Your opinion - No bum rule broken

Juano

I usually follow 'to the letter' our unwritten rule, but I found the expression of this man extraordinary. Thoughts?

PhotoDavid78

Juano wrote: »

I usually follow 'to the letter' our unwritten rule, but I found the expression of this man extraordinary. Thoughts?

You're right about the expression and I like the portrait but for me it could be more contrasty. This is a bit too grey. Did he pose for you or did you catch this in the moment?

Juano

Thanks David,

He didn't pose, although he did make eye contact. You're right about the contrast, I have issues with my screen and what I see is not necessarily what people see... let's try this.

rainbow

There is nothing extraordinary about his expression. Many "bums" will have a weary tough life look and there is nothing here to suggest that the "no bum" rule should be broken.

Earache

I like it as a document of a moment in time for this Human Being - nice work Cristóbal.
IMO Cristóbal, The term "bum" is out-dated and using it (we all have done so) is likely more demeaning than the creation of an image, legitimately offered as a
document of Humanity in-situ. The world contains many "in-convenient truths" and a "rule" that seeks to prohibit the depiction of such
is not intellectually tenable on a wide scale - each photographer can decide for themselves if that subject matter is appropriate, and my reaction
to such material - as a viewer and a photographer - is based on my perception of the intent, dignity, and quality of the presentation, and - more importantly - I am not
willing to engage in the dogmatic censorship of ideas and knowledge. I believe in the adage that asserts - whether I like it or not - "one man's obscenity,
is another man's entertainment".... this seems to be in-escapable given the differences in Humans..... YMMV
Again, just my personal opinions - which invariably get me in trouble ;-)

Juano

Earache wrote: »

I like it as a document of a moment in time for this Human Being - nice work Cristóbal.
IMO Cristóbal, The term "bum" is out-dated and using it (we all have done so) is likely more demeaning than the creation of an image, legitimately offered as a
document of Humanity in-situ. The world contains many "in-convenient truths" and a "rule" that seeks to prohibit the depiction of such
is not intellectually tenable on a wide scale - each photographer can decide for themselves if that subject matter is appropriate, and my reaction
to such material - as a viewer and a photographer - is based on my perception of the intent, dignity, and quality of the presentation, and - more importantly - I am not
willing to engage in the dogmatic censorship of ideas and knowledge. I believe in the adage that asserts - whether I like it or not - "one man's obscenity,
is another man's entertainment".... this seems to be in-escapable given the differences in Humans..... YMMV
Again, just my personal opinions - which invariably get me in trouble ;-)

Rainbow, thank you for your comment and Eric for your very thoughtful reply. I agree with you, I used the term "bum" because this is what the "rule" has been called in this forum.

I think you nailed it, it is about preserving dignity. Here is my take on the topic. Those of us who are lucky enough not to be homeless have developed an expectation of privacy when we are in our own spaces. When we step out on to the street we surrender that expectation to a certain degree . A homeless person lives on the street, therefore, snapping a shot almost equates to an invasion of privacy, unless there is a story to tell i.e. an interesting interaction or if I was doing a documentary on homelesness.

Having said that, I saw this man and felt compelled to take the shot because, unlike Rainbow, I did find his expression fascinating.

michswiss

My gut says that the face is underexposed, making it difficult for me to engage with the subject. Can you dodge that area some?

Juano

michswiss wrote: »

My gut says that the face is underexposed, making it difficult for me to engage with the subject. Can you dodge that area some?

I can try, but it doesn't look underexposed on my screen. thanks for looking.

rainbow

It is VERY under exposed on the skin tone on my monitor. I suggest you go onto DGrin on another computer and compare with what you see, otherwise our comments do not make complete sense.

Juano

Thank you. I dodged the face and hands, I am also including the color version so you can get a sense of the starting point.

PhotoDavid78

I like the color version better

michswiss

Colour version works better for me as well. It still has a monochromatic sense to it, but improves the separation and small details in the clothing and background. That said, I would still try to lighten the face just a little more as well as possibly drop the saturation a smidge.

Juano

PhotoDavid78 wrote: »

I like the color version better

michswiss wrote: »

Colour version works better for me as well. It still has a monochromatic sense to it, but improves the separation and small details in the clothing and background. That said, I would still try to lighten the face just a little more as well as possibly drop the saturation a smidge.

Thanks for the comments, very useful. I agree that color is better and will follow your advice. I noticed the over saturation after I posted it.

jpope42

Color is MUCH better imo, because it brings out a lot of detail & subtleties I didn't notice in b&w.

Juano

jpope42 wrote: »

Color is MUCH better imo, because it brings out a lot of detail & subtleties I didn't notice in b&w.

Yes I agree it is an improvement. BW is not always the way to go, although it was my first choice.

Jaimor

Not too crazy about the first picture on here, but I love the added contrast as well as the color version. I think the color version is the best though. It gives it a more emotional feel I think.

Juano

Jaimor wrote: »

Not too crazy about the first picture on here, but I love the added contrast as well as the color version. I think the color version is the best though. It gives it a more emotional feel I think.

Thanks, I agree with you.

ajl

I like the photo and better in muted color.

In my opinion, that would never be a good rule to follow.

Also, please do not take this the wrong way, but as education. Using a word like 'bum' to describe an indigent person assumes a lot about that person. I have photographed dozens of homeless people, -almost always with permission. Sometimes not.. like with a girl covered in filth sleeping on a dirty concrete subway platform, -you can see in my NYC Streets Gallery.

For all we know, he is a schizophrenic drug addict, -as is most often the case. And so a victim and not a 'bum' at all. Society is the bum for it's inability to care for its most desperately ill and needy members.
Look up the etymology of the word bum and you'll see it doesnt apply in most cases where mental illness, addiction and poverty are usually the root causes of peoples inability to function in a society such as ours.

How civilized a society is, is not measured by how it treats its wealthiest, but the poorest and most destitute among us. It may not be the easiest thing to see, but it should never become 'inappropriate' for photography to deal with (reflect) any aspect of social reality.

ajl

It's actually a really awesome (heartbreaking) image. Definitely the color version; it's not even a contest, imo.
His hair and nails are long and unkempt. He's been on the street a long time. He is wearing multiple layers of clothing. His bloodshot eyes reveal a wealth of pain, hopelessness, and loneliness. The way his hands are contorting his face by stretching it in different directions and his central body is blackened out in a pit of shadow are powerful symbols of inner confusion and despair.

Juano

ajl wrote: »

I like the photo and better in muted color.

In my opinion, that would never be a good rule to follow.

Also, please do not take this the wrong way, but as education. Using a word like 'bum' to describe an indigent person assumes a lot about that person. I have photographed dozens of homeless people, -almost always with permission. Sometimes not.. like with a girl covered in filth sleeping on a dirty concrete subway platform, -you can see in my NYC Streets Gallery.

For all we know, he is a schizophrenic drug addict, -as is most often the case. And so a victim and not a 'bum' at all. Society is the bum for it's inability to care for its most desperately ill and needy members.
Look up the etymology of the word bum and you'll see it doesnt apply in most cases where mental illness, addiction and poverty are usually the root causes of peoples inability to function in a society such as ours.

How civilized a society is, is not measured by how it treats its wealthiest, but the poorest and most destitute among us. It may not be the easiest thing to see, but it should never become 'inappropriate' for photography to deal with (reflect) any aspect of social reality.

Thank you for your reply and comments. I don't like the term either and will not use it again, the only reason I did was, as I said in a previous comment, because this forum established the so called "no bum rule" as a way to ensure that we try to preserve the dignity of our subjects. There have been many discussions on this topic over the years and inevitably, a lot of debate ensues.