You can acknowledge me you know!

[mugge]

I did speak to the gentleman in the center of this scene. He was fine with me taken the photo but did indicate that he was on "the outside of things," to paraphrase his words. Should we exhibit people who may be vulnerable or unusual in appearance? I think not. I don't think I have overstepped that in this case. Others may disagree. C&C welcome.

You can acknowledge me you know! by Ole Hansen, on Flickr

[Donald]

Were you taking a street photo and he happened to be in the scene, or were you taking a photo of him who happened to be in the street?

If the latter, why did you take it?

[mugge]

Were you taking a street photo and he happened to be in the scene, or were you taking a photo of him who happened to be in the street?

If the latter, why did you take it?

It was the latter. I took it because something offended me. People appeared to ignore him. I wanted him to be there because he has the right to be there. He is 'my hero.' Some people may see this as invasion of privacy I do not in this case.

[Donald]

Some people may see this as invasion of privacy

No, not at all.

First of all, you fully engaged the man afterwards and sought his approval for the photograph, and that is to your great credit. And then, you are not showing him in a derogatory way. The fact that his is the only face that can be seen in the image gives him a status and importance. I think it's a very fine image.

You reveal a very great truth about photography - the feeling of the photographer, the motivation for taking an image, shines through the best of images no matter what genre it is. You can have all the technical knowledge in the world at your fingertips and show it in an image, but if your emotion is not in it, that shows.

[Rita]

I really like this image Ole. You say that you took the image because there was something that offended you, I say that there is something that others should be offended with too. I see a lot of contrasts within the image. The man with nothing amid others with obviously more. He is most likely hungry but in where it appears to be many eating places. Others in the image are all with someone but he is alone.
Not sure I am expressing myself well for what I want to say but I think you will have the idea.

[Manfred M]

Ole - in Common Law countries (Australia, UK, Canada, etc) there is no inherent right of privacy when someone is out in public. You definitely do not need permission to take someone's picture when either your or your subject is in a public space. Street photographers do this all the time. The only caveat is that you cannot use the image for commercial purposes without having the subject sign a model release (again, certain caveats apply here too).

That being said, I would not take a picture of a person who objects to having their picture taken. This is a moral rather than legal issue.

[zen]

I don't disagree with anything said above, but suggest there may be still another reason for taking such a shot. That is, if you are a news photographer and are doing a photo essay on a subject in which such an image would make a cogent and powerful point. In such a case, although verbal or written release may not be required legally, it certainly would be a courtesy to do so.

Personally, I think the image is great, especially with the menu sign to the man's immediate left, camera right. Talk about "want" in an era of plenty!

Thanks for sharing.

Zen

[purplehaze]

With respect, Ole, I don’t think you can fault women for not engaging with men on the street. Experience has unfortunately hardened me against expressing the humanity that all too often is read as something that it is not.

[Manfred M]

To comment on the image itself, the intent is good and the post-processing is effective.

What is not working as well is the woman with the bright top. She, and to a lesser extent the woman beside her, are pulling the viewer's attention away from the subject. While I know that these dynamic situations are challenging to shoot, had you waited a second or two for the women to walk past your subject, I expect that the image might have worked out to be stronger. That is what burst mode in a camera is all about and I would use it in a situation like this where timing is critical to getting a strong image.

[LePetomane]

I like it because you have engaged the gentleman in the center and he is not shown in a compromising position. He appears to be shorter than the two women on the left but not phased by it. He is walking in the opposite direction. I find the contrasting heights interesting as I am only 5' 4" myself.

I don't take photos of those I consider vulnerable, specifically homeless and children. At one time we had a woman in our photography club who did it all of the time. She considered herself a social justice warrior. She wouldn't give the homeless any money because she thought they would buy liquor with it but she did photograph them in a very tasteless manner.

[billtils]

What is not working as well is the woman with the bright top. She, and to a lesser extent the woman beside her, are pulling the viewer's attention away from the subject.

I don't agree. The exposure draws my attention to the group of 3 people and there is a lovely balance in tone/luminosity but imbalance in everything else (front/back, male/female, socio-economic status). I wouldn't change a thing (but wouldn't quibble about cropping a bit off the top or darkening the "M" sign).

[Donald]

What is not working as well is the woman with the bright top. She, and to a lesser extent the woman beside her, are pulling the viewer's attention away from the subject. While I know that these dynamic situations are challenging to shoot, had you waited a second or two for the women to walk past your subject, I expect that the image might have worked out to be stronger.

I think that what you perceive as fault is actually the strength of the image. The women strutting out as they are, as they approach and pass by the man, ignoring him, gives the image a dynamic that, I think, would not have existed if the image was as you suggest.

[Manfred M]

I think that what you perceive as fault is actually the strength of the image. The women strutting out as they are, as they approach and pass by the man, ignoring him, gives the image a dynamic that, I think, would not have existed if the image was as you suggest.

Sounds very much like the types of discussions that the judges get into during a photo competition. Let's agree to disagree.

It's a bit challenging to do this on an image that is already quite high contrast, but after a couple of minutes of dodging and burning...



This reduces the impact of the two women without affecting the grouping and puts more emphasis on the subject. I find that the contrast has been pushed just a bit too hard. The subject can handle it, more or less, but the rest of the image, not so much.

[xpatUSA]

I really like this image Ole. You say that you took the image because there was something that offended you, I say that there is something that others should be offended with too. I see a lot of contrasts within the image. The man with nothing amid others with obviously more. He is most likely hungry but in where it appears to be many eating places. Others in the image are all with someone but he is alone.
Not sure I am expressing myself well for what I want to say but I think you will have the idea.

Well said, and you don't even have to be poor. I do recall that "rite of passage" for men when, at a certain age, one becomes invisible to young girls ...

[lovelife65]

I think it’s a wonderful photograph and I’m in agreement with you and your thoughts. This type of street photography is always a hot topic of debate and often brings out the holier than thou “I would never ... bla blah blah”.
I don’t feel you’ve exploited anyone. Street people are out there everywhere, so do we ban street photos?
You’ve done nothing wrong, and have taken a wonderful scene and provided a good narrative that enhances the emotional impact.
Most would rather not see and that “they” would all just go away. Thank you for sharing.

[LePetomane]

In looking at this a little more, I like it. The gentleman is out moving around and attempting to engage with his surroundings. Unlike some of the typical photos of people passed out in alleys with liquor bottles, etc., this guy is on the move.

[DanK]

I like the image, although I would back off the contrast, level it, and darken the women.

However, I don't think I get the message:

I took it because something offended me. People appeared to ignore him.

I think the fact that people aren't paying attention to him doesn't indicate much. Almost everyone I walk by on the street ignores me too, and I am an unexceptional, 'respectable'-looking, and obviously harmless old guy. There are some places where total strangers acknowledge passers-by, but those tend not to be large cities, and there are many cities where people are taught never to engage strange passers-by. Take a walk in New York City, and you will see almost no one making substantial eye contact withe people walking the other way.

And as Janis said, this is particularly an issue for women. If my daughter, when growing up, had made a habit of engaging strange men on the street, I would have been seriously concerned.

[mugge]

Many years ago I spent three months on the street of Sydney with no money at all just to experience what it would be to be poor. That experience thought me to look at the homeless with new eyes. The worst thing about it was invisibility. You have to walk in somebody else's shoes sometimes.
Cheers Ole

[DanK]

Ole,

I am not making any comment about the experiences of people in his situation. All I am saying is that the fact that the two women aren’t interacting with him need not have anything to do with that. You would see exactly the same thing if you photographed me walking down the street. The only women who would interact with me are people I know. The rest would ignore me.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Ole - in many club level competitions, the photographers do give their works a title, but in general the judges do not see it. The underlying logic is that the judges should assess the image purely based on what they see, rather than being influenced by the title. The judges may see the title when the results are presented and often there is a comment from them about the title. Remarks are often along the lines of "now I understand what the photographer is trying to show us here". Sometimes the title actually causes confusion.

Not everyone agrees with this approach and I understand that in Canada that national organization that sets the rules is discussing making the title and possibly the "artist's statement" part of the elements that should be judged, at least in some of the competitions. Part of the debate includes scoring the title and artist's statement as part of the overall score of the image. I personally like this concept as it puts the work into context for the judges. Art galleries and museums title the works, so what's wrong with doing so with images entered into competitions?

When it comes to your title, I agree with Dan, it doesn't add or clarify anything about the image. The way that this picture was taken does not suggest that your subject is a street person, has mental health issues, etc. In other words, what you saw "on location" is not necessarily being portrayed to the rest of us. I don't see any of the visual cues that would distinguish your subject from anyone else one might run into in that part of the city.