# homeless guy



## proberok




----------



## molested_cow

Not sure about the composition. It's too centered, lacks focus because it seems that you were being greedy in trying to fit the whole person into the frame. There's camera shake as well to that spoils the photo a bit. I do like the processing. The contrast is just right and I guess the camera shake gives the photograph a softer feel, like film. I'm also glad that you tried to take the shot at a lower angle as opposed to "standing top-down".

For me, if I have the choice for a different composition and if the environment permits, I will try to take this shot from top down, as in shoot from above(may be a floor up looking down) and do a zoom in on the person's head/face with his the bottle in the shot, and the stair steps as the background(which will appear flat instead). I think that will tell a stronger story.


----------



## mmaria

How could you be that much comfortable approaching him this close and taking this kind picture?

sorry, but I don't like it. You could chose a different composition and portray what ever you wanted to portray in much prettier way

jmo


----------



## SnappingShark

Ethics - as others kept banging on at me for in my thread last month. Where are they? What is in this shot?

I hope you left some change or a cup of coffee


----------



## tirediron

I think there could have been a number of great images of this scene, but IMO, this is none of them.


----------



## jeveretts

So, here's the deal. I see the potential here, but this is a harsh forum. I think I can see where you were going with the composition, looks like his face is roughly around the top left power intersection of the rule of thirds. And I can see how you didn't want to crop it. The contrast between the suit jacket and the athletic shoes needs to be seen. The more I look at it, the more I like it. But I can understand why others don't. It didn't quite hit on composition, but I am not sure how you could have done it better. And it is a bit soft, or out of focus.


----------



## timor

Good work. Despite everything it is still a good work. Is it shocking ? Yes. That's the purpose. It is a reminder that our own society is not perfect. Or even worst. Technicality of this picture, maybe with slight problems but it doesn't destroy the message of the image.


----------



## gsgary

I would go back and see if i could find him and do so portraits and also find out his story, could be ex services


----------



## SamiJoSchwirtz

I personally like it.


----------



## The_Traveler

If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking and showing this picture on the Internet?


----------



## robbins.photo

I guess I'm just at a loss for what "story" or "message" is supposedly being conveyed.  Maybe you could help me out - what is it you were trying to say with this and what is the ultimate goal you wish to accomplish by portraying it?


----------



## Bender

The_Traveler said:


> If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking and showing this picture on the Internet?



When I see photos like this, I wonder if the photographer would approach a non homeless (relatively affluent) person in the same manner and take a shot.  Or someone else's kids even.
If so, then fine - that's how you shoot.  If not, then why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?

To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror.

As for the photo - not much here.  The shot makes me feel uncomfortable, but for the wrong reasons.
That level of discomfort is trying (and failing) to overcome several technical and compositional flaws in photo that could have been much more as tirediron stated above.


----------



## The_Traveler

Bender said:


> why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?
> 
> To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror.



I'm not as nice as you.
I am comfortable judging the photographer as he seems to be taking pictures of the helpless.


----------



## sscarmack

Bender said:


> When I see photos like this, I wonder if the photographer would approach a non homeless (relatively affluent) person in the same manner and take a shot.  Or someone else's kids even.
> If so, then fine - that's how you shoot.  If not, then why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?
> 
> To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror........



This is a load of crap. He's not helpless. He's homeless. His legs look to be in one piece. Teach him the phrase "do you want fries with that?" And get your life together. I do not feel sorry for anyone that wants everything handed to them on a silver plater. 

Now if there's another story here other than he's a bum, then I'll take that into consideration. 

But to assume he's helpless is crap and to say the "OP must look in the mirror" as if there should be some disgust is ignorant. Just my opinion though. 

Homeless doesn't equal helpless. 

OP did what a photographer is suppose to do, he created a photo that sparks emotion and interest and got a reaction. 

That's what we as photographers are suppose to do. If you look at a photo and it has no feelings to it then we failed at our job. 

OP, well done. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler

The initial question wasn't answered.

If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking his picture and exhibiting it?


----------



## Bender

The_Traveler said:


> Bender said:
> 
> 
> 
> why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?
> 
> To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not as nice as you.
> I am comfortable judging the photographer as he seems to be taking pictures of the helpless.
Click to expand...


It's not so much about being nice.  I just have a problem with double standards.
Taking wide angle close ups of the homeless is fine so long as you also have the balls to do it to people that have a chance in hell of catching you and beating you senseless.

The homeless are part of life and are lens fodder just as much as anyone walking down the street.
Hating on someone for the subject matter alone is not something I choose to do.  It feels a bit like censorship.
I've seen wonderful photos of the less fortunate among us.  Why should I feel obligated to dislike them?


----------



## The_Traveler

Because nobody is 'fodder'.

If there was something else, something new, something informative to compensate for using this guy's misery then maybe.
But if you can't understand that, then there's no explaining it.

And neither of you has answered the first question.

If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking his picture and exhibiting it?


----------



## sscarmack

It wouldn't be my father. 

What if I crapped golden eggs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DanOstergren

If it were my father, I'd be like "Oh well there he is, getting **** faced and passing out on stoops like usual". But my dad isn't homeless, nor is he a junkie or a drunk. But if he was and someone were to photograph him in that state, I'd say "Learn from my dad and don't end up where he is".


----------



## DanOstergren

How about we start freaking out and passing judgement on others for real problems like child porn and human trafficking. But Goddess forbid if someone points their lens at a homeless junkie.


----------



## runnah

I would hope I would do everything in my power to prevent that happening to my father but sadly not everyone has that kind of support. Also there are those that do have that support but choose to ignore it.

Ever homeless person you see is an example of a failure on either their part, their family's or the system or a combination therein.


----------



## The_Traveler

Because we deal with the issues in front of us - and it doesn't hurt to feel compassion for someone and not exhibit him to the world - and for nothing.

I hope all of you change but I'm not part of this discussion any more.


----------



## runnah

DanOstergren said:


> How about we start freaking out and passing judgement on others for real problems like child porn and human trafficking. But Goddess forbid if someone points their lens at a homeless junkie.



Good point, but if we start ignoring one thing, then where does it end?


----------



## robbins.photo

sscarmack said:


> This is a load of crap. He's not helpless. He's homeless. His legs look to be in one piece. Teach him the phrase "do you want fries with that?" And get your life together. I do not feel sorry for anyone that wants everything handed to them on a silver plater.



Well a lot of the folks who are homeless are homeless not because they don't work, but rather because they really can't work.  A lot of them suffer from various mental illnesses and unfortunately there is really no funding available to do much of anything about it

As a result they tend to self medicate with alcohol or other drugs.  Most of these folks can't hold jobs or really function in society, and while there are some exceptions for the most part the vast majority of the homeless are actually people who are suffering from one form of mental illness or another who don't have the means or the desire to receive help from traditional outlets.

Often even those who have families or who are eligible for some form of assistance will decline, they will choose to leave and be homeless because they dislike the drugs used to treat them so intensely.  This applies most often to those suffering from some form of schizophrenia or more severe forms of bipolar disorder, they often say the prescription drugs they are given make them feel like zombies.

Sad, but true.


----------



## DanOstergren

The_Traveler said:


> Because we deal with the issues in front of us - and it doesn't hurt to feel compassion for someone and not exhibit him to the world - and for nothing.
> 
> I hope all of you change but I'm not part of this discussion any more.


Just because I don't have anything against a photograph being taken of a homeless guy doesn't mean I don't feel compassion for him. You make way too many assumptions and accusations for my liking, and I will use your own words and hope that you change as well. Oh wait, we all change every day, so what's the point of even saying it? To inflate your own ego while you continue to judge others?


----------



## Bender

sscarmack said:


> Bender said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I see photos like this, I wonder if the photographer would approach a non homeless (relatively affluent) person in the same manner and take a shot.  Or someone else's kids even.
> If so, then fine - that's how you shoot.  If not, then why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?
> 
> To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of crap. He's not helpless. He's homeless.
Click to expand...


He's not helpless because he's homeless.  He's helpless because he's passed out (or at least appears to be).

I think you completely missed my point.  I'm defending the OP - to a point.
My problem is with the judgement of the photo based on the subject matter alone rather than the quality of the photo.


----------



## DanOstergren

robbins.photo said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of crap. He's not helpless. He's homeless. His legs look to be in one piece. Teach him the phrase "do you want fries with that?" And get your life together. I do not feel sorry for anyone that wants everything handed to them on a silver plater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well a lot of the folks who are homeless are homeless not because they don't work, but rather because they really can't work.  A lot of them suffer from various mental illnesses and unfortunately there is really no funding available to do much of anything about it
> 
> As a result they tend to self medicate with alcohol or other drugs.  Most of these folks can't hold jobs or really function in society, and while there are some exceptions for the most part the vast majority of the homeless are actually people who are suffering from one form of mental illness or another who don't have the means or the desire to receive help from traditional outlets.
> 
> Often even those who have families or who are eligible for some form of assistance will decline, they will choose to leave and be homeless because they dislike the drugs used to treat them so intensely.  This applies most often to those suffering from some form of schizophrenia or more severe forms of bipolar disorder, they often say the prescription drugs they are given make them feel like zombies.
> 
> Sad, but true.
Click to expand...

And these people can't be photographed, why?


----------



## sscarmack

The_Traveler said:


> Because we deal with the issues in front of us - and it doesn't hurt to feel compassion for someone and not exhibit him to the world - and for nothing.
> 
> I hope all of you change but I'm not part of this discussion any more.



People use to take pride in their country, pride in themselves and pride in their family. 

Now, the American dream is scamming the system and living on welfare and getting everything handed to you. 

I do no feel bad for anyone that won't help themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DanOstergren

runnah said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start freaking out and passing judgement on others for real problems like child porn and human trafficking. But Goddess forbid if someone points their lens at a homeless junkie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but if we start ignoring one thing, then where does it end?
Click to expand...

That would mean that photographing homeless people would _actually have to be a real problem_.


----------



## runnah

DanOstergren said:


> That would mean that photographing homeless people were actually a real problem.



Well it's more of the problem that there are homeless to begin with.  True, it's not as big of an issue as the ones you listed but it's still a problem. Even more so that we are in the land of plenty.

I remain indecisive on the issue of photographing them.


----------



## proberok

The_Traveler said:


> The initial question wasn't answered.
> 
> If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking his picture and exhibiting it?




Honestly, I don't know how i'd feel. But I'm sure i'd feel something like..."well, what the hell were you doing sleeping on the subway steps for?"

To answer ya questions about the photo and what I was trying to convey and all here goes. It was 3:30 in the morning in Coney Island Brooklyn New York City and we just finished spinning some steel wool behind some back alleys and on the beach. We were trying to find a store and I was trying to see how slow i could use my shutter speed with my iso on 100. Shutter was hand held at .5 seconds. Give me my props. (that explains the shakiness) That's when we walked up on the guy on the stairs. I got my composition together, which I thinks is great and I took the shot. This wasn't a photo shoot. This is how street photography is done. You get ya shot and keep it moving. I'm not out here in these streets taking pictures of models or kids playing with frisbies in the back yard with rover. This is real life and if you cant deal with seeing it then.. well I just don't know what to tell ya.


----------



## tirediron

Okay folks... this is getting dangerously close to political commentary; let's keep the discussion related to the OPs image and NOT our views on various socio-economic problems.... kay?


Thanks!


----------



## Bender

sscarmack said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we deal with the issues in front of us - and it doesn't hurt to feel compassion for someone and not exhibit him to the world - and for nothing.
> 
> I hope all of you change but I'm not part of this discussion any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People use to take pride in their country, pride in themselves and pride in their family.
> 
> Now, the American dream is scamming the system and living on welfare and getting everything handed to you.
> 
> I do no feel bad for anyone that won't help themselves.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Two people I disagree with are disagreeing with each other.
My head hurts.


----------



## proberok

Bender said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bender said:
> 
> 
> 
> why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?
> 
> To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not as nice as you.
> I am comfortable judging the photographer as he seems to be taking pictures of the helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not so much about being nice.  I just have a problem with double standards.
> Taking wide angle close ups of the homeless is fine so long as you also have the balls to do it to people that have a chance in hell of catching you and beating you senseless.
Click to expand...


Cant say that I haven't taking a picture of someone that hasn't been too thrilled.


----------



## Derrel

The_Traveler said:


> The initial question wasn't answered.
> 
> If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking his picture and exhibiting it?



A meaningless question, really. A useless hypothetical, and a pretty weak argument. This sh*+ is "real". This guy is drunk and passed out on the steps of a building in public. Looks to me that his last-consumed can of malt liquor is right there where he dropped it before he drifted off/passed out. He seems to be holding a rather nice cigarette lighter, and his hand and arm seem to be those of a rather strong-looking guy. How about this question: "How would you feel if 250 New Yorkers walked by your drunken, passed-out father on some Coney Island steps?". Or, "How do you feel knowing that your father is seriously addicted to booze and cigarettes, and sleeps on the street?"

WHENEVER we take a photo of ANYBODY in public, and post the shot, we're infringing on that person's soul, a little bit. This is just some faceless, unrecognizable poor soul who's passed out drunk on some steps. I can see this every day of the week if I walk down Burnside. Strawman arguments about "this being my father" hold no sway here. Social documentary photography is not always pretty. We cannot shy away from the realities of the world based on stawman arguments about public drunkenness and homelessness based on, "What if this guy was your father?" crap. Come on, you've got to do better than that!


----------



## DanOstergren

runnah said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would mean that photographing homeless people were actually a real problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's more of the problem that there are homeless to begin with.  True, it's not as big of an issue as the ones you listed but it's still a problem. Even more so that we are in the land of plenty.
> 
> I remain indecisive on the issue of photographing them.
Click to expand...

I really hold the same position as you do. I just get fired up when I see people acting all high and mighty, better than thou, shaming anyone who photographs a homeless person. So what if you don't want to see it, or don't like it. Most people avoid even going near or even making eye contact with homeless people because they don't like the way it makes them feel, yet photographs like this force you to feel what a lot of people of afraid of. This is why I think people flip their **** when they see photos like this.


----------



## robbins.photo

proberok said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The initial question wasn't answered.
> 
> If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking his picture and exhibiting it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how i'd feel. But I'm sure i'd feel something like..."well, what the hell were you doing sleeping on the subway steps for?"
> 
> To answer ya questions about the photo and what I was trying to convey and all here goes. It was 3:30 in the morning in Coney Island Brooklyn New York City and we just finished spinning some steel wool behind some back alleys and on the beach. We were trying to find a store and I was trying to see how slow i could use my shutter speed with my iso on 100. Shutter was hand held at .5 seconds. Give me my props. (that explains the shakiness) That's when we walked up on the guy on the stairs. I got my composition together, which I thinks is great and I took the shot. This wasn't a photo shoot. This is how street photography is done. You get ya shot and keep it moving. I'm not out here in these streets taking pictures of models or kids playing with frisbies in the back yard with rover. This is real life and if you cant deal with seeing it then.. well I just don't know what to tell ya.
Click to expand...


Ok, so I think it would be safe to say you gave zero thought to this guy or his situation.  No real story or thought behind the shot itself, seems as if you took it solely for the shock factor and all you seem to be concerned about here is your "street cred".  Believe it or not, that also explains the rather poor final results.  

Well, I'll let you folks hash out the rest.  I found out what I needed to know.  Enjoy.


----------



## proberok

DanOstergren said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would mean that photographing homeless people were actually a real problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's more of the problem that there are homeless to begin with.  True, it's not as big of an issue as the ones you listed but it's still a problem. Even more so that we are in the land of plenty.
> 
> I remain indecisive on the issue of photographing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really hold the same position as you do. I just get fired up when I see people acting all high and mighty, better than thou, shaming anyone who photographs a homeless person. So what if you don't want to see it, or don't like it. Most people avoid even going near or even making eye contact with homeless people because they don't like the way it makes them feel, yet photographs like this force you to feel what a lot of people of afraid of. This is why I think people flip their **** when they see photos like this.
Click to expand...



These people wouldn't even sit 2 feet next to a homeless person on the train. efohH.


----------



## DanOstergren

robbins.photo said:


> proberok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The initial question wasn't answered.
> 
> If this was your father, how would you feel about someone taking his picture and exhibiting it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how i'd feel. But I'm sure i'd feel something like..."well, what the hell were you doing sleeping on the subway steps for?"
> 
> To answer ya questions about the photo and what I was trying to convey and all here goes. It was 3:30 in the morning in Coney Island Brooklyn New York City and we just finished spinning some steel wool behind some back alleys and on the beach. We were trying to find a store and I was trying to see how slow i could use my shutter speed with my iso on 100. Shutter was hand held at .5 seconds. Give me my props. (that explains the shakiness) That's when we walked up on the guy on the stairs. I got my composition together, which I thinks is great and I took the shot. This wasn't a photo shoot. This is how street photography is done. You get ya shot and keep it moving. I'm not out here in these streets taking pictures of models or kids playing with frisbies in the back yard with rover. This is real life and if you cant deal with seeing it then.. well I just don't know what to tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so I think it would be safe to say you gave zero thought to this guy or his situation.  No real story or thought behind the shot itself, seems as if you took it solely for the shock factor and all you seem to be concerned about here is your "street cred".  Believe it or not, that also explains the rather poor final results.
> 
> Well, I'll let you folks hash out the rest.  I found out what I needed to know.  Enjoy.
Click to expand...

All I see in this post are assumptions, accusations and bull.


----------



## Derrel

Do a Google search on, "Great documentary photographs" and this is the result. Great documentary photographs - Google Search

Then, apply the question, "How would you feel if the subject in this photo were your mother or father, and this picture happened to be posted in some obscure thread, you know, one of over 100,000 threads, in some small, small section of the vast internet, read only by photo-buffs who can read English?"


----------



## DanOstergren

Derrel said:


> Do a Google search on, "Great documentary photographs" and this is the result. Great documentary photographs - Google Search
> 
> Then, apply the question, "How would you feel if the subject in this photo were your mother or father, and this picture was posted in some obscure thread, one of over 100,000 threads, in some small, small section of the vast internet, read only by photo-buffs who can read English?"


I never thought I would ever like a post of yours, but I love this.


----------



## Derrel

DanOstergren said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do a Google search on, "Great documentary photographs" and this is the result. Great documentary photographs - Google Search
> 
> Then, apply the question, "How would you feel if the subject in this photo were your mother or father, and this picture was posted in some obscure thread, one of over 100,000 threads, in some small, small section of the vast internet, read only by photo-buffs who can read English?"
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought I would ever like a post of yours, but I love this.
Click to expand...


Oh, well, thanks for the back-handed compliment Dan.


----------



## tirediron

Okay... LAST warning.  Either we return to a discussion of the photographic and artistic merits of the OPs image, or we stop talking.


----------



## Derrel

tirediron said:


> Okay... LAST warning.  Either we return to a discussion of the photographic and artistic merits of the OPs image, or we stop talking.



We ARE talking about the merits of the image...we've got one member here who repeatedly tried to shame the OP for even MAKING the photo. I do not get the whole issue. Why the hell do we have one person here trying to issue a massive cease-and-desist order based on some strawman argument? Why do we have to defend the right to photograph in public, on the street? Why do we have to defend our right to photograph against another fellow forum member attacking our rights?

We are talking about the merit of this entire CLASS of activity, and we have *a self-professed street shooter trying to guilt another street shooter* and make him feel bad.

The artistic merit of the image is that *it forces us to confront the bad things in the world*, and not go all happy-happy and sweep the ugly parts of our society under the rug because some alcoholic homeless guy's kids might feel bad...

This is a VERY serious rights issue. This is not about exploitation--it's about an effort to censor, through shame, the OP's fine photo.


----------



## runnah

I thought the BW conversion was nice.


----------



## DanOstergren

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do a Google search on, "Great documentary photographs" and this is the result. Great documentary photographs - Google Search
> 
> Then, apply the question, "How would you feel if the subject in this photo were your mother or father, and this picture was posted in some obscure thread, one of over 100,000 threads, in some small, small section of the vast internet, read only by photo-buffs who can read English?"
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought I would ever like a post of yours, but I love this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, well, thanks for the back-handed compliment Dan.
Click to expand...

You only took it as such, but you're welcome Derrel. 


As for the photograph, I enjoy it. I think the composition works, and the photo invokes a lot of feeling in me. As for the camera shake/soft focus, it adds the the feeling to me.


----------



## Derrel

runnah said:


> I thought the BW conversion was nice.



Dan, I know a back-handed compliment when I see one. You're still on my ignore list, BTW.

If it were shown in color, it might be even more saddening. But then again, at 3:30 AM, it might also have been lighted by weird street lamps, with unusual spectral makeup, and the color might have been whacked out and weird. I dunno...sodium vapor lights there? Not sure what that part of Coney Island has.

B&W or color, an interesting question/dilemma for the photographer; B&W sort of makes it abstracted, and also traditional *social documentary style reportage*. I put this issue in the same class as photos of famine, and war, which is to say very disturbing scenes, but nevertheless, ones we need to be able to see once in a while, to reinforce the notion that there ARE people who still need the help of charitable individuals and organizations. We have another street shooter here, you know the one, who has been doing this kind of social documentary reportage in HDR, but he started out in the 1970's shooting B&W film. B&W versus color is a big decision in this genre I think; the news media today insists on color: no color toning allowed, no weird processing for media. Independent shooters not affiliated with media outlets still often work in B&W.


----------



## MSnowy

I find the picture interesting. The dress jacket worn with shorts and sneakers tells a lot about this individuals existence. My area of MA. doesn't have homeless people living on the street so images like these shows parts of the world that I rarely see. Very similar to other pictures I seen on here of kids living and working in sud-standard conditions around the world.


----------



## Kendall9991

I like the picture. I think BW worked better than color would have. 

On the note of ethics.....Who gives a sh*t? Maybe people will quit ignoring the fact that people are going hungry etc. in our own country (Instead of helping those other ones). Pictures like these are the ones I really like. They're real life.


----------



## snerd

I sometimes miss threads when I'm scanning posts. I missed this one. Then I just happened to notice it had 48 replies, so I knew I needed to have a look! 

I'm on the side of, I don't get the uproar about it?! Everyone that is so concerned about the passed-out drunk, why aren't you down there helping him out?! I'm sure in real life, he's an upstanding, fine man! The concern for his "esteem" seems a little bogus to me. But then, I grew up with drunks, alcoholics, idiots and just all-around scumbags. I never had the chance to simply just casually "observe" them from my ivory tower. So maybe I don't understand the feigned concern for him. It looks to me that the op saw him, snapped it, and that was that! It's an "okay" street shot. IMHO, of course.


----------



## Kendall9991

^I like this guy^


----------



## JacaRanda

Just wondering if the OP had chosen a different title, what direction the thread would have taken.  'Drunken Guy', 'Passed Out' or 'After the Party', anything without the word homeless.  Could the steps he is on possibly lead to his home?  Too drunk to make it to the front door.  Is it possible?


----------



## snerd

Well, shoot! I don't do "diplomacy" very well, do I? And that's something I really DO try to work on! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect that. I went off on a rant when I should have just critiqued the photo as stated by the mod. My apologies.


----------



## Trever1t

I didn't have the patience to read the whole thread, no apologies.

EVERYTHING ON EARTH and HEAVEN is and should be photographed. I've seen images I didn't like, crime scene images, fatalities, street, starving children in 4th world countries PRIZE WINNING battlefield images!  EVERYTHING. How can you even begin to criticize a photographer bold enough to take an image of a man on the street?


----------



## acparsons

proberok said:


> View attachment 80511



Interesting shot, did you use a wide angle lens? It's not as sharp as I like, there is a gray blur in the lower left corner that I would get rid of, not enough space in the lower right corner, and overall the photo feels cramped. This scene had more potential, but I feel that this photo did not bring that out.


----------



## bc_steve

I'm not sure why there is such outrage over the subject matter here.  It's street photography.  Pictures of strangers in their daily life.  This guy is not at his best, but I don't see why he should be exempt from having his photo taken in public.


----------



## acparsons

The_Traveler said:


> Bender said:
> 
> 
> 
> why are you comfortable shooting a helpless person and not a non helpless one?
> 
> To me, that's the question one must ask oneself.  It's not for me to judge the OP.  The OP must look in the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not as nice as you.
> I am comfortable judging the photographer as he seems to be taking pictures of the helpless.
Click to expand...


I think this is a bit hypocritical. Considering there are helpless/homeless people in some of your photographs. I must say that the photos are very striking, but some people do not know how to compose as well as you.


----------



## mmaria

It's completely ridiculous that we have the same conversation whenever someone post "this kind" of photo. 

I don't like the picture, I've already said that. That's my opinion and it's simple as that. I do question ethics here because I think the subject could be presented in a much better way. I don't see that the photographer was thinking about all the troubles of the society while taking this picture, he just simply approached the guy, and pressed the shutter. 

Do I care that much to try to raise the moral question? No. OP is not the first and certainly not the last person who will snap a picture of a homeless person "right in the face" kind of way.

If the subject was perfectly happy man lying on the stairs and shot the same way, I would still say "I don't like it, because I don't like the way how he shot the subject"


----------



## timor

mmaria said:


> It's completely ridiculous that we have the same conversation whenever someone post "this kind" of photo.
> 
> I don't like the picture, I've already said that. That's my opinion and it's simple as that. I do question ethics here because I think the subject could be presented in a much better way. I don't see that the photographer was thinking about all the troubles of the society while taking this picture, he just simply approached the guy, and pressed the shutter.
> 
> Do I care that much to try to raise the moral question? No. OP is not the first and certainly not the last person who will snap a picture of a homeless person "right in the face" kind of way.
> 
> If the subject was perfectly happy man lying on the stairs and shot the same way, I would still say "I don't like it, because I don't like the way how he shot the subject"


Your opinion is perfectly OK, it is not a pleasant picture. Yet, you didn't ignore the thread, :thumbup:. Maybe "conversation" similar to others with pictures of the same kind, yet those are the best discussions where we talk not only about pixel count, but about function of photography in our society. We just can't leave it to others (politicians, philosophers or just men with guns) to make that decision. However they would like to and they try.


----------



## proberok

mmaria said:


> It's completely ridiculous that we have the same conversation whenever someone post "this kind" of photo.
> 
> I don't like the picture, I've already said that. That's my opinion and it's simple as that. I do question ethics here because I think the subject could be presented in a much better way. I don't see that the photographer was thinking about all the troubles of the society while taking this picture, he just simply approached the guy, and pressed the shutter.
> 
> Do I care that much to try to raise the moral question? No. OP is not the first and certainly not the last person who will snap a picture of a homeless person "right in the face" kind of way.
> 
> If the subject was perfectly happy man lying on the stairs and shot the same way, I would still say "I don't like it, because I don't like the way how he shot the subject"




Does this make you feel better? Nice safe distance.Would you walk around him if you needed to get on the train?


----------



## proberok

snerd said:


> I sometimes miss threads when I'm scanning posts. I missed this one. Then I just happened to notice it had 48 replies, so I knew I needed to have a look!
> 
> I'm on the side of, I don't get the uproar about it?! Everyone that is so concerned about the passed-out drunk, why aren't you down there helping him out?! I'm sure in real life, he's an upstanding, fine man! The concern for his "esteem" seems a little bogus to me. But then, I grew up with drunks, alcoholics, idiots and just all-around scumbags. I never had the chance to simply just casually "observe" them from my ivory tower. So maybe I don't understand the feigned concern for him. It looks to me that the op saw him, snapped it, and that was that! It's an "okay" street shot. IMHO, of course.




yeah i didnt think it was such a great photo either, it was just something i saw and snapped a few. People on facebook love it tho. One person wrote "Okay. So the subject being what it is..this is a ****ing outstanding photographProbe. Wonderful composition, reminiscent of Diane Arbus or Mapplethorpe."


----------



## mmaria

timor said:


> Your opinion is perfectly OK, it is not a pleasant picture. Yet, you didn't ignore the thread, :thumbup:. Maybe "conversation" similar to others with pictures of the same kind, yet those are the best discussions where we talk not only about pixel count, but about function of photography in our society. We just can't leave it to others (politicians, philosophers or just men with guns) to make that decision. However they would like to and they try.


I'm not ignoring these kind of threads because I'm interested in the story in front of and behind the lens.



proberok said:


> Does this make you feel better? Nice safe distance.Would you walk around him if you needed to get on the train?



I actually really like this picture... again, simple as that. It's just my opinion. I think this photograph is much better than the first one regarding composition, pp, the photographer way of presenting the scene...
And I would probably walk around him. Would I be calm and relaxed, probably not.


----------



## limr

proberok said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's completely ridiculous that we have the same conversation whenever someone post "this kind" of photo.
> 
> I don't like the picture, I've already said that. That's my opinion and it's simple as that. I do question ethics here because I think the subject could be presented in a much better way. I don't see that the photographer was thinking about all the troubles of the society while taking this picture, he just simply approached the guy, and pressed the shutter.
> 
> Do I care that much to try to raise the moral question? No. OP is not the first and certainly not the last person who will snap a picture of a homeless person "right in the face" kind of way.
> 
> If the subject was perfectly happy man lying on the stairs and shot the same way, I would still say "I don't like it, because I don't like the way how he shot the subject"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make you feel better? Nice safe distance.Would you walk around him if you needed to get on the train?
> 
> 
> View attachment 80689
Click to expand...


Actually, I do like that picture a lot better than the first one. Not because of the 'safe distance' but because of the story it tells that the first one doesn't. The first one was tightly cropped around the man and it said, "Check out this dude passed out. Isn't he pathetic?" This one, though, has many more layers. He's at the bottom of the stairs with a light at the top, symbolizing some ideal or "Heaven" or "Civilized Society" that he's unable to get to. That's where you take the train home or to work - two things he doesn't have. His posture and position is one of despair. He's on the bottom steps, so he's tried to make it up but just couldn't for whatever reason and has collapsed from the effort. 

And right next to him is an H&R Block sign, though we can only see "H&R B-" before it gets cut off - money, power, opportunity, comfort, respectability...all cut off from him, all out of his reach.

This one makes a much more powerful statement whereas the first one...well, the first one is uncomfortable but we don't know why. Sure, sometimes there's a value in making people uncomfortable, but that shouldn't be the end of the story. There should still be some purpose to it. "Hey, you made people feel and that's all you have to do!" Well, I don't think it's that simple. Shock for its own sake is a one-note. Shock to send a message has continuing value.


----------



## Browncoat

limr said:


> Actually, I do like that picture a lot better than the first one. Not because of the 'safe distance' but because of the story it tells that the first one doesn't. The first one was tightly cropped around the man and it said, "Check out this dude passed out. Isn't he pathetic?" This one, though, has many more layers. He's at the bottom of the stairs with a light at the top, symbolizing some ideal or "Heaven" or "Civilized Society" that he's unable to get to. That's where you take the train home or to work - two things he doesn't have. His posture and position is one of despair. He's on the bottom steps, so he's tried to make it up but just couldn't for whatever reason and has collapsed from the effort.



Just finished reading this thread, and I agree. Couldn't have put it better myself, actually. I like this new submission FAR better than the original, not that the original was bad, but it just doesn't tell the whole story like this one does.

RE: the social taboo associated with this type of photography. This forum has a well-known reputation for nastiness and backbiting, but it's a mistake to moderate this discussion. It needs to happen. You don't have to take photos like this, and you don't have to like them. But they need to exist. The world is a much bigger and meaner place than your own personal comfort zone.


----------



## mmaria

Browncoat said:


> This forum has a well-known reputation for nastiness and backbiting


 What!? TPF has that kind of reputation? No.  I simply don't believe it 


but I do I agree with the rest of your post


----------



## proberok

at the end of the day, it's just a photo. I take thousands of them every month.


----------



## tirediron

proberok said:


> Does this make you feel better? Nice safe distance.Would you walk around him if you needed to get on the train?
> 
> 
> View attachment 80689



This is an excellent street image; I think it does need a little fine-tuning (leveling/perspective, shadow detail), and it might make a strong monocrhome, but this has everything that the original image lacked.


----------



## timor

^^^ TBH, that ^^^ looks staged. It is not, I know. Good photographic work. Perfect theatrical choreography and composition. 
"To be, or not to be" sounds in my ears. Wow, it fits ! :cheer: The light, the mood, pure Rembrandt. It is not homeless guy anymore, just tired guy "waiting" for the next train.

( Looks it took me way to long to write my post  I am referring to image from post #60)


----------



## sashbar

proberok said:


> View attachment 80689




This is a great image. The first one did not really impressed me graphically to be honest. This one is much deeper in more that one sense.


----------



## JacaRanda

Full circle again.  It's like the beauty of photography is also it's curse; some general rules of thumb, and everything after that is subjective.


----------



## hamlet

Very powerful picture that conveys everything to the viewer. That's a success in my book.


----------



## Britanica

This is an example of one of those photos that is both beautiful, slightly disturbing, and equally sad. 
Regardless how it makes you feel, it makes you feel and that is art


----------

