Social Statement - San Francisco

bobmielke · August 6, 2011

Some of my best photographs while on vacation were taken at dusk, walking the docks along the San Francisco Bay. Sadly, one of the saddest was also taken at the same location and time. Homeless folks claim their night time benches quickly, competition was steep. We live in a society of plenty yet there is an underground society largely ignored in this land of opportunity.

"Feet"

bfjr · August 6, 2011

Hey Bob

I do agree with what you said but to me the image does not convey that.

Richard · August 7, 2011

bfjr wrote: »

I do agree with what you said but to me the image does not convey that.

I agree with Ben. It could just be a tired tourist. It's not a bad pic, though. Maybe just change the title.

bobmielke · August 7, 2011

Richard wrote: »

I agree with Ben. It could just be a tired tourist. It's not a bad pic, though. Maybe just change the title.

You or Ben were not there. The title stands.

Richard · August 7, 2011

bobmielke wrote: »

You or Ben were not there. The title stands.

Neither of us are questioning that it is what you said it is. The point is that the image itself doesn't tell that story. It may to you because you have the memory of the whole context, but the viewer only knows what's in the frame.

Edit: On rereading I noticed the "Feet" above the pic, which I missed before. If that's the title, not "Social Statement," then I apologize for misunderstanding. It's an entirely appropriate title.

Molsondog · August 7, 2011

Sorry, Bob, but this picture is a nice photo but I agree with other posters that it could be anything from a tired tourist to someone just enjoying the day on the bench. I don't get any social statement. I do get "Feet" because that's what it is: Feet. It seems to lack context for me.

Flowerman · August 7, 2011

Social statement and photo don't jive - great pair of shoes - perfect pants - come on this is a tired tourist - photographer IMO.

willard3 · August 7, 2011

I agree with you Bob, get the title and like the picture.

When was the last time you saw someone sleeping on a public bench who wasn't homeless/indigent?

bfjr · August 7, 2011

bobmielke wrote: »

You or Ben were not there. The title stands.

Oh Bob you don't know me and I have been there.
Again this is a nice Still Life but it does not make any Social Statement about anything.

Maybe in Frisco the Homeless dress like that but here in LA
those shoes and pants would not last the night.
They would be stolen or sold for a quick fix of whatever ails him.

Normally I don't give a rats pitut about "Titles", I'm interested in your Image.
This one however hit a nerve, being Homeless is a tough row to hoe in fact Jail Time
is a vacation for the Homeless!!

M38A1 · August 7, 2011

I don't see the connection between the social statement and the image other then the printed words which tie the two together. You were there, we weren't so we have to take your word on that part.

As for the image, yep. It's feet. As a solo image I just don't get much out of it. It's somewhat interesting, but I don't ponder what it means, or it doesn't tell me anything other than the title "Feet". If it were part of a series of three or so images as companion to your social statement, it would probably work better.

I do however like the snapshot/rounded vignette post treatment.

lizzard_nyc · August 8, 2011

willard3 wrote: »

I agree with you Bob, get the title and like the picture.

When was the last time you saw someone sleeping on a public bench who wasn't homeless/indigent?

How do you know they were even sleeping?
When I go down to Miami I usually will recline back on a bench and enjoy the sun while the kids play in the park. I see it around here too, quite often, during lunch breaks etc. It's hard to tell from this shot though that they are homeless.

I do agree also that it's a nice shot of shoes and a bench.

lizzard_nyc · August 8, 2011

bfjr wrote: »

Oh Bob you don't know me and I have been there.
Again this is a nice Still Life but it does not make any Social Statement about anything.

Maybe in Frisco the Homeless dress like that but here in LA
those shoes and pants would not last the night.
They would be stolen or sold for a quick fix of whatever ails him.

Normally I don't give a rats pitut about "Titles", I'm interested in your Image.
This one however hit a nerve, being Homeless is a tough row to hoe in fact Jail Time
is a vacation for the Homeless!!

i thought the same thing about the nice shoes and jeans--definately not like the homeless here. These are nice and clean, I would have never thought homeless or down on their luck.

dbveto · August 8, 2011

willard3 wrote: »

I agree with you Bob, get the title and like the picture.

When was the last time you saw someone sleeping on a public bench who wasn't homeless/indigent?

Actually I just did that last weekend I had a long day was waiting for a bus to get loaded and I stretched on a bench and snoozed for about 15 min.

I agree with the others on the Photo does not convey "Social Statement - San Francisco" to me.

Molsondog · August 8, 2011

One more thing. The last I heard it was considered inappropriate to photograph homeless folks. I for one make that a rule. Homeless people and children are off limits as the prime subject of Street shots.

Comments, please, from those better versed in the genre.

bdcolen · August 8, 2011

bobmielke wrote: »

You or Ben were not there. The title stands.

Bob, your response here makes me wonder why you posted in the first place. If you get responses that say "sorry, but the pixels you posted fail to convey the message in your title," you really need to step back from what you saw and felt, and simply look at your image as an image. And as an image, it does not say "San Francisco Bay," or "homeless person," "homeless person staking out a place to sleep," or "social statement." What the pixels say is "guy with that look to be a relatively new, could be expensive, pair of leather boots and a pretty typical pair of jeans stretched out on a bench somewhere near water." Period. End of story.

This is a trap we all fall into when we get fired up about something we see, and then shoot it in a way that is meaningful to us and weassume will be meaningful to everyone else.

This photo does tell a story - or stories - but none of them necessarily have anything to do with homelessness and San Francisco.

Sorry
B. D.

bdcolen · August 8, 2011

willard3 wrote: »

I agree with you Bob, get the title and like the picture.

When was the last time you saw someone sleeping on a public bench who wasn't homeless/indigent?

There is absolutely nothing in this photo to even suggest that this person is sleeping. He could be reading the paper. He could be reading a book. He could be soaking up the sun. He could be dead. Oh, okay, he also could be sleeping. But there is no way for us to know that he is doing any of those things. All we see are feet stick out beyond the end of a bench.

bdcolen · August 8, 2011

Molsondog wrote: »

One more thing. The last I heard it was considered inappropriate to photograph homeless folks. I for one make that a rule. Homeless people and children are off limits as the prime subject of Street shots.

Comments, please, from those better versed in the genre.

I'm the one who feels strongly about not shooting homeless folks unless your photo can somehow make a real statement about the condition - which such photos rarely do. But no one has died and left me in charge

, so that's only a "rule" for the students in my classes. As to kids...they have been subjects of street photography since virtually the first day someone carried a camera into the street. And I'd bet it's safe to say that all of the greats of street photography have photographed children. That said, allot of parents get extremely upset if a stranger photographs their children. However - it is certainly legal, and I believe most photographers would say that it is ethical, to photograph children in public places.

B. D.

bobmielke · August 8, 2011

Molsondog wrote: »

One more thing. The last I heard it was considered inappropriate to photograph homeless folks. I for one make that a rule. Homeless people and children are off limits as the prime subject of Street shots.

Comments, please, from those better versed in the genre.

You must be a stinking Republican.

bobmielke · August 8, 2011

I can't believe this whole slant has dominated this thread. You folks really missed the point. Please, will someone please lock this thread or delete it before I get upset. Excuse me for living or breathing. This is ridiculous!

dbveto · August 8, 2011

Next time post your shot then add the line.
"Please No Comments or Critique "

Richard · August 8, 2011

bobmielke wrote: »

I can't believe this whole slant has dominated this thread. You folks really missed the point. Please, will someone please lock this thread or delete it before I get upset. Excuse me for living or breathing. This is ridiculous!

Bob,
What is the point we have missed? I'm sure most of us here have a great deal of compassion for the homeless and deplore the social conditions that permit such things to happen. But we are mainly here to talk about images, and that's what I see people doing.

bfjr · August 8, 2011

bobmielke wrote: »

I can't believe this whole slant has dominated this thread. You folks really missed the point. Please, will someone please lock this thread or delete it before I get upset. Excuse me for living or breathing. This is ridiculous!

Gee Bob I thought you came to share and receive input on what you share.

I feel for you, Bob but I stand by my original reply.

M38A1 · August 8, 2011

bobmielke wrote: »

I can't believe this whole slant has dominated this thread. You folks really missed the point. Please, will someone please lock this thread or delete it before I get upset. Excuse me for living or breathing. This is ridiculous!

Looking back at your other posts in PJ and the constructive critiques provided, there seems to be an constant issue with anyone posting contrary to your thought process. And you say we missed the point? Look, I have no dog in this other than what I see. I'm no expert, yet with the critiques I get from this established group I learn from and try to do better. It's not a bad approach to take.

bdcolen · August 8, 2011

Good Lord, Bob, "a stinking Republican?" Because he doesn't think it's right to take photos of homeless people? Really? Wow. Actually, though I have been a registered Democrat since turning 18, I don't think it's right to photograph homeless people because I believe that in most instances, to do so is to take advantage of them. We all know that many unfortunate individuals are homeless. We see them every day if we live in vaguely urban areas. But what do most photographs of them tell us? Less than nothing. They are, in fact, the definition of "cheap shots."

I think this says it all.

sara505 · August 8, 2011

What, exactly, does banned user mean, anyway? This guy sounds awfully familiar...can anyone say, "misterb?"

Richard · August 8, 2011

Banned users have violated Dgrin rules and lose the privilege of posting here.

sara505 · August 8, 2011

Richard wrote: »

Banned users have violated Dgrin rules and lose the privilege of posting here.

Okay, so is this past tense, or present tense, or what? This guy is now banned, so we only see posts up to and including a couple of days ago, and now he's not allowed to post henceforth but his posts remain?

Andy · August 8, 2011

Thread closed. OP banned for life, for abusive comments.