- This topic is empty.
Mobile home
-
I think this type of shot should show us the people more closely.
I done some crop what I think is better.
Thanks Roberto I totally agree. I would have liked to get closer in camera but I was in a strange land and didnt want to intrude.
This guy was deeply engrossed in a book and as he read each word he would strike through it. The page was full of words with pen marks through them.
i was afraid to crop out to much of the image because of the grain, but have to say your crop works well.
Thanks John.I really don’t like this kind of picture. I don’t think it is beautiful or informative or questioning or shocking or engaging, or anything really, other than an intrusion into someone else’s misery, by someone who is unwilling to get up close and actually look. The subject looks like he could be asleep, and therefore utterly defenceless.
There is no attempt to tell his story, or give him a chance to rebut the accusatory distance to him- Its almost like a photograph of a smell, which is strange, because its the photographer who is making that decision for us. We don’t know that; without a close up its unlikely that the photographer knows that, but that is (for me) the implication of the distance to the subject.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe this is the opening shot of a series (check out a short crit of that famous Dorothea Lange shot at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/fsa/lang.html) in which case I apologize massively, but for me this is an example of taking something from someone who has nothing, for no apparent reason.joseph
I’ve just gone back to the post, and I’ve read about about reading the book, and the striking out, but I think my comment still stands- none of this is apparent from the photograph. If this was the story, then this is what should have been shown.
sorry to be so negative-jb7 wrote:
I really don’t like this kind of picture. I think it is …….an intrusion into someone else’s misery, by someone who is unwilling to get up close and actually look.
This is harsh and unjustified. The photographer has kept a respectful distance. Most people ‘get close’ by using a long lens in this type of shot, but not everyone has a long lens. And how do you know the subject is in misery? Doesn’t look like it to me.
jb7 wrote:
The subject looks like he could be asleep, and therefore utterly defenceless.
The subject is awake and reading a book. Therefore the person who is unwilling to get up close and actually look, is yourself? What point are you making about being defenceless? Does he for some reason have to defend himself from the photographer?
jb7 wrote:
There is no attempt to tell his story, or give him a chance to rebut the accusatory distance to him……but for me this is an example of taking something from someone who has nothing, for no apparent reason.
The photograph tells his story. I think you have taken far too much out of it, and got on your high horse about it. The photographer has probably wisely not intruded (despite your criticism to the contrary). You are almost suggesting that the photographer has taken this man’s dignity from him which is plain wrong. He has shown respect and he has taken nothing from him.
Just my 2cents.
:o
Brandyman, congratulations on your place in the competition,
now, to register your two cents-Ideally I would like to hear some other opinions; this picture has been viewed enough times, and most people have chosen not to comment at all. Perhaps they’re right. I don’t want to get into a ping pong match about this one, I have stated my opinion and that hasn’t changed. There were no horses involved.
Some pictures have to be judged on wider criteria than just sharpness. it should be no surprise to anyone on this site that photography can evoke strong reactions, that is its power.
Anyone who submits a picture for c&c has to expect just that, especially if the photographs contain elements of social commentary. A photographer who publishes his work is inseparable from that work, from the decision to capture to the decision to upload.
The title of the photograph “Mobile Home” does nothing to suggest all the subsequent description and justification. It leads you to look at the photograph in a completely different way. Perhaps you have seen a much higher resolution copy than has been published here, and have seen for yourself what you describe, that the subject is awake and reading a book, but to me its not clear. A picture that needs excessive explanation is probably worth somewhat less than a thousand words.
Perhaps I am being harsh, but I am certainly not lacking justification. As the viewer I have no control over getting any closer to the picture than the photographer allows me. Getting closer to my monitor will not provide me with any more resolution. The “respectful distance” you talk about is anything but. This type of photograph would probably be better approached with a wide angle up close, not a long lens as you suggest. This would at least ensure engagement and complicity with the subject, as well as the book, and the striking through, which was, after all, what the photographer said he was interested in.
The picture patently does not tell his story, if it did, then why the description? I have taken as much as I can out of the picture, not far too much, as Brandyman suggests. This site is about photography, not illustration, and pictorial elements should not have to be described in words and parroted back, to use another animal metaphor. You yourself are not above criticizing pictures when invited to.
Most of the pictures uploaded to this site are of a non contentious nature, and very few seem to attract any criticism at all. I know that there are varying levels of expertise and experience across the boards. Encouragement is good, and will lead to lots more posts, but misplaced reassurances can be damaging if they lead us to lowering our own critical standards. Any criticism I make should be taken constructively, because that is the spirit in which it is offered. And I know for a fact that the one thing that is guaranteed to make my own pictures better is to leave more out.
To wjklewis, sorry, but I can’t engage with this picture at any level. Perhaps its the title which misled me in the first place.
I agree that photographs can be emotive, but I felt that your criticism was more of the photographer than the photograph? I thought it was unfair to accuse him of being unwilling to get close, and at the same time accuse him of intruding and taking something from him.
For me, ‘mobile home’ is the perfect title -the man seems to have all his earthly belongings packed in bags, hanging on a shopping trolley, right beside him. When he moves, he takes it with him, it probably never leaves him.
As you say, it would be interesting to hear other’s views!
Ross
addendum to joseph – At least you have the courage to stick to your convictions – don’t let anything I say discourage you from speaking your mind. We can agree, we can disagree – but it is good to exchange different views.
I was one who viewed this shot several times because I was not sure what my reaction to it was. I tend to sit on the fence a bit when it comes to images of social commentary. I like the image of the man in Paris though and I think that the capture and publication here perform a useful purpose. To me it is part of a documentary process which is in keeping with the photos of the American depression. I wish I now had photographs of a similar nature of the Dublin I grew up in during the 50s and 60s. Places like the cattle market on the North Circular Road and the Manor Street and Stoneybatter area in particular. The level of poverty in those days is difficult to remember – I recall families living on corn flakes at times.
My image here https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?p=9317&highlight=#9317 gave me the feeling that I was intruding on the lady in question too. She has been on the streets of Wexford for as long as I can remember and this is the only shot I have taken of her. But I would justify it by saying that people living on the streets of western European cities and towns are very much part of our environment and should be brought to the attention of us all. In my case the only way I have of bringing my images to public attention is by posting on web sites such as this.
I apologise for being uncharacteristically wordy (in writing) but I was keen to give my point of view.
In a way I think this should be a thread in itself ??
Its a very interesting topic to discuss away from the particular image in this post and I would be keen to explore it in more detail and ongoing. In terms of street photography sometimes you have to take the shot or loose it.. if you ask first you may loose what was powerful in the image in the first instance, however engaging a homeless person in the photograph can deliver more in terms of impact and interaction of the photo – Some of Ciaran’s photos demostrate this superbly partilucarly this one https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=545
My personal view is that a photographer should try to engage with the person if taking a photograph.. if possible/ appropriate .. but this isn’t always possible or desirable.. I like the fact that this topic has come up for debate and I think we do need to ask these questions every now and then… and just check our ethics.
I don’t find this image particularly engaging, but I don’t feel it is disresfectful either.
L
I’ve really enjoyed this thread. Two opposing arguments, very eloquently debated with no animosity (at the end ;) ). I shoot a lot on the streets and homeless people are a subject which I’ve shot quite a bit. To be perfectly honest, I use both approaches mentioned. In some cases I stand right back and use a long lens to capture the image and other times I go down, sit with the people and take shots up close. For me, both methods have their merits. The long lens I use to capture a moment, something which you can’t necessarily do if you get close. By approaching a subject and making them aware they’re being photographed can change the mood of a shot completely. Using a long lens allows you to capture them “in their environment” without intruding. However, I don’t see it as hiding, I’m in no way trying to hide from the subject or grab a shot secretly. Normally, when I have the shot, I will then approach the subject, show them the photo and ask them if it’s OK to keep it… quite often a few quid changes hands too. The second approach is where I sit and talk to them, asking them can I shoot them. These typically are more emotive because you see the subject up close, their eyes etc. I guess it takes a bit more balls from the photography point of view because you have to approach and shoot a stranger, but after that it’s just point and click. Again, normally a few quid changes hands.
To critque this image, I’m afraid I have to slightly side with Joseph. It appears to me like the photographer didn’t want to or was afraid to approach the subject. It’s shot from eye level (perhaps chest/waist) which gives me the impression of someone grabbing a snapshot of someones misery, rather than trying to portray it. I’s amazing, but kneeling down to get eye level with the subject would have given this a much better feel for me. It would feel like the photographer was engaging with the homeless guy, not afraid to be seen trying to capture him. As it is now, I get the impression (rightly or wrongly), that it was captured quickly, without the subjects consent/knowledge and then he moved on straight afterwards.
Shot wise, it’s a little flat and could do with a boost in contrast. Also, the background is just way too busy. A long lens, apart from the ethical debate about using it, would have helped throw the jeep out of focus as would have a wider aperture. I would tend to crop it a little tighter as Roberto has suggested, but perhaps not quite as tight as his version.
Glad to see you getting involved in this thread Ciaran!
A point I have made before, but is worth repeating – I hope my initial response has not been interpreted as animated – that’s the difficulty with posting mere words, no-one knows whether you are making your point calmly yet forcefully, or even quietly animated?? :wink:
That is why I often use little emoticons to try to show my intention.
PS I would add, that Joseph certainly seems to have taken my response in the manner intended.
Ciaran
I would also add that your critique of the composition is justified – the crop by Roberto improves the image no end. But I think your critique is of the photograph, and whilst it tells the photographer how better to do it next time, it does not come across as criticism of him for taking the photograph in the first place. I just thought Jospeph’s comments would put the photographer off trying this type of thing again, lest he got hung out to dry! :wink:Difficult to put into words, but someone tell me you understand what point I am making….. :lol:
brandyman wrote:
Ciaran
I would also add that your critique of the composition is justified – the crop by Roberto improves the image no end. But I think your critique is of the photograph, and whilst it tells the photographer how better to do it next time, it does not come across as criticism of him for taking the photograph in the first place. I just thought Jospeph’s comments would put the photographer off trying this type of thing again, lest he got hung out to dry! :wink:Difficult to put into words, but someone tell me you understand what point I am making….. :lol:
I understand :) It’s kind of an eerie feeling, agreeing with eachother on two separate subjects in the space of just a few days ;)
Interesting thread, first the picture:
I find the composition does not allow the viewer to focus on the subject (is it the trolley, the man or the car in the background). It has the potential to be a very emotive picture with a bag of narrative thrown in, just the angle of view needs to move to get the invisible threads between the trolley and the man reading his book (IMO).
The idea of shooting on the streets is close to my heart. If in doubt, shoot and then review/delete later is my current position. I did a series of homeless shots a few years ago (with one exception, I asked the subject), and gave the images to Shelter (homeless charity). I hope that we all keep recording things that make us want to change the World for the better.
All best
Si
Si is right, its all about composition. Not just graphically, but subjectively. The RV in the backround is just wrong, and without any real context the subject becomes a cipher, a clich?. I still come back to the title; perhaps if the description had accompanied the photo in the beginning I may have looked at it in a different way, rather than seeing it as a one-liner at someone else’s expense. Remember, the only person without an opinion here is the subject of the picture.
I would also agree with most of the posts regarding technique; if a shot presents itself, grab it, and decide later whether its useful, and respect other’s privacy where necessary. Ciar?n’s m.o. of engaging the subject and allowing a shoot to develop, obviously pays handsome dividends. Its also right to slip a few quid to a deserving model who finds himself standing on the wrong side of an expensive piece of glass. I’m reminded of the Punks in Covent Garden in the 80’s who made a healthy living modelling their mohawks for the tourists. Valuable consideration is not only for professional models.
I’m a little concerned that the photographer has not responded, my intention was to elicit a debate, not to alienate. I don’t usually photograph on the street myself, and when I do I’m not brave enough to tackle the meaty subjects; the little I’ve done recently has been more on the saccharine end of the spectrum. Maybe I’ll post one here soon, and I’d be most grateful if you could all rip it to shreds.
joseph
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
