homeless man

[Jeffm73]

I somewhat agree with what you said, but at the same time.....homeless or not, he's still a person, and to use him as a subject without his permission is unethical in my opinion.

I can see where you're coming from with this, and I do agree with you, to a point. While it's legal, I can see why some people wouldn't want to have there picture taken. I'm sure that homeless people don't like to have there pictures plastered all over the place in the papers, but it happens.

On the other hand, I do take issue with people that take photo's and try to use them to promote a certain agenda, such as someone taking a photo, of a soldier, and and putting a title like "baby killer" on it.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well since I was the victim of that a lot of years ago I can see your point and even about the homeless man, Somewhere I suppose each of us has to draw his own line in the sand,

 

[molested_cow]

I don't think there is any problem here because you certainly cannot recognize him. From what I know, you have to get a release form from the subject if he can be recognized from the photograph, such as his facial features.

I've taken photos of couples from the back, using them as more of a graphic element as opposed to a defined subject. I've also taken photos of street performers. I show those photos to friends, but not to the public.

I don't know what my position is on this topic, but I just go with my intuition to tell me what I should shoot and show.

What I cannot stand are "artists" who paint on animals in the name of "art", and hence my username:x

 

[deanimator]

Hmmm...if you´re gonna pee in public, and then get stressed out about someone with a camera invading your privacy, then there´s something up with your perspective on the world.

However, I go along with Mystery´s comments...
So, ask yourself why you are doing it...and who it helps etc.
If you wanna see real homeless man stuff...check out Don McCullin
Here´s a quote..

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And McCullin’s involvement goes still deeper. If he were only an objective recorder of tragic moments in other people’s lives, however sensitively he might take the photograph, and however important its social message might be, he would still be making objects of those people. The relationship is unavoidable, revealed in the very word ‘objective’.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But another - rare - relationship is possible, and McCullin can make it there. It happens when both photographer and subject find themselves in a dynamic relationship with one another. At that moment of affinity, taking the photograph becomes a mutual act - McCullin presses the button, but the other has requested him, silently and urgently, to take the picture. It must be taken, in order that the truth of that moment, experienced by them both, be understood and honoured and passed on. It’s not a moment in someone else’s life that McCullin records, but a moment also in his own.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The frisson that flickers in that naked meeting is stored like an electric current in the picture, to flicker out again towards the viewer. McCullin’s most moving photographs, therefore, go deeper than the single message of man’s inhumanity to man: they reach down into the heart of acceptance, of union, between one human being and another.[/FONT]

And a link http://photography.about.com/gi/dyn...lery.com/photographers/mccullin/mccullin.html[/FONT]​

 

[LaFoto]

Back to the photos as such: I don't feel they have very much of a photojournalistic content. They show a person (the back of said person, so no qualms about ethics here, says who is very strict with herself on publishing her own people photography!), many things, and a bench. And in addition to that a whole lot of surroundings which clearly distract from the intended subject of the whole endeavour to candidly take a photo of this person - so, sorry for this, to me these two photos look like very quickly taken snaps in passing. No real planning involved, no composition as such, and very little "story".

So yes, the question remains: what did you take these photos for? What was your intent when you put up the camera and took these two photos? The question about the "concept" is a legitimate one, though I don't see why exactly these two would need to be discussed for there being a PERSON in them. We only see his back!

So I think that - if you are interested in candid photography, or "street" involving people - you will need to work on your courage. (Which - so I admit freely - I don't really have, either!) And then you can try to have your pics tell the story that you wanted these two to tell, as well, only ... :scratch: ... they don't...!