The Streets of San Francisco(Comments welcome)

[acparsons61 1]

These are my feeble attempts at street photography in SF, taken about 6 years ago. It is an awesome city for photography.

$5 Footlongs

Self Medicating

Periodical Reading Room

Rhythm

Metropolitan Bushman

Believe It!

2 Star Busker

Untitled

Untitled

The Stoop

Heartless

Untitled

Blupriest

 

[Darkstreets]

I know we're all different in where we draw the line in street photography and personally I draw it at taking photos of homeless without asking their permission.
To then add a 'funny' title like "Self Medication" to one of them just makes it more tasteless.

It's most likely subjective but to me not photos I would take.

 

[rexbobcat]

Here we go. It's gonna devolve into another fruitless debate about what is ethical, while the OP gets no comments about the actual content of the photos.

Dude, you already took the photos. It's not like you're going to delete them or stop taking photos that you think are interesting because Rexbobcat white knighted the issue of photographing homeless people and posting them on the Internet.

I'm just gonna say that one of the guy with the burly mustache and Western clothes really surprised me (in a good way). I didn't expect to see that in a set of images from SF.

 

[Braineack]

I like the untitled b&w of the guy reading. I'd straighten it up.

 

[Radical]

I pretty much like them all.

 

[The_Traveler]

Except for the one of the man in the newspaper kiosk, I don 't like them.
They have no heart, tell me nothing and seem only to use the down and out quality of the subject for impact.

 

[JacaRanda]

I think the one titled 'Heartless' is interesting. The subject seems well or normally dressed. Was the guy walking by heartless, or are the children in the mural heartless by laughing at him?

 

[mmaria]

Whatever you were thinking at the time of taking these shots is shown on them. If you're fine with it, and obviously you are, then I'm fine with telling you my honest opinion.

I'm with Lew, don't like them.

It's not about your subjects, it's about the way you chose to represent them.

 

[sashbar]

I agree with what was said above. There are at least several images that I would categorise as "Street porn" (©The Traveller), i.e. images of homeless/deprived people that are not justified by any artistic considerations in my view.
Two pictures are OK/ I somehow like the b&w man sitting in a boot with the flag and stuff. The next one is funny, although I would love to see a better angle.
"Heartless" has potential in my view. There is some drama in this juxtaposition of a man and a poster. But again the angle is casual, as is the composition. The car is hugely distracting and colors/contrasts could be more dramatic.

 

[keyseddie]

It looks to me that you are hunting "down and outers." If that's your thing, we all have boundaries and yours may be different than mine. Do you see artistic merit in these images? If so, perhaps you're blind.

 

[acparsons61 1]

I was trying to capture another side of SF, maybe a bit more photo journalistic than artistic.

Thank you for your comments, they have given me a lot to think about.

 

[keyseddie]

And thank you for accepting the criticism with grace.

Grow.

 

[acparsons61 1]

And thank you for accepting the criticism with grace.

Grow.

Knowing that one does not know everything is half the battle.