'm not sure, but this picture generates so many mixed feelings, and that's for sure. Regards, S.

Excellent and moving. I like his stillness between the movement. I wish him well.

very nice.good composition,sharpness.wb....congrts.

Excellent street photo, Alexandre. Catching the passersby all around him, as you have done here, is crucial for making this a good shot. Well done. I myself am starting a project in which I photograph street people. I believe it is ethically acceptable to do so, provided they do not object and we donate some money to them.

deste mendigo, ha alguma coisa de estranho. Vejo-o muitas vezes e o queixume, choroso e quase incompreensivel, que grita, para automaticamente quando nao tem ninguem por perto.

 

Mas a fotografia estᠦant᳴ica, gosto especialmente do enquadramento com o movimento das pessoas que passam.

 

Abra篍

 

 

Thank you very much everyone for taking the time to comment. I appreciate all your points of view. As some of you noted, he was in fact dressed in a neat way and with new shiny shoes. That, along with his permanent expression, makes me believe that he may be in fact a troubled or mentally ill person, rather than a usual beggar, as Sabina pointed out.

Great image of a fallen soul who now sits as the eye of his own maelstrom .

Images like this are controversial for me. Where do you draw the line? Is a handicapped or homeless person "fair camera game" for a photographer like some helpless deer when they're in season, or is it legitimate photography? While others hypocritically bleed their hearts out digitally over the "contents" of the image, I would say that photographing folks like this borders on exploitation with rationalization. Yes, the exposure is good. But..since the subject is not moving it is really quite easily done.

John, it is controversial for me as well. I'm still figuring out where to draw the line, but one thing I am certain; I don't feel it is exploitation as I don't get any profit whatsoever with this or any of my photos. I just try to take meaningful shots and learn in the process. Should documentary/journalistic photos have bounds regarding to what's "fair camera game"? My opinion is no. Was Robert Capa exploiting the dying people he photographed in all those wars?...

As far as I am concerned, it took no courage whatsoever to take this pic. With a zoom lense of that reach it is too easy to sneak up on people and take advantage of someone's misfortune for the sake of a hobby. Just my 2cents.

Gromoslaw, so I guess photojournalists should all go to unemployment because they often take financial advantage of other people's misfortune? I do it as a hobby as you said and so I take no advantage whatsoever, other than learning something with it (both personally and technically). One of the things I like most is to hit the streets and shoot the unexpected. That includes about everything that crosses my way and catches my eye, and for this purpose the zoom I have is great. Yes, I like to sneak on people (all kinds of people and any other thing) and I really don't know what makes you believe I'm seeking appreciation for being courageous. Would appreciate your comments about technical aspects of photography. The prudishness you may leave at the door next time though.

Well as you can see it IS controversial. As for Robert CAPA, his images depicted the violence of war in a century of war and he risked his life doing it, including landing on Normandy Beach. In cases like this we risk very little. On the other hand though, taking pictures of moving people can be quite risky, having once gotten a fist in my face many years ago.

Yes John it is controversial and I like controversy. It appears that this person is sitting there everyday (according to Joao's comment above). Should everyone pass by and not even look because they would be only satisfying their curiosity of a person in that condition, or perhaps should they stop for a while and try to figure out what led him to be there, and who knows to help in some way? If my photograph can make people to stop and think, then I see it as a good thing. I state once again that I do not seek any prize in courageousness, I'm just looking for feedback regarding the photograph itself. So please, if along with those parallel issues you could provide some input for me to improve, it would be very appreciated. Regards.

Of course it takes no courage to take photos like this, especially with a big zoom, from God knows where. I think the only justification for this type of photography is an attempt to document some social phenomenon, presumably with the aim of doing something to make a positive change.

I think that "donating" to "these people" is just a funny little trick of the mind, applied with those who have some guilt about shooting people with no defences, at their most vulnerable. Anyone who thinks that a couple of coins in the hat of that man is in any way compensation for using him is deluding themselves - its just a moral BandAid.

Sure, photographers have, and hopefully will always, document humanity at its best, worst, etc. But that is journalism, that is telling a story, that is raising awareness - that is what war photographers did and do, that is what journalists should be doing (and I believe for the most part they do). What does this image do (well done as it is) to further any positive change? Is it in an article exposing these people's suffering? Are you going to sell it and donate the proceits to the homeless? Or are you just playing with a toy that costs more than this man will likely have to spend on food in the next year, trying to be an artist? Here is an idea: get a 20mm lens, get up close, explain to your 'subjects' why and what you're doing... I think anyone shooting 'street' with a telephoto is a coward and poor excuse for a human being. Same goes for anyone who takes adventage of those less fortunate for no good reason, with no aim to help them.

Of course this raises the question, if you're a wildlife photographer what gives you the right to go trample the habitat of animals and exploit their pictures. I dont think you can place all photgraphy of street people in a box labeled 'exploitation' or 'cowardice'. I know this photograph definitely stirred some thoughts and emotions in me, and if street photography is done in the right way it doesnt detract from the lives of those being photographed, and can perhaps add. Images like this are an important record of a part of our society. You can call someone a coward for using a zoom lens, but obviously the subject still knows you're taking a picture of them, and most likely you're going to talk to them anyways. just my 2cents

I find a couple bones of contention with the above. First off, most wildlife photographers I know, are nature lovers (often active in conservation, etc.) - I hardly see them as trampling habitats. Secondly, the average animal in their habitat is more akin to you or I in our backyards, or on the way to the store - not someone who is down and out. If I thought that an animal could feel hurt or exploited by a guy with a camera, I would agree - but I don't think that's the case - there is a bit of a difference there.

Also, even with a 200mm lens, on the street, I could get this framing(with no crops) from sufficiently far away that the subject would not know I am there. With a 300 or 400mm lens... well, you do the math.

This is a strong image, though - nicely composed, with an interesting use of depth of field amd movement. I just don't agree with the reasons behind taking it, no matter how many excuses one makes for them.

Anybody who reads all these comments can easily notice that the world is full of moralist wolves, who just eate the lamb, but throw stones on everybody else and preach dogmatic lessons, without a really profound content and sense - just hypocritical lines, that make them feel better about themselves. When you pay attention to their words, you see they make no sense at all: first they say that getting material or any other advantage from shooting these people is outrageos; secondly they say that only journalists should be allowed to do that - to shoot such controversial pictures - forgetting that journalists get paid for doing that. Another mistake is assuming that somebody who does that for a journalistic purpose really has a personal creed, or tries to proove something or struggles to make these poor people's life better. In some cases, it's just a job like any other and the journalist is lacking a deeper system of principles or understanding, or doesn't even get involved emotionally.

Another thing that startle me is that some people are talking about shooting, in this case, as if a photographer is shooting... with a gun, not a camera. "Shooting people with no defense..." - well, that throws some light on the issue. Carl Dyck's argument is very good: animals are also defenseless when we "shoot" them, but so are kids, flowers etc. The problem here, as far as I see it, is promiscuity. These people are trying in fact to avoid such things altogether, not beeing able to stand such views - they say that giving money to poor people is no use, just a Bandaid; that taking advantage of them, by taking pictures, is also bad.... What a strange sense of compassion, which hinders them from doing anything at all! But that also means to ignore the true and cruel reality. These poeple are no angels and no devils either. What would such a fierce critic say if he would find out that this guy is a schizofrenic, who killed his mother and sister when he was twelve? I guess he would drastically change his opinion and go to the other extreme. Sometimes, people are responsable for their destiny. I'm not saying that they are responsable for being poor - the situation is terible in the poor countries, where old people are forced to beg because they are starving, even if they worked all their life. The cause is that the retirement revenues are so unjustly small, due to inflation, to horrible government administration of the funds, to corruption... These people are true victims. On the other hand, one cannot feel guilty for having an expensive camera, which he bought with honestly and hardly earned money, just because other people have nothing. This would lead to communism, and those who lived in a communist country know how wrong it is and how much restrains people's ability to have a normal and decent life, imposing them false pretenses, which only bring benefit to the tyrans hiding behind them.

 

In the end, this is the world we live in. We cannot choose only the nice and pretty parts of it, those considered morally acceptable by some, and hide all the rest - the ugly, the depraved, the sad parts. This is what makes us human, good and bad altogether. The world is a wonderful place to be and coward is that one who doesn't dare to see its beauty, even if sometimes the beauty fades and the sadness overwhelms us. Amen, S.