# homeless man



## JimmyJaceyMom (Apr 30, 2007)




----------



## oldnavy170 (Apr 30, 2007)

He looks pretty clean for being homeless.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Apr 30, 2007)

You know what's funny?  I  thought the same thing when I saw him up close.  About his clothes I mean.  They were pretty clean and he folded his stuff up so nicely.  
I'm not yet confident enough to take a picture of a stranger while they are looking but I was standing away from him taking pics of my mom and then sneaking some of him. 
We were doign the March of Dimes walk and he was sleeping on this bench on our way through - 3,000 people participated in that walk and he slept through the hwole thing right there on that bench!


----------



## zendianah (Apr 30, 2007)

I don't think hes homeless. I think he ****ed off his wife and she kicked him to the curb for a couple of days.


----------



## zendianah (Apr 30, 2007)

wow ... I cant say ****ed?


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Apr 30, 2007)

zendianah said:


> wow ... I cant say ****ed?


 

Nope uyou can't say ****ed.. haha.  I went to post a pic under my little league title and it was called James hits ball.  If you run it all together it says Jame s h i t s ball.  It wont let me post it! hahahaha

Anyhow I'm pretty sure he was homeless.  His clothes werent that dirty but he wreaked and his hair was NASTY greasy (caca).  And he was way too comfortable sleeping on a bench with 3,000 people walking by.  Not to mention when we walked away we rwere the last people and his 'bedroom' became his bathroom!  Mom mom was never so sorry to have looked behind her.


----------



## Puscas (Apr 30, 2007)

it's visible that you didn't feel comfortable taking pictures of him. They lack closeness. I mean: it's like you waited for the moment he turned away from you...'click'...and that's it. 
But I know the feeling: I'm no hero either when it comes to taking pics of strangers.





pascal


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Apr 30, 2007)

Puscas said:


> it's visible that you didn't feel comfortable taking pictures of him. They lack closeness. I mean: it's like you waited for the moment he turned away from you...'click'...and that's it.
> But I know the feeling: I'm no hero either when it comes to taking pics of strangers.
> 
> pascal


 
Well you are exactly right!  My mother and I actually spotted him on our way past when he was just waking up and when we went back I had my camera ready for the 'sneak attack' LOL.  
He actually had very kind eyes and I dont really think he would have minded me taking a better picture but right now I lack the confidence.  I actually got worried that he knew what I was doing because he kept turning around and looking to see us, but it turned out he was simplyu waiting for us to go away so he could pee.  hahahaha


----------



## koda-46 (May 25, 2007)

lol


----------



## molested_cow (May 25, 2007)

You should have hid and waited for that moment, and freak him out while he's at it!

But on the more serious note, I think you need to think about the emotion that you associate with this particular subject/person and try to express that. However, most of the times it comes unexpected.


----------



## tenaciousdave123 (May 28, 2007)

I don't get this really. What is the concept behind these shots? I really have a problem with it myself. For one, you took these without his permission. I can understand it if you wanted to show people a side of this lifestyle that might in turn help this man and people like him. but what did you do it for? just to make a spectacle of him?


----------



## mec621 (May 28, 2007)

not the greatest pictures


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 29, 2007)

Not to take sides but... I once saw these two old guys on a bench at walmart.  It was perfectly legal to just shoot them but I thought what the heck, I asked them, "Hey guys mind if I shoot your picture?"

"What for?" one asked.

I didn't have an answer for him.  What do you tell two eighty year old guys sitting on a bench at walmart?  

"I want your pictures to show on a forum so everyone can feel better about themselves for ten minutes.  I realized I should have just made the damn picture because all of us felt bad and I had nothing to show for it. 

 My point is a picture is just a picture.  The viewer takes what he will from it.  You shoot a poignant shot and everybody takes away something different.  

Someone might be moved to go help the next homeless man they see, others might go home and kiss their spouse and thank god someone loves them.  Someone else might finally go to that aa meeting.  So the point is I guess, it isnt up to the tape recorder to judge the music or to determine its use.


----------



## tenaciousdave123 (May 29, 2007)

I somewhat agree with what you said, but at the same time.....homeless or not, he's still a person, and to use him as a subject without his permission is unethical in my opinion. what if it was against his religion to be photographed? there's no way of knowing unless he's asked. maybe if you don't feel comfortable asking for his consent, you should question your motives.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 29, 2007)

There is probably some truth there but if you take a shot of a crowd at the amusement park, would you ask everyone there.  They pretty much have no expectation of privacy in a public place.  I know I have zero expectations that my privacy will be honored when I'm out of my house.  Whether by law or by custom we are used to having people use our image while in a public place.  Ie the camera in the gas station, the one at the cash register in most stores ect.


----------



## Jeffm73 (Jun 2, 2007)

> I somewhat agree with what you said, but at the same time.....homeless or not, he's still a person, and to use him as a subject without his permission is unethical in my opinion.


I can see where you're coming from with this, and I do agree with you, to a point. While it's legal, I can see why some people wouldn't want to have there picture taken. I'm sure that homeless people don't like to have there pictures plastered all over the place in the papers, but it happens.

On the other hand, I do take issue with people that take photo's and try to use them to promote a certain agenda, such as someone taking a photo, of a soldier, and and putting a title like "baby killer" on it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 2, 2007)

Well since I was the victim of that a lot of years ago I can see your point and even about the homeless man,  Somewhere I suppose each of us has to draw his own line in the sand,


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't think there is any problem here because you certainly cannot recognize him. From what I know, you have to get a release form from the subject if he can be recognized from the photograph, such as his facial features.

I've taken photos of couples from the back, using them as more of a graphic element as opposed to a defined subject. I've also taken photos of street performers. I show those photos to friends, but not to the public.

I don't know what my position is on this topic, but I just go with my intuition to tell me what I should shoot and show.

What I cannot stand are "artists" who paint on animals in the name of "art", and hence my username:x


----------



## deanimator (Jun 4, 2007)

Hmmm...if you´re gonna pee in public, and then get stressed out about someone with a camera invading your privacy, then there´s something up with your perspective on the world.

However, I go along with Mystery´s comments...
So, ask yourself why you are doing it...and who it helps etc.
If you wanna see real homeless man stuff...check out *Don McCullin*
Here´s a quote..
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And McCullin&#8217;s involvement goes still deeper. If he were only an objective recorder of tragic moments in other people&#8217;s lives, however sensitively he might take the photograph, and however important its social message might be, he would still be making objects of those people. The relationship is unavoidable, revealed in the very word &#8216;objective&#8217;.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But another - rare - relationship is possible, and McCullin can make it there. It happens when both photographer and subject find themselves in a dynamic relationship with one another. At that moment of affinity, taking the photograph becomes a mutual act - McCullin presses the button, but the other has requested him, silently and urgently, to take the picture. It must be taken, in order that the truth of that moment, experienced by them both, be understood and honoured and passed on. It&#8217;s not a moment in someone else&#8217;s life that McCullin records, but a moment also in his own.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The frisson that flickers in that naked meeting is stored like an electric current in the picture, to flicker out again towards the viewer. McCullin&#8217;s most moving photographs, therefore, go deeper than the single message of man&#8217;s inhumanity to man: they reach down into the heart of acceptance, of union, between one human being and another.[/FONT]


 
And a link http://photography.about.com/gi/dyn...lery.com/photographers/mccullin/mccullin.html[/FONT]​


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 4, 2007)

Back to the photos as such: I don't feel they have very much of a photojournalistic content. They show a person (the *back* of said person, so no qualms about ethics here, says who is very strict with herself on publishing her own people photography!), many things, and a bench. And in addition to that a whole lot of surroundings which clearly distract from the intended subject of the whole endeavour to candidly take a photo of this person - so, sorry for this, to me these two photos look like very quickly taken snaps in passing. No real planning involved, no composition as such, and very little "story". 

So yes, the question remains: what did you take these photos for? What was your intent when you put up the camera and took these two photos? The question about the "concept" is a legitimate one, though I don't see why exactly these two would need to be discussed for there being a PERSON in them. We only see his back!

So I think that - if you are interested in candid photography, or "street" involving people - you will need to work on your courage. (Which - so I admit freely - I don't really have, either!) And then you can try to have your pics tell the story that you wanted these two to tell, as well, only ... :scratch: ... they don't...!


----------

