# Hardened



## xj0hnx (Jan 31, 2014)

I really wanted to upload the full image, but it's 9+MB  Anyway, one of our cities downtown residents, real nice guy.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 2, 2014)

What more is this photo telling us than this guy has had some tough times?


----------



## LShooter (Feb 3, 2014)

Sometimes that's all it needs to say.  I for one love street photography and have posted quite a bit here.  I however like to do street portraits and talk with the folks, and compensate them some how, so as to not just exploit them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 3, 2014)

What happy horse crap.
This is exploiting this guy's hard luck, exposing his face to the world, to pump emotion into a picture which otherwise is nothing.
This is homeless porn.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 3, 2014)

I've seen homeless porn, this is not that.


----------



## TWright33 (Feb 3, 2014)

Braineack said:


> I've seen homeless porn, this is not that.



This just made my Monday morning. Thank you sir


----------



## xj0hnx (Feb 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What happy horse crap.
> This is exploiting this guy's hard luck, exposing his face to the world, to pump emotion into a picture which otherwise is nothing.
> This is homeless porn.



What's being "exploited"? Why does there need to be more to it than what it is? Did he have tough times? Or did he make bad choices? Were his hard times a result of his bad choices? Or vice versa?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 3, 2014)

Why did you take his pic? Did you find out his name or his story?


----------



## NikonO4K (Feb 4, 2014)

I am really surprised at the rebuttals coming from those who want to be seen as taking up for the homeless man. By acting incredulous toward the photographer you are actually saying that you (and the photographer) are better than this homeless man (how else could he be exploited if you did not think he was beneath you). News flash. No one is better than anyone else and I think the photographer knows that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 4, 2014)

NikonO4K said:


> I am really surprised at the rebuttals coming from those who want to be seen as taking up for the homeless man. By acting incredulous toward the photographer you are actually saying that you (and the photographer) are better than this homeless man (how else could he be exploited if you did not think he was beneath you). News flash. No one is better than anyone else and I think the photographer knows that.




If this man was your son or brother or father and he was having a really rough time with life, would you take his picture and put it on the Internet so people could see just how bad he looked?

Rather than thinking I am better than him, I think that photographers should show some compassion to those having a difficult time and not exhibit people like this.
There is nothing to be learned from this kind of situation-less photo except to look at him and make the comparison between the subject and our own situation.
That's where the exploitation is.


----------



## scotts2014se (Feb 4, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> NikonO4K said:
> 
> 
> > I am really surprised at the rebuttals coming from those who want to be seen as taking up for the homeless man. By acting incredulous toward the photographer you are actually saying that you (and the photographer) are better than this homeless man (how else could he be exploited if you did not think he was beneath you). News flash. No one is better than anyone else and I think the photographer knows that.
> ...



And I doubt that man would be proud having this moment exploited, but throw a couple bucks his way and he'll let it slide. (Watch it be just some hard working billionaire).
I do think it is a very good photo, but I know I wouldn't be happy with the attention, I'd probably put up with it for my next meal, but I wouldn't be happy about it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 4, 2014)

Braineack said:


> I've seen homeless porn, this is not that.



You worry me.  A lot.

Lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 4, 2014)

scotts2014se said:


> And I doubt that man would be proud having this moment exploited, but throw a couple bucks his way and he'll let it slide. (Watch it be just some hard working billionaire).
> I do think it is a very good photo, but I know I wouldn't be happy with the attention, I'd probably put up with it for my next meal, but I wouldn't be happy about it.



You've hit an important point. He could probably be bought off for 'a couple of bucks' and that's some indication of how he feels about himself and his situation. 
Is that what we should be doing, taking advantage of someone because he is in such a low situation that he holds himself cheaply?

And all for a single, easy to forget picture that shows nothing, tries to show nothing except one person's pitiful state and capitalizing on that.

There's no way in the world that I could rationalize to myself taking advantage of someone in that situation.


----------



## scotts2014se (Feb 4, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> scotts2014se said:
> 
> 
> > And I doubt that man would be proud having this moment exploited, but throw a couple bucks his way and he'll let it slide. (Watch it be just some hard working billionaire).
> ...


I have the title for this, "Prostituted Pride".


----------



## Austin Greene (Feb 4, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> If this man was your son or brother or father and he was having a really rough time with life, would you take his picture and put it on the Internet so people could see just how bad he looked?
> 
> Rather than thinking I am better than him, I think that photographers should show some compassion to those having a difficult time and not exhibit people like this.
> There is nothing to be learned from this kind of situation-less photo except to look at him and make the comparison between the subject and our own situation.
> That's where the exploitation is.



Cannot agree more. I've seen some fantastic, and tasteful portraits of the homeless. No offense, but this is not one of them. Is it homeless porn, perhaps not, but it certainly doesn't tell a good story, and if not that, then what is the photo for?


----------



## bribrius (Feb 4, 2014)

he looks like half the people that live up here in maine.


----------



## DirtyDawg (Feb 4, 2014)

The discrimination here is offensive.  If a picture of a person who has a job and a home is posted we don't debate compensation or exploitation.  So why do people in this case.  That in itself is discriminatory and shameful.  This man doesn't need anyone here to stick up for him.  Maybe having another human (the photographer) talk to him respectfully for a few minutes was payment enough.  Others proclaim to know what's best for this person or whether he is being exploited; nonsense!

If one of you encounters me in a public area and asks my permission for a photo, I can decide on my own whether to allow that or not and I don't need anyone else's "help" determining if I was properly compensated or exploited.  This is a photo of a man, no more, no less.  I don't see anything special about it but I'm not put off by it either.  The discussion on the other hand is disappointing to say the least.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 5, 2014)

DirtyDawg said:


> The discrimination here is offensive. If a picture of a person who has a job and a home is posted we don't debate compensation or exploitation. So why do people in this case. That in itself is discriminatory and shameful. This man doesn't need anyone here to stick up for him. Maybe having another human (the photographer) talk to him respectfully for a few minutes was payment enough. Others proclaim to know what's best for this person or whether he is being exploited; nonsense!
> 
> If one of you encounters me in a public area and asks my permission for a photo, I can decide on my own whether to allow that or not and I don't need anyone else's "help" determining if I was properly compensated or exploited. This is a photo of a man, no more, no less. I don't see anything special about it but I'm not put off by it either. The discussion on the other hand is disappointing to say the least.



Ok,well this is a bit of an emotionally charged subject but I think there might be an important component you're missing in your analysis of the situation. A good portion of people who are homeless and living on the streets are doing so because they suffer from some form of mental illness that has gone untreated. Many of them try to self medicate with drugs or alcohol. 

I don't know the man in the picture and I can't be certain what his particular situation might be, but I do understand and appreciate Lew's original point - if the shot had been of the man in the context of a larger story that the photo conveyed that would be a much different situation than simply a shot that focused solely on the man himself, depicting nothing but his own personal hardships.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, take it for what it's worth.


(Grammar correction courtesy of Lew - Thanks Lew!)


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

> I see many aspiring street photographers on the web who merely take photos of homeless people down on their luck and label their images as street photography. I feel bad for these aspiring street photographers, as they simply use images of people who are experiencing poverty as a crutch for their own photographic shortcomings.




*http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/01/26/are-there-any-ethics-in-street-photography/*




> Taking pictures of the homeless is exploitative in the same way that talking an intellectually challenged person into doing something is exploitative because, in both cases, their circumstance doesn't give them the perspective or the options to say no that most of us have.And it is done because the photographer knows the emotional appeal of this kind of picture and, instead of working on his/her own to show us something new, has taken the cheap and easy way.
> Recently I read a blog post by Alex Garcia, a photojournalist from the Chicago Tribune, and he made this statement that rings true for me as a photographer about most pictures of the homeless : "*a subject shouldn't become a symbol and a shortcut for an unrelated truth that a photographer has failed to capture elsewhere." ( in *The Age of Fauxjournalism by Alex Garcia)



*An essay of mine.*


----------



## scotts2014se (Feb 5, 2014)

DirtyDawg said:


> The discrimination here is offensive. If a picture of a person who has a job and a home is posted we don't debate compensation or exploitation. So why do people in this case. That in itself is discriminatory and shameful. This man doesn't need anyone here to stick up for him. Maybe having another human (the photographer) talk to him respectfully for a few minutes was payment enough. Others proclaim to know what's best for this person or whether he is being exploited; nonsense!
> 
> If one of you encounters me in a public area and asks my permission for a photo, I can decide on my own whether to allow that or not and I don't need anyone else's "help" determining if I was properly compensated or exploited. This is a photo of a man, no more, no less. I don't see anything special about it but I'm not put off by it either. The discussion on the other hand is disappointing to say the least.



I really dont think you could be able to feel or know what this man is willing to put himself through with $1000.00 worth of camera and equipment hanging around your neck. Just because you can afford to choose when and who can take your picture, doesnt mean this guy can. This picture says "I'll do what ever you want for some change". In no way do I see this man ok with having his picture taken. It would be a great picture if it were panned back to reveal him pushing a wheel barrel full of money or gold.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

Just how do we know from the picture that the man is poor or homeless? Furthermore, what does it matter? Seems to me that jumping to said conclusion is a bit discriminatory in the first place.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> Just how do we know from the picture that the man is poor or homeless? Furthermore, what does it matter? Seems to me that jumping to said conclusion is a bit discriminatory in the first place.



Trying to win an argument either by being disingenuous or claiming somehow that you are being 'discriminated' against won't work.

I posed this question before and no one has responded.



> If this man was your son or brother or father and he was having a really rough time with life, would you take his picture and put it on the Internet so people could see just how bad he looked?


----------



## scotts2014se (Feb 5, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> *Just how do we know from the picture that the man is poor or homeless?* Furthermore, what does it matter? Seems to me that jumping to said conclusion is a bit discriminatory in the first place.



Take your pick, the title, the pic or the description. What did _you_ think the picture was stating? Being that one is worth a thousand words and all.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 5, 2014)

This isn't being displayed on a billboard in Times Square. It's on a photo forum being seen by I dunno, tens of people? The dude already hangs out in public and is seen by tens of people and interacts with them, etc. He's not hiding under a bridge. So what's the difference?

So:
-The exposure is pretty low
-There's a really high rate of discussion and thought provocation for the amount of exposure
-Therefore, overall very effective and reasonable photograph, I think.

And even aside from any of the above stuff: He is looking at/near the camera and knows about the photo, seems to not have a problem with it. That simply in and of itself = morally fine photograph. Unless the photographer was blackmailing him or he was super inebriated or something, I think it is a bit insulting to say he's being "exploited" with no other information.

Dude can decide for himself if he wants to be in pictures.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Trying to win an argument either by being disingenuous or claiming somehow that you are being 'discriminated' against won't work.  I posed this question before and no one has responded.


Now explain to me how my comment was disingenuous. 
My question was, why do you assume the man is poor or homeless? Where I live, I see people that look and dress similar to this man, that are, in fact, quite well off.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I posed this question before and no one has responded.
> 
> 
> 
> > If this man was your son or brother or father and he was having a really rough time with life, would you take his picture and put it on the Internet so people could see just how bad he looked?



There are all these people here who seem to think that this is a small deal but no one wants to answer this?
So it's a small deal because 1) hardly anyone sees it, 2) the guy doesn't seem to mind 3) he's in the public view already - and the biggest one seems to be that he's not anyone's friend or relative.

You guys are ethically challenged and really disappoint me.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

scotts2014se said:


> Take your pick, the title, the pic or the description. What did you think the picture was stating? Being that one is worth a thousand words and all.


That answer means nothing. The title, nor the description, mention his financial or living status. All I read is "Hardened", that he is a nice guy and lives in the city. Homeless is purely presumptuous.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 5, 2014)

Duh people, only Lew is allowed to shoot street photography.

OP its lovely. I wish his bill wasn't in his eye, but besides that, theres a lot of life in this image and its great.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> My question was, why do you assume the man is poor or homeless? Where I live, I see people that look and dress similar to this man, that are, in fact, quite well off.



Well then, ask them if they want to be shown on the Internet looking like this and then take their picture.
Do you really think that this guy was chosen as the subject because he was a rich man in disguise - or because he looked like hell and would put some emotion into an otherwise crap shot.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 5, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> scotts2014se said:
> 
> 
> > Take your pick, the title, the pic or the description. What did you think the picture was stating? Being that one is worth a thousand words and all.
> ...


I didn't read it as homeless either actually. Here in ruralsville most of the men over 40 look like that, and half make more than I could ever dream to.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > My question was, why do you assume the man is poor or homeless? Where I live, I see people that look and dress similar to this man, that are, in fact, quite well off.
> ...


So you asked the old person in the walker on your "ingenious" missed a step image if you could post them on the interwebs right?


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

Bossy said:


> So you asked the old person in the walker on your "ingenious" missed a step image if you could post them on the interwebs right?



If you can't tell the huge difference between the shot above and the 'missed a step' shot, you are challenged in more way than ethically.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 5, 2014)

Before I read through the rest of the posts, I was going to ask "how do you know he is homeless?".


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Well then, ask them if they want to be shown on the Internet looking like this and then take their picture. Do you really think that this guy was chosen as the subject because he was a rich man in disguise - or because he looked like hell and would put some emotion into an otherwise crap shot.


I can't say why it was taken, as I didn't take it. But I can tell you that I would have taken it because he looks like an interesting character and I'm sure he has many interesting stories to tell. Much like the hundreds of Appalachian people that I have met, gotten to know, respect and have photographed. Most of these people have very little, but don't consider themselves to be less of a person than I am, and I agree. Many enjoy sharing a part of their life with others, and I enjoy listening. That does not equal taking advantage of them. 

Believe it or not, you opinion is not the only one that counts. 

I'm done with this conversation.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > So you asked the old person in the walker on your "ingenious" missed a step image if you could post them on the interwebs right?
> ...


I love how instead of admitting you are overreacting and just being pissy because someone else dares shoot street photography, you resort to childish name calling. Its so endearing.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> If you can't tell the huge difference between the shot above and the 'missed a step' shot, you are challenged in more way than ethically.


You really don't need to constantly insult those that don't agree with you. Really, it doesn't help your argument.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 5, 2014)

Could this not have been a really good teaching moment in the art of street photography?  I like...I don't like...here are some ways to improve....maybe try this out next time....???

I really want to understand because I enjoy viewing street photography.


----------



## xj0hnx (Feb 5, 2014)

I never would have guessed this would have been such a provocative discussion. Lew, fear not, the man was not "bought off" with a meal, or smoke, he gave me permission to shoot him, and use the image. Though I must say, I can't help but feel there is some projection in your responses. Here's another guy, he is "homeless", but it's because he is traveling around the country at the time this was shot.




He was quite happy being shot.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

xj0hnx said:


> I never would have guessed this would have been such a provocative discussion. Lew, fear not, the man was not "bought off" with a meal, or smoke, he gave me permission to shoot him, and use the image. Though I must say, I can't help but feel there is some projection in your responses. Here's another guy, he is "homeless", but it's because he is traveling around the country at the time this was shot.
> 
> 
> 
> He was quite happy being shot.



My point exactly!! Thank you!


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

for Bossy, who seemed unable to figure out the difference.

My picture: did not depend on the way the person looked
was not an up close picture that made her the center of attraction, she was a small part of it
and the picture was about an action going on that combined her going by with the poster
and did depend on any way that she looked for the impact.

and that is what street photography is about, catching that moment when something happens that is interesting and intriguing. It is not finding people that look like hell and getting pictures of them.

I find it interesting that people are really willing to find fault with me but are totally unwilling to answer my previous question.

If this man was your son or brother or father and he was having a really rough time with life and looked like hell, would you take his picture and put it on the Internet so people could see just how bad he looked for no other reason or benefit except that you got a picture?


----------



## Braineack (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> If you can't tell the huge difference between the shot above and the 'missed a step' shot, you are challenged in more way than ethically.



I Kant believe you're bringing up ethics.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> for Bossy, who seemed unable to figure out the difference.
> 
> My picture: did not depend on the way the person looked
> was not an up close picture that made her the center of attraction, she was a small part of it
> ...



I will answer your question;

If my Son, Father or other loved one was homeless, I would not want his picture taken and exploited.

However, the point of this debate is, what makes you so certain that this man is homeless, or that he didn't WANT his picture taken?

Now, since I answered you question how about answering mine? What convinces you that this man is homeless, and if he is, that he isn't ok with his life?


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 5, 2014)

I didn't say that he was homeless, he must sleep somewhere, but that is a generic term that everyone uses for the down and out without traditional lives.

And I didn't ask the question about your relative being homeless but about how you would feel if "_ he was having a really rough time with life and looked like hell"
_Clearly if it is someone close to you that is in that life, you would show some compassion and shelter him from being exposed in that situation if you could. 
Yes, he might take money and give up his privacy because he needs the dough.
Give him the couple of bucks and walk away; we shouldn't need to build our portfolio on someone else's shame.
I think that we should show the same empathy and compassion for anyone we meet.

And I won't engage on this thread any more and prefer you stay away from mine.

_

_


----------



## xj0hnx (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I didn't say that he was homeless, he must sleep somewhere, but that is a generic term that everyone uses for the down and out without traditional lives.
> 
> And I didn't ask the question about your relative being homeless but about how you would feel if "_ he was having a really rough time with life and looked like hell"
> _Clearly if it is someone close to you that is in that life, you would show some compassion and shelter him from being exposed in that situation if you could.
> ...



Honestly I don't know why you're so hell bent on this, this photo has nothing to do with homelessness, and the guy pictured isn't homeless. He isn't dirty, broke, living on the streets, he was clean, had on clean, new cloths, shirt was tucked in. The now is irrelevant, the hardened is just from life, war, working away for most of his life.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> for Bossy, who seemed unable to figure out the difference.
> 
> *My picture: did not depend on the way the person looked*
> was not an up close picture that made her the center of attraction, she was a small part of it
> ...


Bull poopie it didn't. Walker and all. How dare you mock the handicapable. Poor woman with a walker and you title it missed a step. How gross.
Or maybe its just not that serious when you do it, right?

As for the repeated question, I don't think he looks bad. He's clean, his hat is devoid of sweat stains, his shirt is clean, he has some seriously sun loved/worked hard skin which calls for the "hardened" title.
You have no leg to stand on here, you are the only one casting these judgements.


----------



## LShooter (Feb 6, 2014)

Nice to see the Travler banned. Not trying to be mean, but many of his posts were nothing more than bashing without any for of constructivness to them.


----------



## LShooter (Feb 6, 2014)

Oh, and street photography is just that. Pure raw emotion. Some happy, some really really sad. I love street photos. But as I said before; just make sure you talk to these folks and offer a couple bucks.  Thier lives suck and many of them suffer from mental  illness, that's why their on the street.  Not because they're lazy or criminals. Always give back.


----------



## yioties (Feb 6, 2014)

This was one great read! An amazing image was posted, exploitation, handicaps, homelessness and a bunch of other bs was thrown in the loop and a ban was issued! What else do you want from a forum! hahahaha

Great image once again!!!


----------



## Parker219 (Feb 6, 2014)

LShooter said:


> Nice to see the Travler banned. Not trying to be mean, but many of his posts were nothing more than bashing without any for of constructivness to them.




If I had to guess, I would say he is only on a free vacation, courtesy of a mod . Most likely a couple day ban, maybe 1 month.  Just a guess though.


----------



## yioties (Feb 6, 2014)

He has a lot of posts, so that might be the case!


----------



## Coasty (Feb 7, 2014)

LShooter said:


> Nice to see the Travler banned. Not trying to be mean, but many of his posts were nothing more than bashing without any for of constructivness to them.



I agree, as a matter of fact, let&#8217;s go and ban everyone here that has ever disagreed, bantered, made non constructive posts, made posts off topic, posted spam, and bashed.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 7, 2014)

Coasty said:


> LShooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nice to see the Travler banned. Not trying to be mean, but many of his posts were nothing more than bashing without any for of constructivness to them.
> ...



Mob violence!


----------



## alexzobi (Feb 7, 2014)

how it should have ended:

The_Traveler: 

"for those who were unsure as to the differences with my style:

my pictures tend to be less focused on the way the person looked. I try to avoid up close pictures that make the subject the center of attraction. They're usually, in fact, a small part of it. the pictures tend to focus on an action taking place that combine the subject with the photographer's vision and less on the way they look to achieve the desired impact.

that is part of what i see in the power of street photography. catching that moment when something happens that is interesting and intriguing. In this sense, it provides an experience beyond general portraiture. If I took this photo, the question I might ask myself is; if this man was my son or brother or father and he was having a really rough time with life and looked like hell, would I take his picture and put it on the Internet? the answer is a difficult one because what makes art ART is that it is emotionally provocative, whether it be positive or negative emotion. If something fills you with anger, it still means that as a piece of art, it has done it's job. but it's also important to remember that everything in life is a matter of perception. while i may view this as an unhappy homeless man, it could be someone that, over time, you've developed a relationship with, which seems more the likely since you make a point of mentioning he's a nice man that lives downtown. 

it's less my style, but it takes all types and that's what makes the world go round. just my two cents. thanks for sharing!" 




when you read it the right way, it's actually quite educational! I, for one, learned something today! for anyone who doesn't know the reference 'how it should have ended', youtube it. look to your left. look to your right. if there's someone there, HUGGGG :hug::.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 7, 2014)

WOW....4 pages later I realize how shallow I am.My first thought when I saw OP,was,Man,that would look great in B/W,or a lil dodge/burn.I so wish to someday be a deeper thinker.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 7, 2014)

alexzobi said:


> *how it should have ended:
> 
> The_Traveler: *
> 
> ...


First of all, Lew knows what he is saying when he is saying it, he has been the same for years. He doesn't need someone to reword and PC his crap.
And second, TL;DR.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 7, 2014)

Bossy said:


> First of all, Lew knows what he is saying when he is saying it, he has been the same for years. He doesn't need someone to reword and PC his crap.
> And second, TL;DR.



Well I could sure use someone to reword and PC my crap.  I wonder what sort of job title I should write into the advert.. hmm.. lol

Wow.. I step out for a while and Lew gets banned?  Dang.  I guess were going to need a new curmudgeon while we're at it.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 7, 2014)

[/QUOTE]
I guess were going to need a new curmudgeon while we're at it.[/QUOTE]  Me me me, let it be me.  I would love to be the new carmageddon (yes I had to actually look the word up and I am not ashamed) 

I still wanted to see more of the good critique on the OP's photo.  Wondering how BW would look.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 7, 2014)

> Me me me, let it be me. I would love to be the new carmageddon (yes I had to actually look the word up and I am not ashamed)
> 
> I still wanted to see more of the good critique on the OP's photo. Wondering how BW would look.



Lol.. well I'm guessing that their will be some form of application process, probably a background check, drug test.. the whole 9.. lol

As for C&C, I don't do that anymore myself.  Would be interesting to see a B&W version though.


----------



## Parker219 (Feb 7, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> > Me me me, let it be me. I would love to be the new carmageddon (yes I had to actually look the word up and I am not ashamed)
> >
> > I still wanted to see more of the good critique on the OP's photo. Wondering how BW would look.
> 
> ...




Yep, you NEED to pass the drug test, by pass, I obviously mean test positive!


----------



## BillM (Feb 7, 2014)

When I first clicked on this thread I thought it was a picture of Brett Favre. Then after reading the replies I wished I hadn't clicked on this thread in the first place. But this quote came to mind

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven  Luke 6:37 -


----------



## xj0hnx (Feb 7, 2014)

I added a half assed DB (no, not douchebag), it looks better at fullsize.


----------



## WCThomas (Feb 7, 2014)

Really interesting picture.


----------

