Down and Out

PhotoDavid78

No one notices you when your down and out unless you're wearing a plaid jacket...

RyanS

I'm kind of bummed no one has commented on this photo yet. I think it has a lot going for it, both in terms of content and narrative. My favorite element are the vertical bars of the fence. I like the lines they create, the mood they add to the image, and how they separate the subject from the cars in the background.

PhotoDavid78

RyanS wrote: »

I'm kind of bummed no one has commented on this photo yet. I think it has a lot going for it, both in terms of content and narrative. My favorite element are the vertical bars of the fence. I like the lines they create, the mood they add to the image, and how they separate the subject from the cars in the background.

Thanks for your comments.

bdcolen

Suppose, for a moment, the man's name was RyanS''s Grandpa - would you like it as much and be as intriqued by the vertical bars? Just wondering.

PhotoDavid78

Bd, are you inferring that this photo is in some way unethical? I don't shoot homeless people for ethical reasons but this man was not homeless. I also made sure his face wasn't fully shot and I believe this photograph falls under documentary/street. Not all photos show the happy side of life.

RyanS

Yes BD, I would. And my Grandpa's expression, if in a similar pose, would be beloved by our family. If he were still alive, I'd take a similar shot of him any day of the week. I think it is great. Not crazy about the title, though. I get "exhaustion" more than "down and out". But maybe that is just me.

rainbow

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

Bd, are you inferring that this photo is in some way unethical? I don't shoot homeless people for ethical reasons but this man was not homeless. I also made sure his face wasn't fully shot and I believe this photograph falls under documentary/street. Not all photos show the happy side of life.

I inferred from your title that this subject was a bum/homeless person...

BTW, I do not like the vignetting in docum/street as it misrepresents what is seen. In this case, the back of the auto appears to be spray painted black.

TonyCooper

Granted I live in Florida...the "Mutia Escarpment" of the US...but that outfit in no way
suggests that the wearer is a bum or is homeless. That's a pretty snappy outfit for
the dinner at 4:00 pm crowd. When only one part of the ensemble is plaid, the wearer
is considered to be quite coordinated by the Metamucil set.

Lest anyone think that I am guilty of ageism in my thinking,
I am of that age even though my belt goes around my waist and
neither 12" above it or 12" below it. Although, I probably have a
shirt in my closet with a collar that wide. No double-knits, though.

I remain at a loss as to why someone is so distracted by a title that they can't
see the image for what it is.

lensmole

I am inclined to agree with B.D. and I think I would have left him a shred of privacy.

PhotoDavid78

lensmole wrote: »

I am inclined to agree with B.D. and I think I would have left him a shred of privacy.

If he were sitting on the bench and eating a box of chocolates then it would be ok?

PhotoDavid78

Sans Vignette

michswiss

All I've got to say is the non-vignette version is so much better.

lensmole

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

If he were sitting on the bench and eating a box of chocolates then it would be ok?

"Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see".

TonyCooper

I'm confused here. Is the subject a vulnerable and grief-stricken man, or just
an old guy dozing off on a park bench? How do we tell the difference?

We old guys do that, you know. Nod off.

PhotoDavid78

TonyCooper wrote: »

I'm confused here. Is the subject a vulnerable and grief-stricken man, or just
an old guy dozing off on a park bench? How do we tell the difference?

We old guys do that, you know. Nod off.

Perhaps if I changed the Title to "Afternoon Snooze" the photo wouldn't be so controversial. I did not at anytime disturb the man. I simply walked past and snapped a shot.

bdcolen

RyanS wrote: »

Yes BD, I would. And my Grandpa's expression, if in a similar pose, would be beloved by our family. If he were still alive, I'd take a similar shot of him any day of the week. I think it is great. Not crazy about the title, though. I get "exhaustion" more than "down and out". But maybe that is just me.

David and Ryan - David, I am not calling it unethical. I would, however, ask that anyone who makes this sort of image think long and hard about it, consider why they are taking it, and consider whether they are capturing a "slice of real life" that the viewer benefits from seeing, and whether that benefit outweighs what some might consider a lack of respect for the subject.

I would note that by your choice to apply vignetting as though the subject were in a dark, creepy tunnel, you made a decision that the image, by itself, wasn't particularly interesting. It is, after all, just an old guy on a bench napping, or sleeping one off. But when you applied the vignetting, it became 'dark,' brooding, somewhat creepy, and bears NO relationship to reality - and documentary photography is intended to capture moments of reality.

Then comes the question of whether this photo, of this man, truly captures this man, or is a moment in time that really doesn't tell us a thing about him. We don't, as I noted above, know whether he is sleeping, whether he is sleeping off a drunk, or, for that matter, whether he has been mugged and left for dead, or is in fact dead - a victim of a heart attack on the way to get his car, which is parked behind him. Yes, I deeply believe that ambiguity is not only good, but necessary in a good photograph - or in most good photographs. But that ambiguity should make me stop and think about the image, and wonder about it - this ambiguity does not.

And Ryan - your family might treasure this photo of your grandfather, but being far closer to his age than to yours, I can virtually guarantee you he would be mortified by it; it captures 'him' at his worst; it makes him look pathetic; it makes him look sad. Why would he want it take?

Finally, none of this is to say that we shouldn't photograph sleeping people. It's not to say that we shouldn't photograph people who are down and out. It's not to say we shouldn't take photographs that would embarrass the subject - if those photographs tell us something about the subject, or the group of people we feel the subject represents, that we might not know without seeing the photo. It all comes down to the two things we owe subjects, no matter who they are or what their station in life - honesty, and respect.

PhotoDavid78

BD we will have to agree to disagree, although i do agree about the vignette.

bdcolen

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

BD we will have to agree to disagree, although i do agree about the vignette.

The world would be a far better place if more people would agree to disagree.

MarkR

bdcolen wrote: »

The world would be a far better place if more people would agree to disagree.

I disagree with that statement.

rainbow

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

BD we will have to agree to disagree, although i do agree about the vignette.

bdcolen wrote: »

The world would be a far better place if more people would agree to disagree.

MarkR wrote: »

I disagree with that statement.

... or better if they agree to agree...

B. D. stated eloquently (and increased my understanding) his thoughts here. Even before he chimed in, I disliked the title because of the negative connotations associated with the title. It is okay to agree/disagree, but if I get some feedback that someone is offended by the title for good reasons, I would consider whether the title/whatever offended is important enough to the post to continue along that line.

Back to the shot: removing the vignetting is much improved. Interesting that the rear of the car is
patterned as is...

Photogbiker

Don't like the title as it presumes something, or pushes an interpretation on the viewer that may not be correct or may not be what they see ( as someone else said, I see a napping old man). Don't like the vignette because, as BD stated, it is not reality and again is forcing something on the viewer. Doesn't belong in street/doc/PJ work.

Now, I really like the shot. Love the "napping guy on a park bench" as Tony says some older gentlemen are wont to do. Love the clothes that say 'snappy style.....from 30+ years ago'. Probably pretty sharp when that jacket was new and he had just purchased it. Note the hat on the bench next to him.

I think the shot succeeds in the 'honesty' part (without vignette), and in the 'respect' portion without the title. "Sleeping Elder Gentleman" would have conveyed a whole different feeling going in. One more reason I think titles should be omitted, or very generically bland. "Man on Park Bench" would let the viewer make all the interpretations and show the respect of the subject. Just an honest shot of an older gentleman napping.

Please keep posting David, some nice work in your recent pics.

bdcolen

Thanks, Rainbow. Offended is a strong word, but i hope the comments made clear that it's the photo that i see as the real problem.

And by the way, this thread has beena very helpful, and the subject will definitely turn up in The Book, if it ever materializes.;-)