The unseen

Sam · February 12, 2011

They are everywhere across this once very rich and prosperous nation. No one looks at them, no human interaction. They are as close to invisible as one can get while sitting out in the open.

You want to help but in most cases you can not. It is a choice, conscience, or unconscious. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness.............a host of explanations, rationalizations and even excuses.

But then again...................should a catastrophe, strike, the electric grid gone, the cold and dark all about your shared urban environment, then my friends while the "normal city dwellers" are cowering in fear, wailing for someone from FEMA to rescue them, then you will be invisible to him while he tucks himself in for a comfy night with all his treasured possessions.

Sam

DonRicklin · February 12, 2011

Interesting shot, but it seems over processed for Street & PJ, to me!

Don

Sam · February 12, 2011

DonRicklin wrote: »

Interesting shot, but it seems over processed for Street & PJ, to me!

Don

Street PJ has processing rules? I didn't know that. Can you point me to them?

Thanks!!

Sam

sara505 · February 12, 2011

It is an interesting shot, Sam. Processing and commentary aside, it's a cut above most shots of bums. What makes it for me are the people, above, on another level, in another world - literally and photographically.

The processing adds a dream-like quality.

DonRicklin · February 12, 2011

Sam wrote: »

Street PJ has processing rules? I didn't know that. Can you point me to them?

Thanks!!

Sam

Not exactly rules, but, maybe, expectations..... I'm sure others will jump in on this.

(I hope)

Don

Richard · February 13, 2011

Sam wrote: »

Street PJ has processing rules? I didn't know that. Can you point me to them?

Thanks!!

Sam

No rules here, Sam. There are sometimes differing opinions about what degree of manipulation makes for the strongest image. If an image is meant as photojournalism, the rules are stricter than if it is meant as fine art, but I think most people understand that distinction.

I rather like the white vignette in this one because it reminds me of those really foggy days in the Bay Area.

Eddy · February 13, 2011

Hi Sam:
The shot i find also gives the person a lonely feeling, and locked into his own world, where you bring out all the words that you have described,
really a sad situation , Thank you..

forget the politics!!!! let the picture talk

aquaticvideographer · February 13, 2011

Eddy wrote: »

forget the politics!!!! let the picture talk

Usually I agree but in this case, I think Sam's narrative sets up the picture nicely.

Sam, I really like the picture. It's very atmospheric, and as an image linked to your words, I think it's quite beautiful, if sad, as a story.

Nyarthlopic · February 13, 2011

Sam, that is a very cool picture. You bring out a major problem in this country and do so in a very sensitive way. To raise awareness of the homeless problems across the country, the company I work for put silhouettes of homeless people in our downtown area. They were in various poses and what-not. Looking at your shot, I wish that I'd have gone out to photograph some of those silhouettes.

As far as the processing comments go, I think it adds a certain element to the photo. That said, I'd liked to see a straight up b&w version of it.

bdcolen · February 13, 2011

I've said this before and I'll undoubtedly say it again: In all my classes I have three rules:
Rule 1 - There are no rules. No 'rule of thirds.' No rules that might limit your vision;
That said, there are two more rules:
2. The No Bums Rule. No photos of homeless people unless a., you want to do your class project on a particular homeless person or group of persons, get to know them, and tell their story with your images; or b., your photo in some way, usually through juxtaposition, makes a real statement about the homeless or state of homelessness.
3. That's the 'why do you think they're called horizon's rule,' and I'll save that for for another time.

Obviously my rules do not apply here, as this is not my forum. But if it were, the 'no bums' rule - with it's exceptions - would apply. Sam, I do not for a nano-second doubt your good intentions. But this photo fails to deliver on them, and therefore requires your mini-essay about homelessness. But neither the photo nor the explanation tell us anything we don't know from looking around us, reading the daily paper, or turning on the evening news - if anyone does that anymore. You've got a photo here of a homeless person with all his/her stuff, behind a wall, and people on the other side of the walll. But there isn't a particularly sharp contrast between the homeless person and the people on the other side of the wall - both are in the fog you created; both are faceless; both appear to be wearing dark or darkish clothing. All we have here is what you saw as an urban scene, but then turned into something no one, anywhere, had ever seen by using selective color and the fake fog.

How might this have been an exception to the 'no bums' rule?

Suppose, for a moment, that rather than anonymous figures in dark clothing on the other side of the wall there was a gathering of colorfully dressed party goers, a California cocktail party, with waitresses passing trays of drinks and food, serving as the backdrop for this pathetic scene in the foreground. Now that would visually make a very strong statement, really shoving in our faces the sharp dividing line between haves and have nots, underscoring the willingness of so many haves to turn their backs on the have nots.

But as it is, it's just another shot of a 'bum.' Sorry.

Internaut · February 13, 2011

Nice capture.
Reminds me of some of the things I saw in Tokyo when I visited a few years ago. Some people there just drop out of the rat race and become "unseen" unless you come across them by accident (or are looking for them).

anonymouscuban · February 15, 2011

Sam,

I think this is a great shot, minus the vignette. I don't think the shot needs it.

Sam · February 15, 2011

Thanks for all who commented. This image did generate some comments, critique, and differences of opinion.

Therefore some level of success.

Now the only question I have is if "bums" are off limits to photographers, who is going to take photos of politicians?

Sam

zoomer · February 15, 2011

Thanks for the reminder Sam. Amazing to see how some people can live like this in the midst of plenty.

Homeless people aren't off limits to photographers they are part of our human experience, just like people who are photographed in a famine, or people who are photographed in a war area, or people who are photographed in a subway, or people who are walking dow the street, or ...........

Nice shot.

sara505 · February 15, 2011

I understand what BD is saying, and I often agree with him, but not this time because I think it's a good photograph that goes beyond the trivial, is well composed, and tells a story, even w/o the commentary. There was a cheap shot of a bum near a beach a couple of months ago, for example, that missed the mark - greatly, I thought - no matter how many ways people tried to slice it and dice it. And while I don't always like - usually, can't stand the chit-chat - I enjoyed Sam's commentary and think, all-in-all, it is a decent stand-alone photo-essay with an interesting interpretation of the matter.

bdcolen · February 15, 2011

Sam wrote: »

Thanks for all who commented. This image did generate some comments, critique, and differences of opinion.

Therefore some level of success.

Now the only question I have is if "bums" are off limits to photographers, who is going to take photos of politicians?

Sam

rofl

Richard · February 15, 2011

Sam wrote: »

Now the only question I have is if "bums" are off limits to photographers, who is going to take photos of politicians?

Sam

Lobbyists.

W.W. Webster · February 15, 2011

DonRicklin wrote: »

Interesting shot, but it seems over processed for Street & PJ, to me!

'Street' and 'PJ' are not synonymous. Any 'rules' applying to one do not necessarily apply to the other.

bdcolen · February 16, 2011

W.W. Webster wrote: »

'Street' and 'PJ' are not synonymous. Any 'rules' applying to one do not necessarily apply to the other.

Absolutely true. But, by and large, street photography is about capturing real life as it is lived in public places, not post capture creation of things that never existed. But rules? Nope.

Richard · February 16, 2011

bdcolen wrote: »

Absolutely true. But, by and large, street photography is about capturing real life as it is lived in public places, not post capture creation of things that never existed. But rules? Nope.

Isn't dodging and burning creating light that didn't exist?

bdcolen · February 16, 2011

Actually not - it's simply working with what's already been captured. You can't bring up details that aren't there. ;-) All burning and dodging is doing - or 'acceptable' burning and dodging in a photo journalism sense, is adjusting contrast of different areas to - hopefully to end up with what you saw when you released the shutter. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-)

thoth · February 16, 2011

We all have a set of rules which we attempt to follow and, subsequently, superimpose onto our fellow photographers. At the end of the day, though, we either like it or we don't.

B.D. doesn't like cheap bum shots. I had never thought of it until he came around but I tend to side with him on this one. I think it should be avoided in the same way opportunistic wildlife photographers taking advantage of those poor ducks should be avoided. Photographing a duck is cheap and easy and you can do it from the comfort of your favorite park bench. NOT photographing ducks is a step in the direction of being an amazing wildlife photographer.

Similarly, not taking the easy street shots is a step in the right direction of being an amazing street photographer; bums, fat people eating ice cream, hairy guy in the speedo: all easy and rarely eye opening.

Sam,

Since this is your thread I won't avoided commenting on your photo. It doesn't do anything for me personally. I can see a much closer shot of the same scene (maybe with a few more folks up top) working out, though. And the vignette distracts from what you do have as far as I'm concerned.

I am glad to see some folks from other parts of the forum coming in to play though!

Sam · February 16, 2011

All are free to comment as they will. The fact that people see the image and have strong enough feelings to post, (ether for or against), to me is success.

I will however respond to the "cheap bum shot" comment!

I don't know where you come from but where I come from a 5D II, lenses, computer hardware and software ain't cheap!

Sam

thoth · February 16, 2011

Sam wrote: »

I will however respond to the "cheap bum shot" comment!

I don't know where you come from but where I come from a 5D II, lenses, computer hardware and software ain't cheap!

Sam

rofl

I do appreciate that you have a sense of humor, Sam.

sara505 · February 19, 2011

thoth wrote: »

rofl

I do appreciate that you have a sense of humor, Sam.

Without humor, we're doomed.

puzzledpaul · February 19, 2011

thoth wrote: »

I think it should be avoided in the same way opportunistic wildlife photographers taking advantage of those poor ducks should be avoided. Photographing a duck is cheap and easy and you can do it from the comfort of your favorite park bench. NOT photographing ducks is a step in the direction of being an amazing wildlife photographer.

Now I know where I'm going wrong - all I need is a park bench offering the pov I want and all will be well - no more muddy clothes / waders / custom gear etc

As with any (other) genre, I think it's quite difficult to produce something 'different' with common(place) subjects.

Re Sam's image, the thing that immediately struck me was the amount of kit the individual had ...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=189538

pp

thoth · February 19, 2011

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Now I know where I'm going wrong - all I need is a park bench offering the pov I want and all will be well - no more muddy clothes / waders / custom gear etc

See how the street forum just can't help but teach us things? :ivar

puzzledpaul wrote: »

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=189538

Now that's a beautiful duck. I'm guessing there was no park bench involved.

The unseen

Comments