Cannon: A Story of Homelessness in Washington, D.C.

[R3d]

Here's a handful from a photo essay I've just completed. If you like what you see head over here to view the full story: Cannon - a set on Flickr

Still waiting on Behance to stop being funky with uploading.


17th & I by R3d Baron, on Flickr


Twenties by R3d Baron, on Flickr


The Movies by R3d Baron, on Flickr


iPad by R3d Baron, on Flickr


The Descent by R3d Baron, on Flickr


Metro Transit Police by R3d Baron, on Flickr


Freezing by R3d Baron, on Flickr

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well will probably be run out on a rail for this given the subject matter but here goes:

the last shot would definately be the pick of the litter, but it's too dark. I know you were shooting for dark and gloomy here but it went so dark that I just can't see the face well enough to really connect with the subject. The one titled "the descent" I can't really get into either - if it had been shot from the bottom of the escalator I think it would have been a much better shot, but from this angle and so much distance between you and the subject it just really doesn't draw me in at all. It's so far away in fact that I probably wouldn't have gotten that the guy was homeless if I didn't know this was a photo essay on the homeless.

The shot called "ipad" would have been improved a lot I think if we could see the subjects face. The one called "The Movies" again, too dark - and again if I didn't know this guy was homeless I wouldn't have gotten that from the picture.

I liked the one called "Twenties". As for 17th and Amp.. ok, I know from the outset that I'll probably get a huge ton of flak here but this guy? I seriously, seriously doubt he's homeless. The hand is a dead giveaway. He is far more likely a professional pan handler masquerading as someone who is homeless and believe it or not probably making a fairly decent, un-taxable income from it. Setting that aside, I think this would have been a much more powerful shot if it had been timed just a bit differently, waiting for the man who is passing by to have looked away from the "homeless" guy or waiting for him to have walked passed - still in the frame but with the homeless man behind him.

As it is he's looking at and acknowledging the man exists - which really isn't the sort of feel you want from the photograph.

Ok, I'll wait for the inevitable stoning.. lol

 

[rasmussen4]

Amazingly well done series here, and I have to agree with robbins.photo, the last one is by far the most visually compelling shot. But it needs an exposure boost, just a bit too dark. You want some of the texture of the skin around the eyes to really come through, it would pull the viewer in even more.

 

[amolitor]

I actually don't get this series at all. It seems to be depicting a "day in the life" but I am not buying it. The camera is too close and too continuously present to be as ignored as it is, with the result that it feels staged.

 

[R3d]

Robbins, I disagree that it's too dark, I can see the face just fine. Maybe turn your screen isn't bright enough? As far as the rest not screaming "this man is homeless" I think the intro does well enough to assert that. From there it's a description of the way he lives his life. If every photo explicitly stated "homeless", the essay would be boring and repetitive. I suggest you view the story in its entirety. That being said I'm glad you felt doubt or intrigue while viewing the first photo, as that's part of what struck me as unique about this man in particular.

Rasmussen, I appreciate that very much! Unfortunately that's about as bright as I can get the face without washing it out entirely in post. The noise just gets atrocious a stop or so up. I hear what you're saying about the texture, but it just wasn't possible with the lighting conditions I was shooting in.

Amolitor, don't know what to tell you. It's most definitely not staged. You're posting in the photojournalism section, which I hope would mean you've viewed photojournalistic works before… Is it not so hard to get to know someone and for them to get so used to having a camera around that they cease to notice it? You should try it some time.

 

[amolitor]

I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.

The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.

 

[robbins.photo]

Robbins, I disagree that it's too dark, I can see the face just fine. Maybe turn your screen isn't bright enough? As far as the rest not screaming "this man is homeless" I think the intro does well enough to assert that. From there it's a description of the way he lives his life. If every photo explicitly stated "homeless", the essay would be boring and repetitive. I suggest you view the story in its entirety. That being said I'm glad you felt doubt or intrigue while viewing the first photo, as that's part of what struck me as unique about this man in particular.

Ok, must have missed where I said something about putting text on the photo - because, well, I never said it. I think the disconnect here is the man in the first photo is most likely not actually homeless. I've lived in a few large cities in my life, a few of them here in the US and some overseas. I've had a lot of experience with people who have been at the bottom rung of to social-economic scale. There are those, sadly enough, who will take advantage of people's good nature and beg or panhandle even though they themselves are not really that economically challenged. Sad but true. Best way to spot someone like that? Look at their hands. If their hands are clean, nails are well groomed - odds are good your not dealing with someone who is homeless. There are some other indicators of course, but usually that's the first clue. I'm not saying this is a deception that the photographer themselves is engaged in, merely that it is doubtful that the man in the first shot was homeless. As for my monitor, it's a 40 " LCD TV and is generally much brighter than a standard computer monitor. Sorry but on my setup the face is just way to dark. Yes, I can see it and recognize that it is a face, but all of the finer detail of the face is gone. This takes the shot from something that could have been one of a kind, truly amazing down to "What is that? Oh. it's a homeless guy". Again, just one man's opinion but then again that's what was asked for and that's the only reason it was provided. In the future it won't be and that should solve the problem quite nicely.

 

[R3d]

I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.

The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.

Heartless animal. Ouch. How do you feel about Kevin Carter then? Ethically, it's wrong for a photographer to alter the circumstance of their subject. Was this hard to shoot? Absolutely. Is it my job to take care of him? No. Do I still I have a good rapport with him? Yes.

I never said anything about putting text on the photo either. I understand that those people are out there, but I think if you flipped through the rest of the photos you'd find that that's not the case with this story. Thanks for your opinions though.

 

[robbins.photo]

I never said anything about putting text on the photo either. I understand that those people are out there, but I think if you flipped through the rest of the photos you'd find that that's not the case with this story. Thanks for your opinions though.

Hopefully they helped as they will be the last I post.

 

[kathyt]

What is Cannon?

 

[robbins.photo]

What is Cannon?

An outdated artilerry piece that uses gunpowder to propel a large projectile at very high speeds towards people you don't like very much. It's also an old TV Show - lol

 

[sashbar]

I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.

The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.

Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer. Ask any photo editor of any respected media.

 

[amolitor]

I don't care about photojournalistic distance versus camera distance. Photojournalistic distance is somewhere between a polite fiction and outright nonsense, anyways, but that's not even remotely what I am talking about here.

The point is that, as viewers of these pictures, we are acutely aware of the presence of the camera and the photographer. We are forced, if we are paying attention, to consider the presence of them. The only picture that reads as real to me if the one with the Metro Cops, where the cops have clearly told the photographer to bugger off, and the subject is clearly too busy being hassled to mug for the camera. That feels like a real moment, being documented by a photographer outside the frame. The rest of them read -- staged or not -- like two guys hanging out, one of whom happens to be panhandling and demonstrating his life for the other, who is taking pictures.

It feels exploitive, as these things always do, and this one doesn't feel real.

Note that I pass no judgement on the photographer, I don't know him/her, why they shot these, what the point is, or any of that. Don't know, and it doesn't matter. I pass no judgement on the process here. I am only speaking about how the pictures feel, how they read, to me, an outside observer.

 

[robbins.photo]

I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.

The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.

Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer. Ask any photo editor of any respected media.

I don't think that's what he meant by "distance". I think he was talking about an emotional distance, rather than a physical one.

 

[sashbar]

I didn't say it was staged, I said it felt staged.

The camera up in a man's face as he's shivering with cold feels wrong, for instance. We're essentially confronted with the question of whether the photographer is a heartless animal, or whether the subject is hamming it up a bit. Yes, yes, photojournalistic distance, integrity, etc etc. The question remains. The fact of the camera means, without ambiguity, that one person is watching another freeze. That's problematic, at best.

Photojournalistic distance and camera position are two completely different things. If you decide that taking a shot is not ethical, do not do it whatever is the distance. If in your honest opinion it is the right thing to capture and show person's suffering - do it properly, and most of the time it means do it close. Half harted distanced shot is not a sign of a big heart and humanity, it is just a trait of a weak photographer. Ask any photo editor of any respected media.

I don't think that's what he meant by "distance". I think he was talking about an emotional distance, rather than a physical one.

He mixes two things together. He says that a close "in your face" camera position is inappropriate here and refers to "photojournalistic distance" as a reason for not to shoot up close. Shooting distance is not an ethical or moral question, it is a professional, technical quality question. Watching people suffer or /and photographing them from a distance is no more "human" than being close to them.