Homeless. Post your photographs.

How did I know what you meant?

How did I know what you meant?

Pablito said:
No, I simply meant what I said.
Click to expand...

Dear Pablito,

I'm as dumb as stone but I knew that you didn't say what the proponent of this thread implied that you said.

This isn't directed at you but I have to ask, is anyone honest anymore?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA :)
 
nomadia said:
Dorothea Lange is a great photographer, but apparently this isn't true. Lange didn't even know her name.
Click to expand...

She didn't get her name, but she did sit down and listen to her story and then passed that story along to her bosses at the WPA, who passed it on to their bosses, who immediately delivered food, water and medical aid to the camp.

The story is true. You don't need to know someone's name to make a connection with them.
 
bushwick1234 said:
How the backstory of Lange's image improves other photographer's work?
Better human beings because you seek eye contact to your subject before shooting? Are you being romantic or just misleading us?
Where you guys make up those rules?
Click to expand...

OK, how can studying a master photographer's methods improve our own? Isn't that self-evident? There's something to learn by studying the methods of anyone who is good at what they do.

HCB, for instance (and this will even tie into the point I'm trying to make, which isn't about eye contact, at all), showed us that to find "the decisive moment" you must often stop and wait for it to come to you, because chasing it will only lead you astray.

I'm not saying that the first shot, fired before your subject even knows you're there, can't be the best. I'm advocating that staying with that moment, stretching it out, often by engaging with your subject, will, as Lange shows us, give you a chance to capture more facets of that subject; facets that may surpass the original moment.

These aren't rules, arbitrarily handed down on high from some sovereign, these are time-tested, hard-earned methods that describe a way to work that has been shown to be succesful. Advice, not prescription.
 
maggieo said:
OK, how can studying a master photographer's methods improve our own? Isn't that self-evident? There's something to learn by studying the methods of anyone who is good at what they do.

HCB, for instance (and this will even tie into the point I'm trying to make, which isn't about eye contact, at all), showed us that to find "the decisive moment" you must often stop and wait for it to come to you, because chasing it will only lead you astray.

I'm not saying that the first shot, fired before your subject even knows you're there, can't be the best. I'm advocating that staying with that moment, stretching it out, often by engaging with your subject, will, as Lange shows us, give you a chance to capture more facets of that subject; facets that may surpass the original moment.

These aren't rules, arbitrarily handed down on high from some sovereign, these are time-tested, hard-earned methods that describe a way to work that has been shown to be succesful. Advice, not prescription.
Click to expand...
Every person who shots pictures, even selfies, is waiting for the decisive moment, that is, I think, imbedded in the act of photographing. You don't need a master to tell you that.
Engaging with the subject is one way of photographing, yes. Not mandatory, and will change nothing to the image, just a different approach.
The OP was post your homeless photographs.
And because someone brought up Suzanne Stein I quote: "Sometimes the truth is an ugly thing. I find that my most truthful pictures are often the least popular on social media, unless they have an obvious hook or cliche of some kind within the frame, something that will act to catch the eye of the average viewer long enough to allow the meaning of the picture to penetrate."
 
I don't understand why there should be such an denunciation of the study of the history of photography and applying its lessons to one's own work.

I am utterly befuddled by such an ahistorical, nay, even anti-historical, attitude.
 
From the PBS Antiques Roadshow piece:

Lange had promised Thompson that her name would never be published...
Click to expand...

As this shows, Lange did not simply walk by and shoot a quickie. She engaged Mrs. Owens enough to gain her confidence. Substantially different from photographing someone asleep or from behind and then scuttling off to the next target.
 
maggieo said:
I don't understand why there should be such an denunciation of the study of the history of photography and applying its lessons to one's own work.

I am utterly befuddled by such an ahistorical, nay, even anti-historical, attitude.
Click to expand...

And I don't understand why you don't post your photographs instead.
Applying sounds more like imitating, maybe that is the reason. Finding your own style is hard enough.
 
You can't find maggieo's flickr link and photos blog? Hint: the link is right where your own is not.

By the way, I find your logic more self-serving than explanatory.
 
mdarnton said:
You can't find maggieo's flickr link and photos blog? Hint: the link is right where your own is not.

By the way, I find your logic more self-serving than explanatory.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is a language barrier?

I'm flummoxed.

Applying sounds more like imitating, maybe that is the reason.
Click to expand...

And yet, you imitate the surface, but not the substance, in the photographs you've posted here.

Oh well. Done with :bang:. I have photos to make and things to learn.

As for photos, here's one of a man who I learned, after speaking with him, is, in fact, homeless. He works in a restaurant most days and nights and spends his days off at the restaurant shining shoes. He stays with friends, family and was in a shelter for a time.


Shoeshine Dude, New Orleans, LA, November 18, 2013 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
 
Who cares if she had the name or not. Its the photographs that Lange made that matters. If she had a long conversation or not, in the long run doesn't really matter. The work matters.

Every photographer has their own way of working. If I find someone that i think has an interesting face that I think would make and interesting photograph I talk to them. I ask if I can make an picture of them. Many times I don't know if they are homeless or not. If they have an email I will send them a copy. If the don't have email and have an address I will send them a photograph. If they ae truly homeless I will usually l take a small print with me and return to the place that I last saw them.

If it's in the moment like the self absorbed couple or the trump image I will just take the photograph. I think both of those images do say something about our society today. In large cities like Chicago there are pan handlers on every block. Sometime more than one are on each block. We all become numb to it because there is so much of it so the homeless/pan handlers become almost invisible to many that pass them by. Whether anyone likes the image or thinks it's important at all is a different conversation. Like/dislike those photos is not the issue here. The fact there is something a bit deeper is why I took them. Some might find them successful in the regard; some not.

Every photographer has their own code and their own way of working and even that can change from situation to situation. There are no easy cookie cutter ways to do any of this or easy answers. All the matters in the end is the work and time will show if it can stand that test.

These are all reason, in my opinion, that we should have our own moral code but that might not be right for others. I know what I feel and what I feel is right for me and the way I work cam be much different for someone else. So I usually try not to push that one others.

Here I asked and had a nice conversation. I rarely pose and this was no exception.
L1043882_zps0m2gjyb2.jpg
 
That's a wonderful and amazing photograph, air. I love the contrast between the facsimile of the Pope and your subject and his dignity.

The deep composition is great and really adds to it.
 
maggieo said:
Perhaps there is a language barrier?

I'm flummoxed.



And yet, you imitate the surface, but not the substance, in the photographs you've posted here.

Oh well. Done with :bang:. I have photos to make and things to learn.

As for photos, here's one of a man who I learned, after speaking with him, is, in fact, homeless. He works in a restaurant most days and nights and spends his days off at the restaurant shining shoes. He stays with friends, family and was in a shelter for a time.


Shoeshine Dude, New Orleans, LA, November 18, 2013 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Well, until now the barriers are more located in the lowlands of concepts...
What are you trying to imply, Maggie, with your photograph, is that because you spoke with your shoeshine subject there is more substance? You are limiting photography and fooling yourself instead by thinking that because you build a transitory, superfluous relationship with your subjects the image will be better.
med_U53150I1427050866.SEQ.4.jpg
 
airfrogusmc said:
Who cares if she had the name or not. Its the photographs that Lange made that matter. If she had a long conversation or not, in the long run doesn't really matter. The work matters.

Every photographer has their own way of working. If I find someone that i think has an interesting face that I think would make and interesting photograph I talk to them. I ask if I can make an picture of them. Many times I don't know if they are homeless or not. If they have an email I will send them a copy. If the don't have email and have an address I will send them a photograph. If they ae truly homeless I will usually l take a small print with me and return to the place that I last saw them.

If it's in the moment like the self absorbed couple or the trump image I will just take the photograph. I think both of those images do say something about our society today. In large cities like Chicago there are pan handlers on every block. Sometime more than one are on each block. We all become numb to it because there is so much of it so the homeless/pan handlers become almost invisible to many that pass them by. Whether anyone likes the image or thinks it's important at all is a different conversation. Like/dislike those photos is not the issue here. The fact there is something a bit deeper is why I took them. Some might find them successful in the regard; some not.

Every photographer has their own code and their own way of working and even that can change from situation to situation. There are no easy cookie cutter ways to do any of this or easy answers. All the matters in the end is the work and time will show if it can stand that test.

These are all reason, in my opinion, that we should have our own moral code but that might not be right for others. I know what I feel and what I feel is right for me and the way I work cam be much different for someone else. So I usually try not to push that one others.

Here I asked and had a nice conversation. I rarely pose and this was no exception.
L1043882_zps0m2gjyb2.jpg
Click to expand...
Here is substance, in terms of Maggie O. And it is completely irrelevant and independent of the fact that you actually had or not a smalltalk with the [homeless] subject. Thanks for sharing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom