I don't find this exploitative or cheap. It's journalism pure and simple. However, I don't think it measures up to the standard your other work has established in terms of composition or even tonality. In regard to composition it's just too standard and pat. I think the tonality leads a bit toward the muddy. Not quite enough contrast and slightly too dark overall. For some, it would be good work. But in my opinion it doesn't come up to the level of your good stuff.
Paul
On May 13, 2005, at 7:33 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On 5/13/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:OK, I admit it's kind of a cheap shot, but I couldn't pass up the irony of
the scene, for which an apology must be offered. Irony, in and of itself,
does not make for a good photograph, although it might be worth some
discussion points. I probably should have just noted the scene to myself
and kept on walking. However, it's been a while since I've exploited the
homeless and disenfranchised for my own nefarious purposes and was hoping
to stir up the list some (for those of you with a limited sense of humor,
consider that a humorous comment). Also, I'm wondering if the pic might
not be a bit too sharp (which is the real reason I'm posting it here as I'm
having what may be a problem with my monitor, my glasses, and differing
opinions about what images are and are not sharp).
There, enough disclaimers to cover my ass for just about all circumstances
with this one <LOL>
http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/lux-rentals.html
Where do I start?
Well, how about "I like it"? <g>
I know, Shel, it's always difficult to balance issues in a shot like this. One (I'm not necessarily talking about you specifically, but "street" or reportage photographers in general) often has misgivings about shooting the homeless without their "consent" (express or implied).
Is it good enough that the photo sends out a message that could in some way do something in a small way to help those like him/her in their plight? If the photo sensitizes someone to the burdens of the homeless, and somewhere down the road causes them to act, does that make the photo okay? If there's just a ~chance~ that such good ~may~ come from the photo, is that good enough?
I'd say "yes" to all of the above.
You've photographed this in such a way that the person lying on the sidewalk is unidentified and unidentifiable to anyone but someone who has walked by that particular building when he/she was there, so there's no fear that you might cause that person embarrassment or further hardship.
There's obviously a message in here - no matter what you intend, the viewer ~must~ react to the juxtaposition between the unfortunate one on the ground, and the luxury building that s/he has chosen to sleep in front of.
For all of those reasons (and more), I think this is completely non-exploitative and most appropriate for public view.
And, above and beyond the foregoing, I think it's a Mother of a Photograph!
Great work!
cheers, frank
ps; might be a tad sharp for my tastes <LOL>
-f
-- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
