# Cannon:  A Story of Homelessness in Washington, D.C.



## R3d

Here's a handful from a photo essay I've just completed.  If you like what you see head over here to view the full story: Cannon - a set on Flickr 

Still waiting on Behance to stop being funky with uploading.




17th &amp; I by R3d Baron, on Flickr




Twenties by R3d Baron, on Flickr




The Movies by R3d Baron, on Flickr




iPad by R3d Baron, on Flickr




The Descent by R3d Baron, on Flickr




Metro Transit Police by R3d Baron, on Flickr




Freezing by R3d Baron, on Flickr


----------



## robbins.photo

Ok, well will probably be run out on a rail for this given the subject matter but here goes:

the last shot would definately be the pick of the litter, but it's too dark. I know you were shooting for dark and gloomy here but it went so dark that I just can't see the face well enough to really connect with the subject. The one titled "the descent" I can't really get into either - if it had been shot from the bottom of the escalator I think it would have been a much better shot, but from this angle and so much distance between you and the subject it just really doesn't draw me in at all. It's so far away in fact that I probably wouldn't have gotten that the guy was homeless if I didn't know this was a photo essay on the homeless.

The shot called "ipad" would have been improved a lot I think if we could see the subjects face. The one called "The Movies" again, too dark - and again if I didn't know this guy was homeless I wouldn't have gotten that from the picture. 

I liked the one called "Twenties". As for 17th and Amp.. ok, I know from the outset that I'll probably get a huge ton of flak here but this guy? I seriously, seriously doubt he's homeless. The hand is a dead giveaway. He is far more likely a professional pan handler masquerading as someone who is homeless and believe it or not probably making a fairly decent, un-taxable income from it. Setting that aside, I think this would have been a much more powerful shot if it had been timed just a bit differently, waiting for the man who is passing by to have looked away from the "homeless" guy or waiting for him to have walked passed - still in the frame but with the homeless man behind him.

As it is he's looking at and acknowledging the man exists - which really isn't the sort of feel you want from the photograph. 

Ok, I'll wait for the inevitable stoning.. lol


----------



## rasmussen4

Amazingly well done series here, and I have to agree with robbins.photo, the last one is by far the most visually compelling shot. But it needs an exposure boost, just a bit too dark. You want some of the texture of the skin around the eyes to really come through, it would pull the viewer in even more.


----------



## amolitor

I actually don't get this series at all. It seems to be depicting a "day in the life" but I am not buying it. The camera is too close and too continuously present to be as ignored as it is, with the result that it feels staged.


----------



## R3d

Robbins, I disagree that it's too dark, I can see the face just fine.  Maybe turn your screen isn't bright enough?  As far as the rest not screaming "this man is homeless" I think the intro does well enough to assert that.  From there it's a description of the way he lives his life.  If every photo explicitly stated "homeless", the essay would be boring and repetitive.  I suggest you view the story in its entirety.  That being said I'm glad you felt doubt or intrigue while viewing the first photo, as that's part of what struck me as unique about this man in particular.

Rasmussen, I appreciate that very much!  Unfortunately that's about as bright as I can get the face without washing it out entirely in post.  The noise just gets atrocious a stop or so up.  I hear what you're saying about the texture, but it just wasn't possible with the lighting conditions I was shooting in.

Amolitor, don't know what to tell you.  It's most definitely not staged.  You're posting in the photojournalism section, which I hope would mean you've viewed photojournalistic works before&#8230;  Is it not so hard to get to know someone and for them to get so used to having a camera around that they cease to notice it?  You should try it some time.


----------



## amolitor

I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.

The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.


----------



## robbins.photo

R3d said:


> Robbins, I disagree that it's too dark, I can see the face just fine.  Maybe turn your screen isn't bright enough?  As far as the rest not screaming "this man is homeless" I think the intro does well enough to assert that.  From there it's a description of the way he lives his life.  If every photo explicitly stated "homeless", the essay would be boring and repetitive.  I suggest you view the story in its entirety.  That being said I'm glad you felt doubt or intrigue while viewing the first photo, as that's part of what struck me as unique about this man in particular.



Ok, must have missed where I said something about putting text on the photo - because, well, I never said it.  I think the disconnect here is the man in the first photo is most likely not actually homeless.  I've lived in a few large cities in my life, a few of them here in the US and some overseas.  I've had a lot of experience with people who have been at the bottom rung of to social-economic scale.  There are those, sadly enough, who will take advantage of people's good nature and beg or panhandle even though they themselves are not really that economically challenged.  Sad but true.  Best way to spot someone like that?  Look at their hands.  If their hands are clean, nails are well groomed - odds are good your not dealing with someone who is homeless.  There are some other indicators of course, but usually that's the first clue.  I'm not saying this is a deception that the photographer themselves is engaged in, merely that it is doubtful that the man in the first shot was homeless. As for my monitor, it's a 40 " LCD TV and is generally much brighter than a standard computer monitor.  Sorry but on my setup the face is just way to dark.  Yes, I can see it and recognize that it is a face, but all of the finer detail of the face is gone.  This takes the shot from something that could have been one of a kind, truly amazing down to "What is that?  Oh. it's a homeless guy".  Again, just one man's opinion but then again that's what was asked for and that's the only reason it was provided.  In the future it won't be and that should solve the problem quite nicely.


----------



## R3d

amolitor said:


> I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.
> 
> The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.



Heartless animal.  Ouch.  How do you feel about Kevin Carter then?  Ethically, it's wrong for a photographer to alter the circumstance of their subject.  Was this hard to shoot?  Absolutely.  Is it my job to take care of him?  No.  Do I still I have a good rapport with him?  Yes.

I never said anything about putting text on the photo either.  I understand that those people are out there, but I think if you flipped through the rest of the photos you'd find that that's not the case with this story.  Thanks for your opinions though.


----------



## robbins.photo

R3d said:


> I never said anything about putting text on the photo either. I understand that those people are out there, but I think if you flipped through the rest of the photos you'd find that that's not the case with this story. Thanks for your opinions though.



Hopefully they helped as they will be the last I post.


----------



## kathyt

What is Cannon?


----------



## robbins.photo

kathythorson said:


> What is Cannon?



An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much.  It's also an old TV Show - lol


----------



## sashbar

amolitor said:


> I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.
> 
> The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.



Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer.  Ask any photo editor of any respected media.


----------



## amolitor

I don't care about photojournalistic distance versus camera distance. Photojournalistic distance is somewhere between a polite fiction and outright nonsense, anyways, but that's not even remotely what I am talking about here.

The point is that, as viewers of these pictures, we are acutely aware of the presence of the camera and the photographer. We are forced, if we are paying attention, to consider the presence of them. The only picture that reads as real to me if the one with the Metro Cops, where the cops have clearly told the photographer to bugger off, and the subject is clearly too busy being hassled to mug for the camera. That feels like a real moment, being documented by a photographer outside the frame. The rest of them read -- staged or not -- like two guys hanging out, one of whom happens to be panhandling and demonstrating his life for the other, who is taking pictures.

It feels exploitive, as these things always do, and this one doesn't feel real.

Note that I pass no judgement on the photographer, I don't know him/her, why they shot these, what the point is, or any of that. Don't know, and it doesn't matter. I pass no judgement on the process here. I am only speaking about how the pictures feel, how they read, to me, an outside observer.


----------



## robbins.photo

sashbar said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.
> 
> The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer. Ask any photo editor of any respected media.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's what he meant by "distance".  I think he was talking about an emotional distance, rather than a physical one.


----------



## sashbar

robbins.photo said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.
> 
> The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer. Ask any photo editor of any respected media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he meant by "distance".  I think he was talking about an emotional distance, rather than a physical one.
Click to expand...


He mixes two things together. He says that a close "in your face" camera position is inappropriate here and refers to "photojournalistic distance" as a reason for not to shoot up close. Shooting distance is not an ethical or moral question, it is a professional, technical quality question. Watching people suffer or /and photographing them from a distance is no more "human" than being close to them.


----------



## robbins.photo

sashbar said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer. Ask any photo editor of any respected media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he meant by "distance". I think he was talking about an emotional distance, rather than a physical one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He mixes two things together. He says that a close "in your face" camera position is inappropriate here and refers to "photojournalistic distance" as a reason for not to shoot up close. Shooting distance is not an ethical or moral question, it is a professional, technical quality question. Watching people suffer or /and photographing them from a distance is no more "human" than being close to them.
Click to expand...


Whatever floats your boat I guess. If you subscribe to the theory need to be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer I guess I'm just never going to be a good photographer. Oh well. I guess when you develop a system of ethics that require you to be a lousy human being to follow them properly then my thought process would be it's time to re-examine your code of "ethics".


----------



## amolitor

sashbar said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.
> 
> The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He mixes two things together. He says that a close "in your face" camera position is inappropriate here and refers to "photojournalistic distance" as a reason for not to shoot up close. Shooting distance is not an ethical or moral question, it is a professional, technical quality question. Watching people suffer or /and photographing them from a distance is no more "human" than being close to them.
Click to expand...


I'm going to guess that english may not be your first language. The sentence fragment with the phrase "photojournalistic distance, integrity" was meant to set aside the usual arguments for why taking such a picture is OK. There are some usual arguments, and they are neither good arguments, nor (more importantly) relevant to the point I am making. My remark can be read without that sentence fragment without loss of meaning.


----------



## sashbar

amolitor said:


> I don't care about photojournalistic distance versus camera distance. Photojournalistic distance is somewhere between a polite fiction and outright nonsense, anyways, but that's not even remotely what I am talking about here.
> 
> The point is that, as viewers of these pictures, we are acutely aware of the presence of the camera and the photographer. We are forced, if we are paying attention, to consider the presence of them. The only picture that reads as real to me if the one with the Metro Cops, where the cops have clearly told the photographer to bugger off, and the subject is clearly too busy being hassled to mug for the camera. That feels like a real moment, being documented by a photographer outside the frame. The rest of them read -- staged or not -- like two guys hanging out, one of whom happens to be panhandling and demonstrating his life for the other, who is taking pictures.
> 
> It feels exploitive, as these things always do, and this one doesn't feel real.
> 
> Note that I pass no judgement on the photographer, I don't know him/her, why they shot these, what the point is, or any of that. Don't know, and it doesn't matter. I pass no judgement on the process here. I am only speaking about how the pictures feel, how they read, to me, an outside observer.



I am not a huge fan of these series either but I disagree with you on several points. To do such a report one simply has to "hang out" with homeless, I see nothing wrong with that. The other guy does not nesessarily "demonstrating" his life,  he is just doing what he is usually doing and in several hours he forgets about the camera.  A photographer lives in a village with an African tribe or in a big city with a rock band photographing their life - does that mean it is all "staged"? 
You say the only shot that feel natural is the one with cops. How about the last one. A sleeping man cares about the camera no more than the one about to be arrested. You presume that he is "demonstrating", but this is just a presumption. What i see is a man sleeping. It is a good shot, especially because it is "up in man's face" .  
Whatever the result, this kind of a reportage takes time and effort and  kudos to the photographer for trying. It could be better, it could be worse, but I can see nothing wrong with this approach.

Btw  R3d - The Descent is a cute metaphor, but it does not work here in my opinion. I first thought the guy was going somewhere to play golf with a bag full of clubs. That's because "the photographic distance" here is way too large.


----------



## Rags

R3, are you using a variable aperture lens? 

These seem underexposed and that's usually the reason

Robbins is right, you did ask for C&C and you got it. I was surprised by your response.

Perhaps the issue is the title. 

People can get twisted arguing title and for get the shots. 

You can see the comments about the ethical stuff shooting homeless or other down and outs.

I don't share that on the street, it's PJ.

I think the series could be technically better.

I won't go into each photograph but consider shooting in raw so you have a better chance to correct an exposure value

I've been involved in artistic activities for longer than most here have been alive and it seems to me, that most people won't like my work and when they do, it's special.

The old joke about the camel being designed by committee is a good example of trying to satisfy everybody

Good luck with your street...

Rags


----------



## R3d

Actually, I didn't ask for C&C.  I posted a selection from the story, and if people liked what they saw they could follow the jump for the whole thing.  You guys know how this forum frowns on postings with a lot of images, and links too, ironically enough.  Why the surprise?  I've been plenty cordial in the defense of my work.  If any of you read any animosity into what I wrote, that's on you.  A simple response to a critique shouldn't merit such standoffishness.  

As far as photojournalism is concerned, how can you properly educate anybody about a certain situation (like poverty anywhere else, or war) without it?  You don't have to "be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer."  You need to convey their pain and emotion to make somebody do something about it.  Does letting the world know about the suffering of others make you a lousy person?  Or should we just ignore it entirely?  I'm glad you get it at least, Sash.   

http://life.time.com/history/vietnam-photo-essay-by-larry-burrows-one-ride-with-yankee-papa-13/#1

http://facingchange.org/blog/2013/07/16/introducing-darcy-padilla/

http://mediastorm.com usually has excellent photo stories as well.

Rags, I do shoot raw.  Shooting in the lighting conditions I was in frequently wasn't easy.


----------



## sashbar

amolitor said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.
> 
> The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He mixes two things together. He says that a close "in your face" camera position is inappropriate here and refers to "photojournalistic distance" as a reason for not to shoot up close. Shooting distance is not an ethical or moral question, it is a professional, technical quality question. Watching people suffer or /and photographing them from a distance is no more "human" than being close to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to guess that english may not be your first language. The sentence fragment with the phrase "photojournalistic distance, integrity" was meant to set aside the usual arguments for why taking such a picture is OK. There are some usual arguments, and they are neither good arguments, nor (more importantly) relevant to the point I am making. My remark can be read without that sentence fragment without loss of meaning.
Click to expand...


OK, no problemo. Next time just let me know which part of your post I may omit with no loss  of meaning   My English is indeed rather poor.


----------



## amolitor

For future reference, the gallery forums OTHER than "Just for Fun!" are generally marked something like this one is:

_A place to tell us stories of events with pictures. This is your place to not only show us your photojournalistic style, but your action and sports shots, too. Post for discussion and feedback, including general critique._

so the assumption is that you want discussion, feedback, or critique. I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.


----------



## robbins.photo

R3d said:


> As far as photojournalism is concerned, how can you properly educate anybody about a certain situation (like poverty anywhere else, or war) without it? You don't have to "be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer." You need to convey their pain and emotion to make somebody do something about it. Does letting the world know about the suffering of others make you a lousy person? Or should we just ignore it entirely? I'm glad you get it at least, Sash.
> 
> Rags, I do shoot raw. Shooting in the lighting conditions I was in frequently wasn't easy.



Well, if you don't want C&C you might want to indicate that is your preference. Would have saved the rest of us a lot of time an effort. Won't matter to me of course, even in the future if you requested C&C I wouldn't provide it. As far as properly "educating" anyone through "photojournalism", that one actually would be funny if it weren't so sad and off base. You aren't "educating" anyone, and if you think you are your sadly mistaken and have a massively over inflated opinion of the images you provide. You might be able to initiate a short term emotional response, but you aren't "educating" anyone, including yourself, on what it is to be homeless. Likewise you could never "educate" anyone on what war is actually like. If you haven't been there your never going to have a clue, no matter how much you read or how many pictures you look at.

You go on to say something about "conveying their pain to somebody who can do something about it" - well if we all share your ethics, we can't, right? I'm also curious as to who you think this "somebody" might be, I mean you've already made some silly excuse and ruled yourself out. So if such is the case why do you feel so morally superior about dumping the problem on the rest of us with your "educational" program? 

That might seem a little harsh on the first read through, but read through it again - and then maybe a third time. I'm hoping that you'll actually start to think about what your saying in a larger context. If not I guess I can expect an angry response and we can be done - but I'm hoping maybe it will open your eyes, just a bit. Time will tell I suppose.


----------



## sashbar

amolitor said:


> . I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.



amolitor, if only that were a problem. The problem most often is to get a critique, especially something beyond "out of focus", "underexposed" and "what a cutie" stuff.


----------



## robbins.photo

sashbar said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor, if only that were a problem. The problem most often is to get a critique, especially something beyond "out of focus", "underexposed" and "what a cutie" stuff.
Click to expand...


Well when you take the time to do one honestly and get a lot of grief in return, I guess a lot of folks would get a little gunshy.  Me I don't really care if I get some grief in return persee, but it does irritate me when I have my time wasted.  I put a bit of time and effort into that critique and frankly it was dead on.  Most of the images in this essay are such that the only way you can tell the guy is homeless is because of the title of the essay explains that he's homeless.  The vast majority of them can't stand on their own, and the one that probably could is horribly underexposed.

I tried to be as nice about conveying that information as I could - but to no avail.  So, my time got completely wasted by someone who apparently didn't even want critique in the first place.  Find that a bit irritating to be honest, and have no intention of having any more time wasted in trying to offer tips/helps/things that could be improved on with future imagery since it all fell on completely deaf ears in the first place.  So R3d won't have to worry, wouldn't critique another image of his if he/she begged me.  

Problem solved, moving right along...


----------



## R3d

How many times do you have to say you aren't going to keep posting here to actually stop posting?  You've made it abundantly clear you don't wish to hear what I have to say about anything, so please remove yourself from my thread.


----------



## robbins.photo

R3d said:


> How many times do you have to say you aren't going to keep posting here to actually stop posting? You've made it abundantly clear you don't wish to hear what I have to say about anything, so please remove yourself from my thread.



Well as usual we apparently have a slight reading comprehension problem here - I never said I would stop posting. Not once. Never even implied it. Did say I would not give you more C&C, which, I haven't. But since it's all falling on totally deaf ears anyway, not much point in trying to help you in any regard, C&C or otherwise.  I was rather hoping you'd start listening to what you were saying, you might have learned quite a bit from it.  But you didn't.  Oh well.  I will simply wish you well and move on I suppose. More is the pity really.


----------



## R3d

Nope, I stand firmly by my understanding of what good photojournalism is.  Good day.


----------



## pixmedic

I will point out, that as far as asking for C&C goes, except for the "just for fun" section, all other photo sections here on the forum are basically for getting critique. 
If you do not want critique on your pictures, post in the "just for fun" section, or mention you are not looking for critique in your post. Otherwise, it is assumed you are posting for C&C.


----------



## sashbar

robbins.photo said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor, if only that were a problem. The problem most often is to get a critique, especially something beyond "out of focus", "underexposed" and "what a cutie" stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when you take the time to do one honestly and get a lot of grief in return, I guess a lot of folks would get a little gunshy.  Me I don't really care if I get some grief in return persee, but it does irritate me when I have my time wasted.  I put a bit of time and effort into that critique and frankly it was dead on.  Most of the images in this essay are such that the only way you can tell the guy is homeless is because of the title of the essay explains that he's homeless.  The vast majority of them can't stand on their own, and the one that probably could is horribly underexposed.
> 
> I tried to be as nice about conveying that information as I could - but to no avail.  So, my time got completely wasted by someone who apparently didn't even want critique in the first place.  Find that a bit irritating to be honest, and have no intention of having any more time wasted in trying to offer tips/helps/things that could be improved on with future imagery since it all fell on completely deaf ears in the first place.  So R3d won't have to worry, wouldn't critique another image of his if he/she begged me.
> 
> Problem solved, moving right along...
Click to expand...


Look, if you give C&C, it does not mean that the OP has to accept it without a word. You have to be prepared for the counter-argument. This is absolutely normal, the guy put some thought and effort into the shot and sometimes he needs to be convinced. I think that the argument about the image is a very healthy process if it does not turn into agressive accusations etc.  Sometimes the C&C is well off the mark, it may well happen, and one has to take responsibility for his incorrect opinion. C&C is not a one way traffic, it is a discussion. At least it should be. But you right - there are lots of egos there and people stop critisizing knowing that it will be taking personal.


----------



## Rags

Whoa... this thread is argumentative.. Can we chill?

I'm new here and I don't feel comfortable criticizing someone else's work or taking criticizing from people who may not be competent.  

It may be helpful to post a link (without hijacking) to give a graphic image for example





Rags


----------



## robbins.photo

R3d said:


> Nope, I stand firmly by my understanding of what good photojournalism is.  Good day.



Well, not certain why but feel compelled to give this one last shot, take it for what you will.  When you originally came in here apparently you really didn't want C&C, which is fine - next time just say so at the outset and you won't get any.  But in truth I think you came in here hoping to post this and have everyone be awestruck by it, and when we weren't it hurt.  I get that.  Not like I really like being the guy that has to bust someone else's bubble.  Not sure if you know who Lew is, he posts under the alias "The Traveler".  Lew and I have had our disagreements in the  past and I fully expect we'll have some more in the future.  He's an ornery, bullheaded SOB - and I'm twice as bad, so were bound to butt heads on several more occasions at a minimum.

But I strongly suggest you go and take a look at some of the stuff he's posted.  You want powerful imagery and street photography par excellance?  That's the standard you should go by, right there.  Now Lew has probably forgotten more about photography than I've ever known, his technical skills are probably in an arena where there are few equals.  And you know what?  That is not what makes his imagery what it is - not at all.  I remember not too long ago he posted an image of a lady on what I think was a subway platform - the image wasn't composed well and had some horizon issues - etc.  Normally the sort of thing that would set my OCD ablaze - but the image still struck me.  It struck me because I could tell it struck Lew.  I could tell he was overwhelmed by the grace of the woman, to be able to strike a pose like that.  You could feel it in the photograph because when I looked it I could tell Lew felt it too.

For all of Lew's crazy curmudgeon act you can see the emotion in his photographs - you can feel the emotional connection he makes with every subject.  That is what makes Lew's images more than just a bunch of well exposed pixels - he conveys the emotion of the scene because he feels it, and it comes through loud and clear in the images he presents.  I'm sorry, but your notion of holding yourself aloof to all of that is a serious impediment to the images your trying to create.  You may not see it or understand why I gave the critique that I did, but it wasn't to burst your bubble or to attack you personally or anything along those lines.  It truly was in the hope that I could convey some of that too you.  A big reason why one of the others mentioned that your photo's looked staged is because the really lacked the emotion I'm speaking of - that connection is simply missing.  

I really hope you read through this and at some point consider what's been said and begin to re-examine.  I think once you do you really will be capable of capturing the kinds of images you really want.


----------



## tirediron

OP:  For your future reference, in the forum heading:  "*Forum: Photojournalism & Sports Gallery  *A place to tell us stories of events with pictures. This is your place to not only show us your photojournalistic style, but your action and sports shots, too. Post for discussion and feedback, *including general critique*."  If you do not want critique, it is generally best to include a phrase such as, "No C&C wanted" so that others will be aware of your wishes from the start.

Since you have indicated that you do not want critique on your work, albeit rather late in the thread, I trust that no else will offer any form of feedback on the OPs images.


----------



## R3d

robbins.photo said:


> But in truth I think you came in here hoping to post this and have everyone be awestruck by it, and when we weren't it hurt.



No, I just didn't appreciate the petty arguing when I didn't agree with an opinion.  I don't mind when people don't like the work, that doesn't bother me, but when you try so hard to hammer your opinion into me after I disagree with it, that I don't like.  Move on.


----------



## snowbear

kathythorson said:


> What is Cannon?





robbins.photo said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much.  It's also an old TV Show - lol
Click to expand...


It's also a bath towel company.


----------



## SCraig

snowbear said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much.  It's also an old TV Show - lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a bath towel company.
Click to expand...


Don't they make cameras or lenses or film or something?


----------



## rexbobcat

I think that my issue with some of these photos is that a few of them really next written context. I don't really know what is going on or why I should care about this particular scene. Like the third scene for example. He's in a movie theater, but thousands of people go to a movie theater every day. Is this photo important, because it has taken him 3 weeks to save up the money to go to the movies? I think that would make it much more compelling. I can attest to this personally. I did a photo essay last summer about an individual here, and although I think I had some very self-explanatory, strong images, I also had some that were pretty weak that are there to give context to the story. I think photo essays where every photo tells a story within themselves without text are very rare.

I'm not saying that every photo needs to show pain and homelessness, but I think some text about the photo would help to give the viewer a reason to care. You might already have cutlines/captions written and just didn't post them, and in that case great.  If not, I think they would really make the story stronger.

I do think that the last image is the strongest image out of this set. Although it does need some explanation when viewed on its own, as part of the story I think it really helps to tie it together.


----------



## rexbobcat

snowbear said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much.  It's also an old TV Show - lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a bath towel company.
Click to expand...


And it's my middle name. I demand compensation.


----------



## Rags

tirediron said:


> OP:  For your future reference, in the forum heading:  "*Forum: Photojournalism & Sports Gallery  *A place to tell us stories of events with pictures. This is your place to not only show us your photojournalistic style, but your action and sports shots, too. Post for discussion and feedback, *including general critique*."  If you do not want critique, it is generally best to include a phrase such as, "No C&C wanted" so that others will be aware of your wishes from the start.
> 
> Since you have indicated that you do not want critique on your work, albeit rather late in the thread, I trust that no else will offer any form of feedback on the OPs images.



Well now since you're here, I'd like to say something...

Sports and photo journalism are not compatible. They require different disciplines. 

Sports generally requires a skill to shoot motion, many with long fast glass for sharp images.

Photojournalism usually is shot with wide angle glass and technical excellence is second to the capture

Both of these are core photography disciplines along with portraiture and landscapes.

They should be separated. No room? look at the three non core photography sections like dark side (where I saw red blood stained images without any redeeming characteristics)), themes and the other... 

What are you guys thinking? Now this is an unsolicited critique

Rags


----------



## rexbobcat

Rags said:


> Well now since you're here, I'd like to say something...  Sports and photo journalism are not compatible. They require different disciplines.  Sports generally requires a skill to shoot motion, many with long fast glass for sharp images.  Photojournalism usually is shot with wide angle glass and technical excellence is second to the capture  Both of these are core photography disciplines along with portraiture and landscapes.  They should be separated. No room? look at the three non core photography sections like dark side (where I saw red blood stained images without any redeeming characteristics)), themes and the other...  What are you guys thinking? Now this is an unsolicited critique  Rags


    I really wish I would have known sports photography and photojournalism were incompatible before I began working at my university newspaper taking sports photos and writing sports captions. Damn, I guess I need to have a talk with the editor.  

Photo-journalism encompasses more than wide-angle shots of military protests and people in third world countries suffering (*please insert other PJ stereotypes/misconceptions here*)


----------



## Overread

Rags said:


> Sports and photo journalism are not compatible. They require different disciplines.
> 
> They should be separated. No room? look at the three non core photography sections like dark side (where I saw red blood stained images without any redeeming characteristics)), themes and the other...
> 
> What are you guys thinking? Now this is an unsolicited critique
> 
> Rags



WE do have a feedback and comments section down the bottom  
And we -- honestly don't recall why Sports and Journalism are in the same block; its just something that's been that way for years and probably long since the site was formed very early on (and had more combined sections because of significantly lower traffic). We are discussing splitting the subjects since Journalism is something we've not had an abundance of until more recently. We try and only open new sections when there is a clear abundance of content to justify a section being made. 

We don't really have any list of "core themes with photography" because that concept would shift and change from photographer to photographer.


----------



## sashbar

I wish there was a separate street photography section. Currently it is supposed to be a part of People section where it is being drowned amongst pictures of newborn, family members and seniors. Part of it goes to General, another part to Black and White. Some urban photography goes to Landscapes and cityscapes, even though it is not quite the same.   I believe street photography merits a separate section, it is a very specific genre.


----------



## Overread

To prevent further derailing http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/feedback-suggestions/346480-proposed-new-galleries.html


----------



## The_Traveler

R3d said:


> As far as photojournalism is concerned, how can you properly educate anybody about a certain situation (like poverty anywhere else, or war) without it?  You don't have to "be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer."  You need to convey their pain and emotion to make somebody do something about it.  Does letting the world know about the suffering of others make you a lousy person?  Or should we just ignore it entirely?  I'm glad you get it at least, Sash.



Actually this is total BS rationalization so that you can exploit people and use their suffering to get clicks. 
If you were saying something new or novel, then maybe. But there have been thousands of ''stories" like this. 
AFAIC, to take pictures of the homeless, without a new, real purpose, is exploitation. 
The fact that you can get a decent picture is irrelevant. 
You're not showing anything that we haven't seen before.

Work harder and don't use other peoples' suffering as a boost.


----------



## sashbar

The_Traveler said:


> R3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as photojournalism is concerned, how can you properly educate anybody about a certain situation (like poverty anywhere else, or war) without it?  You don't have to "be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer."  You need to convey their pain and emotion to make somebody do something about it.  Does letting the world know about the suffering of others make you a lousy person?  Or should we just ignore it entirely?  I'm glad you get it at least, Sash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actuality this is total BS rationalization so that you can exploit people and use their suffering to get clicks.
> If you were saying something new or novel, then maybe. But there have been thousands of ''stories" like this.
> AFAIC, to take pictures of the homeless, without a new, real purpose, is exploitation.
> The fact that you can get a decent picture is irrelevant.
> You're not showing anything that we haven't seen before.
> 
> Work harder and don't use other peoples' suffering as a boost.
Click to expand...


Lew, I absolutely agree with you about the exploitation of homeless,  more than that, I often use your term  "street porn" in this regard. But still, I think we should be a bit more flexible here, otherwise it will look like a tabu. In fact we often do not know if a homeless person is unhappy about being photographed. I believe if a homeless guy agrees for his life to be documented by a camera for several hour at least, he must feel positive about it. He might even feel being a part of a mission.  Yes there are thousands of pictures of homeless people. Yes it is nearly impossible to show anything new. Apart from showing new people still suffering the same way. But does that mean we have to stop taking new pictures, stop reminding the world, or at least ourselves and our friends that there is a huge social problem? To say "work harder" to a photographer who spent a day with a homeless guy would be OK if we were a media, not a forum where most members do not venture beyond shooting their own kids, cats and cars. 
I have a lot to criticise about this essay, but I do not want to, exactly because the guy has put a lot of effort. Yes, the result is a bit mediocre, especially by your standard, just give the guy some slack. By looking at his photos I believe his intentions are good.


----------



## SCraig

The_Traveler said:


> Actuality this is total BS rationalization so that you can exploit people and use their suffering to get clicks.
> If you were saying something new or novel, then maybe. But there have been thousands of ''stories" like this.
> AFAIC, to take pictures of the homeless, without a new, real purpose, is exploitation.
> The fact that you can get a decent picture is irrelevant.
> You're not showing anything that we haven't seen before.
> 
> Work harder and don't use other peoples' suffering as a boost.



Well said, Lew.  I agree completely and it's the primary reason I dislike most so-called "Photo Journalism".


----------



## R3d

No, it's not a BS rationalization.  I'm not just talking about what I've posted here, I'm talking about photojournalism.  By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo.  That's such a cop out.  The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time.  What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone.  He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.


----------



## amolitor

Deceived him, no. Used him, yes, of course you have.

One minor point: jiggling the camera around during a long exposure to create a sensation of coldness isn't photojournalism, not even close. If, as a journalist, you want to express the idea of coldness, you need to find a different approach. You have a basic problem with this series, quite apart from problems with taking pictures of homeless people, which is that you're not sure if you want to make Art or Photojournalism, so we get a bit of both, to the benefit of neither.


----------



## Rags

Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.

I've been to a lot of places where the people I've shoot are less fortunate than me, by far.

I'm just taking pictures and those pictures are not commercial, so perhaps exploit is too strong a word.

There is a bunch of shots taken in the depression (dust bowl) by a federal photog, if this morality was imposed then, we wouldn't have the historical context of these strong images.

I used to think all homeless people wanted a home; that's not true in our area (San Francisco). It's been proven that some just like to live outside. Just sayin'

Rags


----------



## kathyt

snowbear said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Cannon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much.  It's also an old TV Show - lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a bath towel company.
Click to expand...

I learn something new every day.


----------



## amolitor

The FSA/OWI archive is a deeply important artifact, but the making of it was extremely problematic. I'm glad we have it, but the making of it wasn't a particularly moral exercise. Photojournalism is likewise problematic as it is usually conducted, and certainly much more complicated and morally grey than the News Business pretends. These are probably mostly outside the scope of this thread, but if someone wants to talk about it, a new thread in, say, Photographic Discussions, might be a good start.


----------



## Rags

amolitor said:


> The FSA/OWI archive is a deeply important artifact, but the making of it was extremely problematic. I'm glad we have it, but the making of it wasn't a particularly moral exercise. Photojournalism is likewise problematic as it is usually conducted, and certainly much more complicated and morally grey than the News Business pretends. These are probably mostly outside the scope of this thread, but if someone wants to talk about it, a new thread in, say, Photographic Discussions, might be a good start.



Fair enough. But I wouldn't recommend it, opposite polarities would just create arguments and things said that can't be reversed

Personally, I was never good at PC.

Rags


----------



## mohammad.ammar

second and third are great .


----------



## The_Traveler

R3d said:


> , I'm talking about photojournalism.  By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo.  That's such a cop out.  The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time.  What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone.  He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.





Rags said:


> Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.



I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
It is a balance.
You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'

I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.

I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.


----------



## JerryVenz

The_Traveler said:


> R3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> , I'm talking about photojournalism.  By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo.  That's such a cop out.  The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time.  What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone.  He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
> This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
> It is a balance.
> You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
> Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
> If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'
> 
> I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
> She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
> Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.
> 
> I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.
Click to expand...



Lew, good point using the wedding analogy.  Having done weddings for over 25-years, I agree.  I've had to restrain my camera many times--these things just want to record everything, useful or not!


----------



## robbins.photo

The_Traveler said:


> R3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> , I'm talking about photojournalism.  By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo.  That's such a cop out.  The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time.  What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone.  He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
> This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
> It is a balance.
> You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
> Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
> If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'
> 
> I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
> She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
> Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.
> 
> I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.
Click to expand...



Egads Lew.  I agree with you.  Not just in principle or in part but.. like.. wholeheartedly.  OH Crap.

Somebody grab a copy of the Book of Revelations.. quick!  This has got to be a sign of a seal breaking.. coming apocalypse ...  or something..


----------



## kathyt

The_Traveler said:


> R3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> , I'm talking about photojournalism.  By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo.  That's such a cop out.  The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time.  What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone.  He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
> This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
> It is a balance.
> You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
> Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
> If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'
> 
> I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
> She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
> Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.
> 
> I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.
Click to expand...

You can post that image here Lew. We won't say anything or laugh.


----------



## Rags

kathythorson said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> , I'm talking about photojournalism.  By your reasoning anything depicting the pain of others is exploitative, and we shouldn't take the photo.  That's such a cop out.  The world's not happyhappyhappy all the time.  What I've done may not be new enough for you, but I really don't feel that I've "exploited" anyone.  He knows exactly what I'm doing and I've been sharing my work with him - I've in no way deceived or used him as has been implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me, the basis for the morality issue; is shooting someone less fortunate than yourself - therefore exploiting (?) them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about photojournalism in general but about your work.
> This isn't a black/white issue where one way is always good and the other always bad.
> It is a balance.
> You invade the privacy of people and expose them - whether they mind or not, that is what you are doing - and in return for this there must be some good come out of it.
> Saying that it informs the world is just crap, the world knows this.
> If you aren't doing something where a real tangible good comes out of it, then further exploitation for one's own sake is wrong, no matter how you want to paint it as 'journalism.'
> 
> I was at a wedding two years ago and some youngish, chunky woman fell on the dance floor.
> She was wearing a thong and her entire butt was exposed to the crowd.
> Yes, it was a funny sight in one respect, but no one would have taken the shot and posted it because it was an exploitation of her distress.
> 
> I see shooting the homeless as the same thing, as a disrespect of the person being shot and exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can post that image here Lew. We won't say anything or laugh.
Click to expand...


Uh...Oh......  bad Kathy... bad girl.... 


Rags


----------



## robbins.photo

Rags said:


> Uh...Oh......  bad Kathy... bad girl....
> 
> 
> Rags



Which is exactly why we love her so.. lol


----------



## LShooter

Search under my posts for my Street Photos. I like your ideas and photos. But, to really get the feel of street people, you need to talk with them, get their story and photo them looking right at you when you can. Keep it real. Out.


----------

