Please Critique

dadwtwins

Critique ~ an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.

This is one of my first pictures taken of a stranger. Eventhough i love to take pictures, I am always a little apprehensive about takening pictures of people I do not know.

Feel free to fire away and tell me what your thoughts are. Since I asked for critique I obviouly do not mind any negative comments. How else are we to learn?:thumb

Cantfeelmyfingers

I like it. Completely random.
I really like his shlumpy loose-fitting suit, hand position,
the brick, the lost look on his face... It just works for me.
Speaking of his face, it seems to look a little bizarre.
(Any pp done to it??)
I'm not sure if this adds or takes away from the photo.
I think it almost adds, his face looks surreal to me... This
photo randomly enough almost creeps me out, but makes
me want to keep looking.

Greensquared

This image is so full of emotion that I just love it. It makes me feel sorrow to my very core, and tremendous curiousity. I just want to give this man a hug and say, "Please, what can I do to help?"

The only negative comment I can give is the brightness of the hair which pulls me away from those sad eyes and the tale-tell posture on the hands. Perhaps to bring down the tones there a bit?

Emily

CarnalSigh

Well.....that is one scary looking fella. His lower face, eyes, and hair looks like a conglomeration of 2 or 3 different people combined into one shot. It also looks like he wet his britches lol. I'm with cantfeelmyfingers on the creepiness factor.

I'd tone down the hair a bit...it just seems really bright with that dark hat shadow underneath it. His eyes feel a little too doctored as well. I'm not that big on centered shots, but this one has a good sharpness and contrast to the background that I like.

saurora

I totally agree with toning down the hair as it keeps pulling my attention away from the rest of the shot. But I do like the high contrast processing otherwise. Sad looking fellow, but I too love his expression and the way he holds his hands.

dadwtwins

[FONT=&quot]What great comments. Thanks for everyone's feedback.

This shot was made with B&W Ilford 100 Delta film. No digital post processing done but I did process the negs for higher amounts of contrast.

The Hair is definitely a deterrent from the rest of the picture. I will change that with PS.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Picture background:

I loved his look as soon as I turned the corner and first saw him. His cloths did not match his dirty disheveled appearance. In length, he explained with great excitement that he just got new cloths from the church around the corner[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The face of this poor chap was beaten up pretty bad. After I took his pic, I stopped and spoke with him for a couple of minutes. Turns out he used to be a semi-pro boxer. In person, you are able to see the abuse this poor man has gone through. He has a broken nose, broken knuckles, broken eye socket and cauliflower ears.

As I was speaking to him, he had a little accident with his pants as you can see in the pic. At this point he became sullen and did not want to speak any longer. This is the moment when I took the pic you see now.

So now ya know[/FONT]

antonjo

In my humble opinion, I would try to take it with wider angle, and a bit closer.
So the picture would gain more shallow depth of field, and a bit more space / context in the 2nd plan ?
Another, and maybe main thing is - the picture doesn't tell a thing about this man, exept showing his face - which is simply not enough, for good portrait photography ?

Regards

NeilL

My personal feeling is discomfort at showing people as grotesque. In my opinion, the awful personal predicament of disability, illness, decrepitude, should not just be put up to gawk at with the excuse that it has impact as photography. I think when there is no opportunity for us, a relationship having been opened up with a subject and their photograph publicly displayed, to follow through with a response to their pitiful situation, it is better to keep the person's suffering private. I felt the same way about the public display of the contortions of a cerebral palsy child some time ago in this forum. I think there are limits to voyeurism. I don't wish to sound holier-than-thou. It is just a fact of my conscience that I can't reduce people to their curiosity/entertainment value. Please excuse me if I have offended by these comments.

Harryb

NeilL wrote:

My personal feeling is discomfort at showing people as grotesque. In my opinion, the awful personal predicament of disability, illness, decrepitude, should not just be put up to gawk at with the excuse that it has impact as photography. I think when there is no opportunity for us, a relationship having been opened up with a subject and their photograph publicly displayed, to follow through with a response to their pitiful situation, it is better to keep the person's suffering private. I felt the same way about the public display of the contortions of a cerebral palsy child some time ago in this forum. I think there are limits to voyeurism. I don't wish to sound holier-than-thou. It is just a fact of my conscience that I can't reduce people to their curiosity/entertainment value. Please excuse me if I have offended by these comments.

I have to disagree here. The picture was presented in a manner that respected its subject. He was not made the object of derision. We do in fact have ways of responding to the picture's impact on us. The only limitations on our responses to the picture are self imposed.

The picture causes me discomfort. I feel discomfort because I know there are folks in my community like the subject who live day by day, many homeless while I'm comfortable in my three bedroom home and heated pool. Its a good thing to discomfort the comfortable.

NeilL

Harryb wrote:

He was not made the object of derision.

I did not say he had been.

I feel the best we can do within the limitations of this forum is respect his privacy.

What you or I do outside this forum is, as you say, up to us. This man does not need to become an advertisement to sensitise our consciences. That is better done elsewhere and in other ways, in my opinion.

antonjo

Look at James Nachtway pictures of a homeless man, living his life on railway tracks, in Jakarta / Indonesia. Did James respected his privacy ? Yes he did, and made incredible moving picutres, showing the life, and emotions of homeless people. . . So it is not the matter od subject it self, but How we present it.

NeilL

antonjo wrote:

So it is not the matter od subject it self, but How we present it.

...yes, and where and why.

I think the danger of plain voyeurism and sensationalism is clear. This image does not have a context of a larger project with humanitarian aims. It was presented to us as a happenstance. This man was presented to us as a one-off "found" object, and we were asked to critique his photograph. If I were him I would not be thrilled to be the target of hundreds of eyes in a photography forum. Let him keep whatever pride he still manages to have. People do not become open targets just because someone picks up a camera and points it at them.

Harryb

NeilL wrote:

I did not say he had been.

I feel the best we can do within the limitations of this forum is respect his privacy.

What you or I do outside this forum is, as you say, up to us. This man does not need to become an advertisement to sensitise our consciences. That is better done elsewhere and in other ways, in my opinion.

This wasn't a candid shot. The subject was aware he was being photographed and made no objection (as far as I know). The picture was taken on a public street where none of us have any privacy. Cartier-Bresson did fairly well capturing such moments.

antonjo

The subject was aware he was being photographed and made no objection (as far as I know). The picture was taken on a public street where none of us have any privacy.

And still, the awareness of beeing photographed, doesn't make it any good. Like I said " the picture doesn't tell a thing about this man, exept showing his face - which is simply not enough, for good portrait photography "
And It is not a good thing to comapre it to Bresson.

I totally agree with Neil. If You want to get along with street photography, You have to learn how to apporoach people. How to contact them, and how to tell their story. The picture that we are talking about, is a good example how not to make street photography. . . from distance, staying "outside"

NeilL

Harryb wrote:

The picture was taken on a public street where none of us have any privacy.

I don't think that's quite accurate. In any case, to take a photo is one thing, to post it here is another.

Harryb

antonjo wrote:

And still, the awareness of beeing photographed, doesn't make it any good. Like I said " the picture doesn't tell a thing about this man, exept showing his face - which is simply not enough, for good portrait photography "
And It is not a good thing to comapre it to Bresson.

I totally agree with Neil. If You want to get along with street photography, You have to learn how to apporoach people. How to contact them, and how to tell their story. The picture that we are talking about, is a good example how not to make street photography. . . from distance, staying "outside"

I wasn't commenting on the picture itself but the "style"of photography. The fact that text was needed to give the picture impact highlights its shortcomings. The shot was a good attempt and hopefully will give the OP impetus to go out and try again.

Street photography is intrusive, you are capturing moments that invade your subject's privacy. Candid shots are more effective because the subject is more natural and not "posing" for the camera.

Harryb

NeilL wrote:

I don't think that's quite accurate. In any case, to take a photo is one thing, to post it here is another.

It is quite accurate, technically and legally.

dadwtwins

NeilL wrote:

I don't think that's quite accurate. In any case, to take a photo is one thing, to post it here is another.

I find your comments not at all offending. As you say, people have the right to there privacy but we also have a responsibilty to show the suffering in the world.

This forum is to help people like myself show our message in a way that gets across to the audience. How else are we ever to learn how to do that unless we have forums ike this to teach us what is actually telling a story and what is just not working.

I am very respectful towards anyone I take pictures of and would never exploit or make fun of another. I spoke to this man for quite awhile. If I wanted to abuse my photography rights, I could of taken the picture and walked away but I did not do that.

Here is another picture i took of my kids



Just because they are cute, does not make it different then the picture of the homeless gent. It still tries to convey a message from the photographer to the viewer.

Your emotions towards the homeless man as admirable and I respect your comments but please do not take pictures that are sad or hurtful as a bad thing. Pictures are meant to stir emotion, good or bad. They are meant to convey a message.

My messages are never meant to be disrespectful or to make fun of the subject. They are just meant to tell a story of people in different stages of life in all walks of life. Once you start to censor pictures on their content, you start to convey messages that are not real. How else wil people understand their is need for help in the homeless situation or the mental disabilty etc.....???

Just my thoughts on why it is necessary for us to show pictures like this on this forum and to the generl public.

Chrissiebeez_NL

dadwtwins wrote:

Once you start to censor pictures on their content, you start to convey messages that are not real. How else wil people understand their is need for help in the homeless situation or the mental disabilty etc.....???

dadwtwins

NeilL wrote:

My personal feeling is discomfort at showing people as grotesque. In my opinion, the awful personal predicament of disability, illness, decrepitude, should not just be put up to gawk at with the excuse that it has impact as photography. I think when there is no opportunity for us, a relationship having been opened up with a subject and their photograph publicly displayed, to follow through with a response to their pitiful situation, it is better to keep the person's suffering private. I felt the same way about the public display of the contortions of a cerebral palsy child some time ago in this forum. I think there are limits to voyeurism. I don't wish to sound holier-than-thou. It is just a fact of my conscience that I can't reduce people to their curiosity/entertainment value. Please excuse me if I have offended by these comments.

In no way is this a negative comment towards you. When I look at your icon picture that shows us a child with unusual pigment discoloration, what are you trying to convey to us about you. You are not making fun of this poor child that has to go through life being ridiculed by others but you are showing us a story, right??? Why else would you use that picture as your icon?

aktse

I find that this photo makes me a bit uncomfortable, is haunting and memorable all at the same time. It’s one of those photos in I stare at and need to take it all in.

He’s a homeless man, but in a suit! And his face, eyes and hands… they hold so much expression and I find that I want to know his story, but at the same time, don’t really want to hear it because once I know it, I would have to care about him (and the homeless).


Was he a short man? It almost seems that you’re shooting him from above. I have to agree about the hair… detracts just a bit.

Thank you for sharing and making us think.