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

[robbins.photo]

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.

Whatever floats your boat I guess. If you subscribe to the theory need to be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer I guess I'm just never going to be a good photographer. Oh well. I guess when you develop a system of ethics that require you to be a lousy human being to follow them properly then my thought process would be it's time to re-examine your code of "ethics".

 

[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.

...
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.

I'm going to guess that english may not be your first language. The sentence fragment with the phrase "photojournalistic distance, integrity" was meant to set aside the usual arguments for why taking such a picture is OK. There are some usual arguments, and they are neither good arguments, nor (more importantly) relevant to the point I am making. My remark can be read without that sentence fragment without loss of meaning.

 

[sashbar]

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.

I am not a huge fan of these series either but I disagree with you on several points. To do such a report one simply has to "hang out" with homeless, I see nothing wrong with that. The other guy does not nesessarily "demonstrating" his life, he is just doing what he is usually doing and in several hours he forgets about the camera. A photographer lives in a village with an African tribe or in a big city with a rock band photographing their life - does that mean it is all "staged"?
You say the only shot that feel natural is the one with cops. How about the last one. A sleeping man cares about the camera no more than the one about to be arrested. You presume that he is "demonstrating", but this is just a presumption. What i see is a man sleeping. It is a good shot, especially because it is "up in man's face" .
Whatever the result, this kind of a reportage takes time and effort and kudos to the photographer for trying. It could be better, it could be worse, but I can see nothing wrong with this approach.

Btw R3d - The Descent is a cute metaphor, but it does not work here in my opinion. I first thought the guy was going somewhere to play golf with a bag full of clubs. That's because "the photographic distance" here is way too large.

 

[Rags]

R3, are you using a variable aperture lens?

These seem underexposed and that's usually the reason

Robbins is right, you did ask for C&C and you got it. I was surprised by your response.

Perhaps the issue is the title.

People can get twisted arguing title and for get the shots.

You can see the comments about the ethical stuff shooting homeless or other down and outs.

I don't share that on the street, it's PJ.

I think the series could be technically better.

I won't go into each photograph but consider shooting in raw so you have a better chance to correct an exposure value

I've been involved in artistic activities for longer than most here have been alive and it seems to me, that most people won't like my work and when they do, it's special.

The old joke about the camel being designed by committee is a good example of trying to satisfy everybody

Good luck with your street...

Rags

 

[R3d]

Actually, I didn't ask for C&C. I posted a selection from the story, and if people liked what they saw they could follow the jump for the whole thing. You guys know how this forum frowns on postings with a lot of images, and links too, ironically enough. Why the surprise? I've been plenty cordial in the defense of my work. If any of you read any animosity into what I wrote, that's on you. A simple response to a critique shouldn't merit such standoffishness.

As far as photojournalism is concerned, how can you properly educate anybody about a certain situation (like poverty anywhere else, or war) without it? You don't have to "be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer." You need to convey their pain and emotion to make somebody do something about it. Does letting the world know about the suffering of others make you a lousy person? Or should we just ignore it entirely? I'm glad you get it at least, Sash.

http://life.time.com/history/vietnam-photo-essay-by-larry-burrows-one-ride-with-yankee-papa-13/#1

http://facingchange.org/blog/2013/07/16/introducing-darcy-padilla/

http://mediastorm.com usually has excellent photo stories as well.

Rags, I do shoot raw. Shooting in the lighting conditions I was in frequently wasn't easy.

 

[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.

...
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.

I'm going to guess that english may not be your first language. The sentence fragment with the phrase "photojournalistic distance, integrity" was meant to set aside the usual arguments for why taking such a picture is OK. There are some usual arguments, and they are neither good arguments, nor (more importantly) relevant to the point I am making. My remark can be read without that sentence fragment without loss of meaning.

OK, no problemo. Next time just let me know which part of your post I may omit with no loss of meaning My English is indeed rather poor.

 

[amolitor]

For future reference, the gallery forums OTHER than "Just for Fun!" are generally marked something like this one is:

A place to tell us stories of events with pictures. This is your place to not only show us your photojournalistic style, but your action and sports shots, too. Post for discussion and feedback, including general critique.

so the assumption is that you want discussion, feedback, or critique. I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.

 

[robbins.photo]

As far as photojournalism is concerned, how can you properly educate anybody about a certain situation (like poverty anywhere else, or war) without it? You don't have to "be able to watch people suffer to be a good photographer." You need to convey their pain and emotion to make somebody do something about it. Does letting the world know about the suffering of others make you a lousy person? Or should we just ignore it entirely? I'm glad you get it at least, Sash.

Rags, I do shoot raw. Shooting in the lighting conditions I was in frequently wasn't easy.

Well, if you don't want C&C you might want to indicate that is your preference. Would have saved the rest of us a lot of time an effort. Won't matter to me of course, even in the future if you requested C&C I wouldn't provide it. As far as properly "educating" anyone through "photojournalism", that one actually would be funny if it weren't so sad and off base. You aren't "educating" anyone, and if you think you are your sadly mistaken and have a massively over inflated opinion of the images you provide. You might be able to initiate a short term emotional response, but you aren't "educating" anyone, including yourself, on what it is to be homeless. Likewise you could never "educate" anyone on what war is actually like. If you haven't been there your never going to have a clue, no matter how much you read or how many pictures you look at.

You go on to say something about "conveying their pain to somebody who can do something about it" - well if we all share your ethics, we can't, right? I'm also curious as to who you think this "somebody" might be, I mean you've already made some silly excuse and ruled yourself out. So if such is the case why do you feel so morally superior about dumping the problem on the rest of us with your "educational" program?

That might seem a little harsh on the first read through, but read through it again - and then maybe a third time. I'm hoping that you'll actually start to think about what your saying in a larger context. If not I guess I can expect an angry response and we can be done - but I'm hoping maybe it will open your eyes, just a bit. Time will tell I suppose.

 

[sashbar]

. I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.

amolitor, if only that were a problem. The problem most often is to get a critique, especially something beyond "out of focus", "underexposed" and "what a cutie" stuff.

 

[robbins.photo]

. I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.

amolitor, if only that were a problem. The problem most often is to get a critique, especially something beyond "out of focus", "underexposed" and "what a cutie" stuff.

Well when you take the time to do one honestly and get a lot of grief in return, I guess a lot of folks would get a little gunshy. Me I don't really care if I get some grief in return persee, but it does irritate me when I have my time wasted. I put a bit of time and effort into that critique and frankly it was dead on. Most of the images in this essay are such that the only way you can tell the guy is homeless is because of the title of the essay explains that he's homeless. The vast majority of them can't stand on their own, and the one that probably could is horribly underexposed.

I tried to be as nice about conveying that information as I could - but to no avail. So, my time got completely wasted by someone who apparently didn't even want critique in the first place. Find that a bit irritating to be honest, and have no intention of having any more time wasted in trying to offer tips/helps/things that could be improved on with future imagery since it all fell on completely deaf ears in the first place. So R3d won't have to worry, wouldn't critique another image of his if he/she begged me.

Problem solved, moving right along...

 

[R3d]

How many times do you have to say you aren't going to keep posting here to actually stop posting? You've made it abundantly clear you don't wish to hear what I have to say about anything, so please remove yourself from my thread.

 

[robbins.photo]

How many times do you have to say you aren't going to keep posting here to actually stop posting? You've made it abundantly clear you don't wish to hear what I have to say about anything, so please remove yourself from my thread.

Well as usual we apparently have a slight reading comprehension problem here - I never said I would stop posting. Not once. Never even implied it. Did say I would not give you more C&C, which, I haven't. But since it's all falling on totally deaf ears anyway, not much point in trying to help you in any regard, C&C or otherwise. I was rather hoping you'd start listening to what you were saying, you might have learned quite a bit from it. But you didn't. Oh well. I will simply wish you well and move on I suppose. More is the pity really.

 

[R3d]

Nope, I stand firmly by my understanding of what good photojournalism is. Good day.

 

[pixmedic]

I will point out, that as far as asking for C&C goes, except for the "just for fun" section, all other photo sections here on the forum are basically for getting critique.
If you do not want critique on your pictures, post in the "just for fun" section, or mention you are not looking for critique in your post. Otherwise, it is assumed you are posting for C&C.

 

[sashbar]

. I've seen people successfully post with a disclaimer of the form 'not really looking for critique, thanks!' though, so it's just the assumption in the absence of other information.

amolitor, if only that were a problem. The problem most often is to get a critique, especially something beyond "out of focus", "underexposed" and "what a cutie" stuff.

Well when you take the time to do one honestly and get a lot of grief in return, I guess a lot of folks would get a little gunshy. Me I don't really care if I get some grief in return persee, but it does irritate me when I have my time wasted. I put a bit of time and effort into that critique and frankly it was dead on. Most of the images in this essay are such that the only way you can tell the guy is homeless is because of the title of the essay explains that he's homeless. The vast majority of them can't stand on their own, and the one that probably could is horribly underexposed.

I tried to be as nice about conveying that information as I could - but to no avail. So, my time got completely wasted by someone who apparently didn't even want critique in the first place. Find that a bit irritating to be honest, and have no intention of having any more time wasted in trying to offer tips/helps/things that could be improved on with future imagery since it all fell on completely deaf ears in the first place. So R3d won't have to worry, wouldn't critique another image of his if he/she begged me.

Problem solved, moving right along...

Look, if you give C&C, it does not mean that the OP has to accept it without a word. You have to be prepared for the counter-argument. This is absolutely normal, the guy put some thought and effort into the shot and sometimes he needs to be convinced. I think that the argument about the image is a very healthy process if it does not turn into agressive accusations etc. Sometimes the C&C is well off the mark, it may well happen, and one has to take responsibility for his incorrect opinion. C&C is not a one way traffic, it is a discussion. At least it should be. But you right - there are lots of egos there and people stop critisizing knowing that it will be taking personal.