Just for Fun No C&C will be given: When life dissapoint us more than we can face up

I don't know if the title is gramatically right. Anyway, his face goes beyond any gramar.
I shot him with a telephoto at 300mm.

This is a very personal shot, since I felt like him for long 10 years.

That's all.

Leonardo Boher said:

I don't know if the title is gramatically right. Anyway, his face goes beyond any gramar.
I shot him with a telephoto at 300mm.

This is a very personal shot, since I felt like him for long 10 years.

That's all.

Click to expand...

How, actually, is this a "very personal shot"? Can you tell us something about this man? Is he an acquaintance? How do you know how he "feels"? Frankly, he doesn't appear to be particularly despondent or destitute to me. If you told me that he was an accomplished artist and workshop leader in Santa Fe I'd certainly believe it. His clothes looks neat, his hair is shaggy but combed, his nails are reasonably trimmed.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that this is an example of a camera owner's infinite ability to mis-quote out of context...from an impersonally safe distance with that 300mm lens, no less.

He said in his post that he himself felt like this man for ten long years. I took that to mean something along the lines that he himself, for a long time, was at a low point, perhaps homeless, destitute, or just floundering and searching for direction. Of course that is just a guess on my part, just as his was a guess as to how the old man felt, just as you guessed that " this is an example of a camera owner's infinite ability to mis-quote out of context...from an impersonally safe distance with that 300mm lens, no less." We are all guessing what each other means more times than not. James Newman

Ken Tanaka said:

How, actually, is this a "very personal shot"? Can you tell us something about this man? Is he an acquaintance? How do you know how he "feels"? Frankly, he doesn't appear to be particularly despondent or destitute to me. If you told me that he was an accomplished artist and workshop leader in Santa Fe I'd certainly believe it. His clothes looks neat, his hair is shaggy but combed, his nails are reasonably trimmed.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that this is an example of a camera owner's infinite ability to mis-quote out of context...from an impersonally safe distance with that 300mm lens, no less.

Click to expand...

Hi,

I don't know this guy, I just saw him sat in that place. I stopped walking, looked at him for a couple of minutes, set the camera and shot.

"His clothes looks neat, his hair is shaggy but combed, his nails are reasonably trimmed" but his soul looks destroyed. Just see into his eyes, not to mention the obvius things, like the pose of his shoulders, the chest inward, his dirty hands closed and empty of energy.

It's clear this homeless is very lonely and sad. And it would be quite cruel from me if I would asked him "hey, are you sad?". I have too much respect toward homeless, specially to the sad ones.

Focal Distance doesn't make the personality of a picture. I personally don't need approaching to the subject and nail his eye with an stick in order to know if he's real.

I personally talk with homeless, but the gesture in his face wouldn't be the same with a fish eye in front of his eyes.

Thanks for the comment.

Leo.

James Newman said:

He said in his post that he himself felt like this man for ten long years. I took that to mean something along the lines that he himself, for a long time, was at a low point, perhaps homeless, destitute, or just floundering and searching for direction. Of course that is just a guess on my part, just as his was a guess as to how the old man felt, just as you guessed that " this is an example of a camera owner's infinite ability to mis-quote out of context...from an impersonally safe distance with that 300mm lens, no less." We are all guessing what each other means more times than not. James Newman

Click to expand...

Exactly. I felt like him, I have neever been a homeless, but feelings can be shared because feellings are not made with cells or clothes. About the 300mm, as I have said to Ken, the focal distance doesn't makes the feeling, and I mean, the feelling that's inside the heart, not the "mood" obtained by using a telephoto. His facial gesture wouldn't be the same if I would been closer to him for obvious reasons. He would look at me, and I wanted to capture the inner being in his inner world of thoughts and feellings.

Thanks for the coment.

Leo

Leonardo,

I think Ken is in a way ,referring to photographer's anthropomorphizing animals' feelings, as if we can really know. Once one can accept that is tough, then a red flag goes up when someone uses terms beyond superficial to describe a photograph. So, for example, we glibly talk about a portrait expressing the personality of a subject or else interpreting the soul. Charlotte has a picture of her cute little girl, with highlights blown and speaks of "capturing the female intent", here]/url]. Now in each case the photographer might "feel" these sentiments. That, indeed is the truth. The description might be the same by many people, still, that would not be necessarily objective. (Votes, don't truth make! If so, absolute truth would vary as we moved through different cultures).

So we are left with a custom in photography of describing in empathetic terms, what we feel and project that on to the person observed. It then described the feels evoked by the subject in us. It may not be true but it sincerely appears so.

asher

Leonardo,

I think Ken is, in a way, questioning what we know, as for example, when we might raise our eyebrows as someone psychoanalyses an animals' feelings. As if we can really know! (Dog and cat lovers please don't get mad at me for negating to sensitivity to your pet's inner feelings! Just bear with me for now!

Once one can accept that such interpretation of animals might be tough and fraught error and delusion, then let's consider reading people's feelings, not in person, but via a photograph. A red flag should go up whenever we explain beyond the superficially obviously true, unless one is being poetic or humorous!

This applies to a person's feelings as seen in a photograph. Now there are horse whisperers (see Robert Redford's wonderful portrayal in a trailer here and dog whisperers, (such as portrayed here and there are times when we do interpret correctly other folks feelings, past and present burdens. To make us believe that that latter is indeed the case, a little more description might tip the scale in your favor.

We describe people as cold, uncaring, girls, as "asking for it" and men as "pillars of society" when we really have so little to go on. More often than not we are simplistic or plain wrong. That's where drama is so interesting, since we actually find out, gradually, gradually, each scene peeling back more of the pretenses, until we can see the truth, the real person they are. How different people can be from what one sees on the surface!

And we do that here too! So, for example, we might glibly talk about a portrait expressing the personality of a subject or else interpreting the soul. Charlotte has a picture of her cute little girl, with highlights blown and speaks of "capturing the female intent", here. Now in each case the photographer might "feel" these sentiments. That, indeed is the truth. The description might be the same by many people, still, that would not necessarily be either objective or true. When, however, we provide a lot of clues and other information to back up our hunch, then our interpretations get to appear less flippant and perhaps even valid.

So we are really left with a custom in photography of describing in empathetic terms, what we feel and then project that on to the person observed. It then described the feelings evoked by the subject in us. It may not be true but it sincerely appears so.

Asher

Leonardo,

At face value (no pun) this is a nice image that might be a very nice little portrait of this fellow...if we knew him. (Caution: You have a tendency to place highlights in the distracting places such as here, on the man's sleeve, and on your girlfriend's right shoulder in your "Alucine" image.)

My back-hand critical tone is not aimed strictly at you but rather at all the young men who come into cities (usually from suburbs) with their shiny dslrs and snap street people. They they go home and post such shots as if they're big-game trophies. ("Look, I captured a real BUM!") But when you ask about the image you almost invariably get the same empty answer that you offered.

I have great respect for meaningful social documentary photography. But this is not it. You've taken a rather intimate image of a person from a great distance, made absolutely no connection with him, and yet portrayed him as feeling like you.

Leonardo, you're obviously becoming comfortable with your camera. Excellent. But with such ready access to the Internet as a self-publishing medium comes a degree of responsibility to your subjects. if you want to portray your feelings with your lens why not turn it onto yourself? Or hire a model. But it's in poor taste, and unskillful, to anonymously use a photograph of a complete stranger in such a way.

I'm not suggesting that you not casually photograph life on the streets, or that you caused this fellow any real harm. Rather, I'm suggesting that you use your camera skills to create more meaningful documentation than trophy street snaps.

Ken Tanaka said:

Leonardo,

At face value (no pun) this is a nice image that might be a very nice little portrait of this fellow...if we knew him. (Caution: You have a tendency to place highlights in the distracting places such as here, on the man's sleeve, and on your girlfriend's right shoulder in your "Alucine" image.)

My back-hand critical tone is not aimed strictly at you but rather at all the young men who come into cities (usually from suburbs) with their shiny dslrs and snap street people. They they go home and post such shots as if they're big-game trophies. ("Look, I captured a real BUM!") But when you ask about the image you almost invariably get the same empty answer that you offered.

I have great respect for meaningful social documentary photography. But this is not it. You've taken a rather intimate image of a person from a great distance, made absolutely no connection with him, and yet portrayed him as feeling like you.

Leonardo, you're obviously becoming comfortable with your camera. Excellent. But with such ready access to the Internet as a self-publishing medium comes a degree of responsibility to your subjects. if you want to portray your feelings with your lens why not turn it onto yourself? Or hire a model. But it's in poor taste, and unskillful, to anonymously use a photograph of a complete stranger in such a way.

I'm not suggesting that you not casually photograph life on the streets, or that you caused this fellow any real harm. Rather, I'm suggesting that you use your camera skills to create more meaningful documentation than trophy street snaps.

Click to expand...

We have different points of view about this matter, I don't agree with your comment.
I can state a lot of things here, and you will also. It would be a never ending discussion, like talking about Religions, gays, get pierced and so on. I really don't care if I know or not the man, as I don't care if many people will know him or not. It's not about him, it's about feelings.

It's not unskillful as you believe. Your senses have to be alert, but not too much, your conscience has to be aware, but not so much. It's a balance between looking around and perception. You should feel the place you walk, listen to the cars, but not so much, or they will distract you. You have to find the decicive moment in order to portray it. I personally believe that studio shots are not so cool because all is pre arranged, and I like seeing what the conext offers to me, how I can handle it and interact with it. I don't care if the subject has a white thing in his pullover. That will not drive my attention because the magneto is located in the expreession of his eyes and hands, and the whole picture. The man was dressing that way, I cannot change it, well, in Photoshop, but I really want to keep it as it was. It was that way, that way is and that way will be. Looking for art is not just a mere point and shot thing. You should feel first, find a good angle, a good background by moving the body, looking at the infinite possibilities in front of us.

I personally find more interesting pictures made outside studios than inside. In the outside, Photographer must be peaceful ready in order to see and feel between frames. Inside the studio all is pre arranged, there is not improvisation, nor resourcefullness, nor feelings, just technical stuff that goes beynd absurd or all the opposite, a preset of lights and that's all, pretty artificial.
I like asking my self, "what can I do with what I have in my hands, and before my eyes? How can I do something good with what nature offers me?".

Give me a compact camera, and I will try to photograph as perfect as possible, in few words.

Leo.

Asher Kelman said:

Leonardo,

I think Ken is, in a way, questioning what we know, as for example, when we might raise our eyebrows as someone psychoanalyses an animals' feelings. As if we can really know! (Dog and cat lovers please don't get mad at me for negating to sensitivity to your pet's inner feelings! Just bear with me for now!

Once one can accept that such interpretation of animals might be tough and fraught error and delusion, then let's consider reading people's feelings, not in person, but via a photograph. A red flag should go up whenever we explain beyond the superficially obviously true, unless one is being poetic or humorous!

This applies to a person's feelings as seen in a photograph. Now there are horse whisperers (see Robert Redford's wonderful portrayal in a trailer here and dog whisperers, (such as portrayed here and there are times when we do interpret correctly other folks feelings, past and present burdens. To make us believe that that latter is indeed the case, a little more description might tip the scale in your favor.

We describe people as cold, uncaring, girls, as "asking for it" and men as "pillars of society" when we really have so little to go on. More often than not we are simplistic or plain wrong. That's where drama is so interesting, since we actually find out, gradually, gradually, each scene peeling back more of the pretenses, until we can see the truth, the real person they are. How different people can be from what one sees on the surface!

And we do that here too! So, for example, we might glibly talk about a portrait expressing the personality of a subject or else interpreting the soul. Charlotte has a picture of her cute little girl, with highlights blown and speaks of "capturing the female intent", here. Now in each case the photographer might "feel" these sentiments. That, indeed is the truth. The description might be the same by many people, still, that would not necessarily be either objective or true. When, however, we provide a lot of clues and other information to back up our hunch, then our interpretations get to appear less flippant and perhaps even valid.

So we are really left with a custom in photography of describing in empathetic terms, what we feel and then project that on to the person observed. It then described the feelings evoked by the subject in us. It may not be true but it sincerely appears so.

Asher

Click to expand...

Well... I have a quote which says "We are just mirrors in a labyrinth of mirrors". Each person is a mirror. You will figure out what I'm saying, I guess, but just in case: We project ourselves as we're projections from the others. It has a psychological meaning: we project; but also, we're projections. As a briefly conclusion, I say we don't exist, but we believe we are someone because our built by experiences ego, but what's ego, just a mere coverture that warps and hides our being, and what's our being? The answer is in the new borns

I will upload a couple pics more in some minutes or so ^^

By the way, I know if my animals are happy, unhappy or whatever they're feelling, if you were saying that's imossible to tell, well, it's possible. I don't know if you have seen those videos about plants. a scientist put sensors on some plants, those sensors transmits frecuency waves to an oscilloscope (plant -> oscilloscope), then they analized the plant vibrations in different circumstances, for example, if you feel anger, the plant emits certain frecuencies, if you're okay, the plant transmits other type of frecuencies and so on. Tehre is a japanesse scientific who did the same thing but with water's molecules and achieved same results and a couple of year ago, a group of scientists from U.K. have found that the heart has an small group of neurons, which function is retaining the emotions that belongs to the memories stored in our brain and these neuron in the heart do similar things than the ones in our brain. In fact, they've discovered that emotional intelligence comes from that group of neurons, located in the hearth. Anotehr thing that have been discovered, again, from scientist from the U.K. is that the human brain emits waves (we know that: brainwaves), but the thing is they have discovered that those brainwaves reachs an effective distance of 1 meter and so, and those brainwaves affects to the closest brain. Then, they have studyed the neurons from the heart and they've discovered that the lenght reached by these ones is more than 3 meters and really powerfull in comparisson with the influence that a brainwave can apply inside another brain. I liked playing with waves, oscillators and such and I used to experiment with some guys in my flat, you know, putting a very low frecuency, around 0.5 Hz to 3 Hz for long time, around 30 minutes. JEje... Of course, I'm not into the room when the event is happening. After a while, they go out the room feeling themselves dazed and confused XD You know, if you don't like someone in your flat, just grab cool edit and make a sine waveform around those wavelenghts and wait outside =D =D =D JAjaJajA!!

I think we go trough this every now and then, I guess that people who shoot homeless and post the images should be prepared for it.

Homeless people are that, they have no homes to shelter them from the elements and from people looking at them, they are easy targets, they can't run and can't hide. They are dramatic looking, -unshaven- so are their expressions, so to make it enticing to use as subject of our photography. But there are rules about shooting homeless, or at least they should be, I found that out in photography school at icp. This are not reaten, but if I was going to start with one it would be: "get closer" to your subject....

We all want to be Ansel Adams and do the meaningful landscapes or Dorothea Lange and do the meaningful lost people or who-ever else from 1935. But it's not 1935 anymore and we're all time hardened by 3/4 of a century of the same thing. What do we do to make it different? Me I want to be Edward Weston in 1923 and run off to Mexico leaving my US problems behind. Same issue. It's all been done. And frankly with billions of over sharp over saturated 13 megapixel digital whiz pictures hitting me daily it's only taken me weeks to get to the place it took 3/4 of a century before. I'm tired of all that stuff too.

Now a project like Howard Schatz did of the homeless people where he got to know each one's story and photographed them out of their hopeless context with a simple black background, that has some traction.

Leonardo Boher said:

I don't know if the title is gramatically right. Anyway, his face goes beyond any grammar.
I shot him with a telephoto at 300mm.

Click to expand...

Leonardo,

May I:


Now with this title, the picture is unique! There are no pictures to compete with this! The gallery docent will inform the viewer of your personal identification with the man's state of mind and the fact that you believed he's homeless. That will make the buyer feel good that he can know you on a more intimate level and bond with your work. Am I joking? No I'm serious!

Asher

leonardobarreto.com said:

I think we go trough this every now and then, I guess that people who shoot homeless and post the images should be prepared for it.

Homeless people are that, they have no homes to shelter them from the elements and from people looking at them, they are easy targets, they can't run and can't hide. They are dramatic looking, -unshaven- so are their expressions, so to make it enticing to use as subject of our photography. But there are rules about shooting homeless, or at least they should be, I found that out in photography school at icp. This are not reaten, but if I was going to start with one it would be: "get closer" to your subject....

Click to expand...

Hi,

I already explained why 300mm and I already said that I talk with homeless.

Leo.

Jim Galli said:

We all want to be Ansel Adams and do the meaningful landscapes or Dorothea Lange and do the meaningful lost people or who-ever else from 1935. But it's not 1935 anymore and we're all time hardened by 3/4 of a century of the same thing. What do we do to make it different? Me I want to be Edward Weston in 1923 and run off to Mexico leaving my US problems behind. Same issue. It's all been done. And frankly with billions of over sharp over saturated 13 megapixel digital whiz pictures hitting me daily it's only taken me weeks to get to the place it took 3/4 of a century before. I'm tired of all that stuff too.

Now a project like Howard Schatz did of the homeless people where he got to know each one's story and photographed them out of their hopeless context with a simple black background, that has some traction.

Click to expand...

I don't get your point, but this is what I like.,

I really like your shot. I also like the lens choice that you made - isolating him from the background and drawing us in to his features. I also like the dark tonality. The only thing that to my eye detracts from the images impact, is the white sleeve in particular - and also his lighter left leg. Now I know that you have no control over the lighting that was on him - and may well prefer the way that it is lit (image quality is a personal preference) - - - but it appears to me that you may have already burned in some ares and so wondered what your photo would look like with different darkroom technique, toning down the bright arm and bringing focus on the face and hands more.

I'm not sure whether this forum has a feature that lets people know whether they can give their interpretation of others work or not. I didn't see anything and so went ahead and played a little with your image. If this is something that you do not want, please let me know so that I can immediately remove it. I kind of did a hack job on cloning in the white sleeve on small web sized image (you may have a RAW image where some of the detail can be retained when darkening). Also when I see it online compared to your original, it is really a toss up and personal choice whether the slightly brighter face and hands add to the story you see and are telling - or take away from it. I really like the lack of contrast on your original. Anyway - this isn't better, just another way of processing your fine photo. I'm looking at it strictly from an artistic standpoint.



----

Edit :

Now you see - there you go. My wife just came in to my studio and looked at the 2 shots (original and one where I darkened the sleeve, putting focus on the face and hands) and felt that she liked the white sleeve showing. She feels "that it shows his dignity. By appearances we may assume that he is down and out, but he still has enough respect for his life to keep his sweater clean. He hasn't given up yet". So there you go. We all can see things totally differently based on our experience or sympathy.

Robert Watcher said:

Now you see - there you go. My wife just came in to my studio and looked at the 2 shots (original and one where I darkened the sleeve, putting focus on the face and hands) and felt that she liked the white sleeve showing. She feels "that it shows his dignity. By appearances we may assume that he is down and out, but he still has enough respect for his life to keep his sweater clean. He hasn't given up yet". So there you go. We all can see things totally differently based on our experience or sympathy.

Click to expand...

Rob,


I like a little of your lightening his face, but not all the way. I've already posted that one should not hide but rather claim ownership of the white sleeve, not just for dignity, but because it's so unexpected and honest, make one ask questions.



Why take something unique and then make the picture the same as a lot of pictures of people who seem "down and out"?

You are married to such a smart woman!

Asher

Robert Watcher said:

I really like your shot. I also like the lens choice that you made - isolating him from the background and drawing us in to his features. I also like the dark tonality. The only thing that to my eye detracts from the images impact, is the white sleeve in particular - and also his lighter left leg. Now I know that you have no control over the lighting that was on him - and may well prefer the way that it is lit (image quality is a personal preference) - - - but it appears to me that you may have already burned in some ares and so wondered what your photo would look like with different darkroom technique, toning down the bright arm and bringing focus on the face and hands more.

I'm not sure whether this forum has a feature that lets people know whether they can give their interpretation of others work or not. I didn't see anything and so went ahead and played a little with your image. If this is something that you do not want, please let me know so that I can immediately remove it. I kind of did a hack job on cloning in the white sleeve on small web sized image (you may have a RAW image where some of the detail can be retained when darkening). Also when I see it online compared to your original, it is really a toss up and personal choice whether the slightly brighter face and hands add to the story you see and are telling - or take away from it. I really like the lack of contrast on your original. Anyway - this isn't better, just another way of processing your fine photo. I'm looking at it strictly from an artistic standpoint.

----

Edit :

Now you see - there you go. My wife just came in to my studio and looked at the 2 shots (original and one where I darkened the sleeve, putting focus on the face and hands) and felt that she liked the white sleeve showing. She feels "that it shows his dignity. By appearances we may assume that he is down and out, but he still has enough respect for his life to keep his sweater clean. He hasn't given up yet". So there you go. We all can see things totally differently based on our experience or sympathy.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Well... First of all, I appreciate the time you took to show through the editing you did, your words, so no problem with the editing. It's all okay In fact, that's the best way to show what you think about the picture In reality, the sleeve wasn't so clean, but the "shiny" camera -as someone wrote around here- was a Canon 300D, and it was shinny, because the silver color of the 300D XD Anyway, the thing with that camera (and with the 250 usd cheap Sigma 70-300mm lense), due its dynamic range, have saturated too much the sleeve, making it almost white (in grey scale terms) I have the RAW File in some place, I have taken this shot few years ago, I guess before the "Lightroom Era" Jeje, and I haven'nt been so good with Photoshop, you know. Just a newbie with lot of willingness to shot, but to shot consciously (I have never thought "Bah, I can shot 1 hundred of pics and erase what I don't like" because that's not the way to do a good photo).
I should think about the white thing. I really don't find it distracting, but your example shows a much better idea. I have to find the raw first, then, do a new editing with all my new knowledge

Thanks a lot for your meaningfull comment, mate!

Leo

I like Leo's photograph. It captured my attention.

I do, however, take issue with some members' observation/s. People ' from the suburbs with their shiny dslrs' taking photographs of ' BUMS' as trophy is a blanket statement that is neither justified here nor is this universally true.

One might have a feeling for someone or something. The way that experience moves that person to
record and present it is up to him/her. We have to accept the presenter's explanation..give him/her the benefit of the doubt and not question his/her sincerity without evidence to the contrary.

As to those that get sick of being bombarded with billions of pixels daily expressing the same thing that
has been done for 3/4 of a century, one has to recognise the fact for billions of humans nothing much
has changed for 3/4 of a century. Someone has to keep on reminding in the hope that something might change in the next 3/4 of a century for these unfortunate people.

Regards.

fahim mohammed said:

I like Leo's photograph. It captured my attention.

I do, however, take issue with some members' observation/s. People ' from the suburbs with their shiny dslrs' taking photographs of ' BUMS' as trophy is a blanket statement that is neither justified here nor is this universally true.

One might have a feeling for someone or something. The way that experience moves that person to
record and present it is up to him/her. We have to accept the presenter's explanation..give him/her the benefit of the doubt and not question his/her sincerity without evidence to the contrary.

As to those that get sick of being bombarded with billions of pixels daily expressing the same thing that
has been done for 3/4 of a century, one has to recognise the fact for billions of humans nothing much
has changed for 3/4 of a century. Someone has to keep on reminding in the hope that something might change in the next 3/4 of a century for these unfortunate people.

Regards.

Click to expand...

Hi Fahim

Well, I'm also bored of the typical portrait of starving kids or old men in Africa as well. If I would be in Africa, doing some photos, I would portray at least 1 of that. However, I felt real emphaty for this subject and never treated him like a "bum trophy". Tanaka talked too much about me without having any idea of myself. All his thoughts were absolutely negative, but anyway, I know why I took this photograph and I know what things move me to take a picture. He talked about me the same he talke about the photo. Using his own premise, he cannot say a word about me, because we're thousand of milles away of distance. And also, nobody here knows how much years I have as a photographer. I'm just an amateur.
I have started taking pictures in the year 2003, just a few, with an Olympus OM20. In Argentina, for that year, there weren't Digital Cameras, only film cameras and only a very few amount of persons had a Digital Reflex, specially, the Canon EOS Rebel Kiss 300D. Compact cameras, nothing. I have seen only one 300D in the year 2003, same like Macs. I only have seen 1 in my whole life, and it was few months ago. a Mac Pro with eight cores (what a monster). To have an idea, Internet came to Argentina in the year 1999, only dial-up and, in the year 2001 I bought ADSL of 256 KB, it was the faster connection available in the whole country and only in 2 states: Córdoba, where I live, and Buenos Aires. I was the only one among my big amount of friends with ADSL, till year 2004. In the year 2005 I have a lucky strike and I bought my first Digital Camera, the Canon EOS 300D, and I took this picture around year 2006. In 1 year I have learnt a lot by reading the life around me and by seeing a lot of photograph (I'm self thaught). After that, I found tutorials and the like. Now is year 2009, precisely the same month when I bought my first Digital Camera and the first one I used seriously (It costed me almost a leg and an eye!!! lol), so, I have only 4 years taking pictures, 2 of them was learning, learning and more learning. Of course, I keep learning. So imagine, this pictrue have been taken at my first year and half of having the camera... This can draw lot of conclusions around here, I think ^^

Thaks for the comment, Fahim

Leo

Leonardo Boher said:

However, I felt real emphaty for this subject and never treated him like a "bum trophy". Tanaka talked too much about me without having any idea of myself. All his thoughts were absolutely negative, but anyway, I know why I took this photograph and I know what things move me to take a picture.

Click to expand...

Ken is a very direct person. He gets a feeling and uses his experience and best judgment. Unlike where you live, having a digital camera, a DSL line and a fast computer is pretty ordinary for middle class kids living in the suburbs of any great city in the USA. So it's easy to take a ride downtown, find the down and out alcoholics, those kicked out of closed down mental hospitals of the Nixon era and beyond and the economically-trashed homeless folk and get one's trophies. Back at home one can then show friends how we are not merely driven by crass materialism and entertainment, rather we take a stand on matters of importance! The proof lies in our sensitive pictures.

There's a lot of truth to this. Even as a physician who actually saved lives in poor communities in Africa, I now realize that a lot of the good I felt was my own rationalization of a satisfaction harvested at that time. The long term consequences of saving lives in a community without an infrastructure to accommodate the extra mouths and minds in the following two rapidly following procreation cycles, (think no condoms), meant that the net sum of suffering was increased by my help delivered in that easy non-complicated way of providing intervention in the form of hydration, food and antibiotics. It might be that I, in fact, benefited the most in feeling how helpful and kind I had been!

So returning to photography, I understand how Ken might question anyone's images of the poor, wretched and homeless as acquiring "scalps" as trophies from folk who have not the where-with-all to hide their feelings, situation or location from our cameras.

Now am I willing to give up street photography of bums? No. However, I do admit, that in a way, I may be stealing. My only solution is to take as many pictures as possible of pompous rich, privileged folk who object and then, if they are rude, to take more pictures to balance things out!

Asher

Leonardo, I would like to take another stab at this. First, my apologies, we yankees, we live in a land of charlatans. Photography here has gotten awfully gimicky. Everyone is trying to tug at my emotions with cheap tricks so I get over reacting some time. Certainly we have no right to challenge your motives, and I will admit sheepishly this picture has grown on me and I would like to see more.

It's all cultural conditioning. In the USA very little is real. Everything is made to get a reaction by slick big city photographers. Your skin gets thick after a time. So I hope you will accept at least one apology. In Argentina you might be able to make a portfolio in an afternoon of what is real and vibrant. In the US this scene would be carefully scripted to the last hair out of place by some Madison Ave. photographer for the next big campaign. Two different worlds. I hope you'll show us more of yours. I need to learn to sit on my hands sometimes.

Jim Galli said:

Leonardo, I would like to take another stab at this. First, my apologies, we yankees, we live in a land of charlatans. Photography here has gotten awfully gimicky. Everyone is trying to tug at my emotions with cheap tricks so I get over reacting some time. Certainly we have no right to challenge your motives, and I will admit sheepishly this picture has grown on me and I would like to see more.

It's all cultural conditioning. In the USA very little is real. Everything is made to get a reaction by slick big city photographers. Your skin gets thick after a time. So I hope you will accept at least one apology. In Argentina you might be able to make a portfolio in an afternoon of what is real and vibrant. In the US this scene would be carefully scripted to the last hair out of place by some Madison Ave. photographer for the next big campaign. Two different worlds. I hope you'll show us more of yours. I need to learn to sit on my hands sometimes.

Click to expand...

No problem. As far I understood a bit your first message, I got realized that you were throwing some bad things on me, but I didn't get 100% the point. I don't know nothing about photographers, just about anonimous pohotographers. I believe anonimous photographers are the true ones. I met Ansel Adams 3 years ago and the Zonal System (also Rembrant), but I have looked for a similar thing in the year 2005, because I have been told, in that year, that digital photography lacks in tonal values and dynamic range. After looking in the Internet what about those terms, I started a technique of taking multiple exposures, then, I found Photomatix. In the same year, I wanted to achieve the "silver look", so I started another parallel research and, in 2 years and half of tryal and error, I found a technique that I named "Brutal Detail Enhancement", but later, something very close to my technique appeared in form of a plug-in. The Tonal Contrast one by Nik Software.

I want to say that I look for something that I want to achieve and I don't care if it was already written by someone else. I rarely read books, reality offers more than books offer, and all the philosophers and scientists have taken from the context all what they have discovered, same as I do.

I'm stating here that I ignore lot of stuff, starting by your first message. I don't know what about 1953 in the US in relation with photography.

Anyway, The US is giving me a dign job, through the Internet, that allows me to get equipment and keep a nice living in order to achieve more goals and knowledge. I don't have any complain about the US.

About the apologizes, I'm always ocnfused about the use of the term. For example, if I'm asking for apologizes, I don't know if I'm telling to the other guy to apologize or, I'm apologizing myself. Anyway, I'm still without understanding the way that the US works, but I understand about the point of the shinny cameras. It happened to me 1 year and half ago. I teach in Argentina what I learn about photography, and I have had a new student who wanted to take pictures of homeless people. She didn't know even what was the obturator, or the photometer, but she had a complete Nikon Film equipment only used in automatic mode (that's a crazyness, and taking the price into account of such big equipment to use it in automatic is not worthy) so, I told her that homeless people are not characters from a circus that she can go and portray only because they have lot of texture in their faces to work with, in the post processing. I know homeless because I talk to them, from time to time, since my 5 years old. They're wise people, at least the ones I found. So, I told her that they're not from a circus that you can go and portray and go home to try to get a nice grey scaled image. Homeless usually are too arrogant and resentful, so discretion must be used in order to get a connection. It's not just thowring some coins, shot and bye. It's about talk, but they talk too much as well, and usually they talk to their selves more than to the photographer. However, they are always interesting to hear. So the idea is not to offend them by going and shotting and good bye. They're very friendly, most than normal people here. They are sincere and transparent if you have the same behavior than they have with you. And this student didn't understand this stuff, so I told her "no, we will not going to take pictures of homeless if you don't get these items" and she disspeared, offended.
Truth hurts very ofently and people is not prepared for truth.
My apologizes for going for branchs, but there are stories that are linked and also, I'm falling asleep.
I don't acept your apologizes because you're not guilty. I accept your dignity, your attitude, which is the real thing, and I value those things, because those are your virtues, you're transparent and you face up the thing, so, where is the guilt, honorable man? They're under your virtues, not above. And that's what's matters most to me

Thanks for being a good person We all must be good persons. Things would be better that way, but we fall into the devil's puppet from time to time. However, we have consiousness and feelings in order to brake the strings that pulls our thoughts in the wrong direction, driven by our ego.
Thanks God, we dicern.

Have a nice day, I guess it's sunny there

I must go to bed.

Again, have a nice day

Leo

Jim
though I imagine that ALL yankees aren't as you describe, I put a knee down on earth with a lot of respect for such acknowledgment.
This should help the rest of the world, South-America, Asia, South-Pacific, Middle-East, Africa, Russia and Baltic countries, Europe (in no special order, hope not to have forgotten any ;-) the way you Yankees do see our world.

I deeply thank-you for that, Asher, you should make it a "sticky" somewhere so every one could read it!
The bad side of it is that many countries (including mine) are willing to behave the same…

Jim Galli said:

Leonardo, I would like to take another stab at this. First, my apologies, we yankees, we live in a land of charlatans. Photography here has gotten awfully gimicky. Everyone is trying to tug at my emotions with cheap tricks so I get over reacting some time. Certainly we have no right to challenge your motives, and I will admit sheepishly this picture has grown on me and I would like to see more.

It's all cultural conditioning. In the USA very little is real. Everything is made to get a reaction by slick big city photographers. Your skin gets thick after a time. So I hope you will accept at least one apology. In Argentina you might be able to make a portfolio in an afternoon of what is real and vibrant. In the US this scene would be carefully scripted to the last hair out of place by some Madison Ave. photographer for the next big campaign. Two different worlds. I hope you'll show us more of yours. I need to learn to sit on my hands sometimes.

Click to expand...

With the greates of respects I disagree. Your job as a physician was, is and should always remain to strive to do your best to treat the patient..irrespective of your moral or ethical stands/beliefs. The consequences of having alleviated the suffering of the needy resulting in the extra mouths to feed should be and is irrelevant to your oath and practice as a physician.

Your point of view raises very significant ethical issues..who should we treat and from whom shall we
withold medical help. Who shall live, who shall die? What value do you put on the life of an unfortunate
person in a poor, famine ridden, disease infected, war torn country somewhere on this earth?

I am sorry to say that I could ( wrongly maybe ) infer the answer from the drift of some of the
ideas expressed in this thread..by you and others.

btw, I am sure NG is readying its next cover that shall become an icon of photography! Another trophy
by another ' Livingstone ' I presume.


Best.

Asher Kelman said:

.....

There's a lot of truth to this. Even as a physician who actually saved lives in poor communities in Africa, I now realize that a lot of the good I felt was my own rationalization of a satisfaction harvested at that time. The long term consequences of saving lives in a community without an infrastructure to accommodate the extra mouths and minds in the following two rapidly following procreation cycles, (think no condoms), meant that the net sum of suffering was increased by my help delivered in that easy non-complicated way of providing intervention in the form of hydration, food and antibiotics. It might be that I, in fact, benefited the most in feeling how helpful and kind I had been!

.....

Asher

Click to expand...

Hi Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Ken is a very direct person. He gets a feeling and uses his experience and best judgment. Unlike where you live, having a digital camera, a DSL line and a fast computer is pretty ordinary for middle class kids living in the suburbs of any great city in the USA. So it's easy to take a ride downtown, find the down and out alcoholics, those kicked out of closed down mental hospitals of the Nixon era and beyond and the economically-trashed homeless folk and get one's trophies. Back at home one can then show friends how we are not merely driven by crass materialism and entertainment, rather we take a stand on matters of importance! The proof lies in our sensitive pictures.

Click to expand...

Ken absolutely misunderstood the point and expressed difamation and denigration towards my self and my pic (wich I really don't matter 'cause I know who I'm and what and how I do things, but, if this were a court, Ken would be in troubles). The point is his attitude of drop some trash here and never come back, like did Jim Galli, with honorable attitude, ego pride aside, reasoning and heart first, he've came back here and asked for apologizes

Being direct is being frank, sincere, not being subjective and state things about something or someone. We can be direct, as I preffer being direct in order to avoid misunderstoods and have things clear, but I will never state with arrogance and self secureness about something that I cannot be sure. I will say "It could be; it may; you probably, I think (as something personal or subjective)" before state something. I know you want to keep things in harmony, but Ken's words are impossible to re-compose. However, is his own personal problem. He stated too much things and with a very bad intention. I have omited his speech because it was very subjective to take it seriously, but he should think twice before type, and for his own safeness.

I have submitted this picture in other website and when people says "Oh, what a good photo!" I reply: "yes, indeed, but there is a sad man there, which is more important".

Asher Kelman said:

There's a lot of truth to this. Even as a physician who actually saved lives in poor communities in Africa, I now realize that a lot of the good I felt was my own rationalization of a satisfaction harvested at that time. The long term consequences of saving lives in a community without an infrastructure to accommodate the extra mouths and minds in the following two rapidly following procreation cycles, (think no condoms), meant that the net sum of suffering was increased by my help delivered in that easy non-complicated way of providing intervention in the form of hydration, food and antibiotics. It might be that I, in fact, benefited the most in feeling how helpful and kind I had been!

Click to expand...

Well, that's something good you did, and specially the "think, no codoms" statement. In Argentina, the government pays people that literally distribute icondoms in the streets. They go to the poor neighborhoods doing the same thing. It's like "How crazy those polictics are!!!" But yeah, it's more "cool" for youngers that way than thinking about the problem. We have here mothers of 12 years old you know, fathers of no more than 15yo and a president who says that all is okay. I can write a 1000 pages book only discribing in items all the bad things of Argentina and just 10 of those pages wil be the good ones and, now there are 9 pages, in few months, 8 pages and so on. Starting for education, youngers that finish the secondary school (something before College) don't know what's the maxillary, what's a cell or what means CO2. So they finish working in Call Centers and such. Those who goes to the Public University also doens't know anything! The structure of careers are the same than in 1972 (including comunist brain washing in carrers such: periodism, literature, psychology and philosophy). Private universities here are quite the same, but the number of students per classroom is not 600 just because not all people here can pay those private universities. However, they teach things like all the creative Suite but not Illustrator, nor InDesign and just a very basic level based in copyes of the Anaya Spanish Editorial books from year 1998.
I teach privately Photography, Photoshop and Lightroom and I have did some disertations becuase I know English. English is a big weapon because allows me to learn a lot of things and I personally teach to these guys from those private universities just to make a living. However, my knowledge is far aways from the Doug Kerr knowledge. I have been inside his website but I coudln't understand anything from it. Too scientific and I shamely have not enough knowledge to understand what he writes.

About your satisfaction by helping those poor people, I have a new friend, who's psychoanalist, and he have told me that anything we do, we do it for satisfaction, even taking care of the needy. (And I don't know why Fahim is angry with you about this matter, but that's soemthing between Fahim and you).

Asher Kelman said:

So returning to photography, I understand how Ken might question anyone's images of the poor, wretched and homeless as acquiring "scalps" as trophies from folk who have not the where-with-all to hide their feelings, situation or location from our cameras.

Now am I willing to give up street photography of bums? No. However, I do admit, that in a way, I may be stealing. My only solution is to take as many pictures as possible of pompous rich, privileged folk who object and then, if they are rude, to take more pictures to balance things out!

Asher

Click to expand...

I would like to do the same, but ther are not rich people here, well, yes, in private neighborhoods, closed and watched by guards... There is a boom here about private neighborhoods because delinquency is abdusrdly high and laws protect the delinquents. In fact, the other day a woman killed a delinquent who robbed she and now, the woman is on jail and the delinquent is free. Also, the delinquent family and firneds used to go to her hous and burnt it. But as I have said before, the list is large.

Well... I have to work right now.

Catch you later!

Leo

Hello Leo,

I am not angry with anyone!

Disagreement, expressed in a civil and respective manner with due regard to social norms, is essential for understanding and to clear up any misunderstanding/s. More importantly to learn from each other for the benefit of both.

I am sure Asher cares much more for the unfortunate than he lets on. My issue was in regards to Asher's comments about the possible consequences of a physician's work. No more, no less.

Best.

Leonardo Boher said:

.....

(And I don't know why Fahim is angry with you about this matter, but that's soemthing between Fahim and you).

......


Catch you later!

Leo

Click to expand...

fahim mohammed said:

With the greates of respects I disagree. Your job as a physician was, is and should always remain to strive to do your best to treat the patient..irrespective of your moral or ethical stands/beliefs. The consequences of having alleviated the suffering of the needy resulting in the extra mouths to feed should be and is irrelevant to your oath and practice as a physician.

Click to expand...

Fahim,

Of course you are completely correct. What one does right now is governed by the humanity in need and the immediacy. One cannot and shouldn't let anything else come in the way.

In my remarks, I merely referred to my own feeling of "being good" and having "helped the community" are questioned when we give "water without bread", so to speak. One has a responsibility to think of what also needs to be done. The community needs to be aided on a broader front so that it can sustain itself longterm. We have sent missionaries who give clean water, the bible and minimal education so kids have no wish to stay in villages and go to towns with insufficient education to earn a living. We must admit the damage we have caused in the eroded the way of life.

fahim mohammed said:

Your point of view raises very significant ethical issues..who should we treat and from whom shall we withold medical help. Who shall live, who shall die? What value do you put on the life of an unfortunate person in a poor, famine ridden, disease infected, war torn country somewhere on this earth?

Click to expand...

Fahim,

It's not the issue of whether or not we should act morally. It's that we must also take responsibility for the subsequent population created.

One cannot be a tourist who gives water to a man about to die in the dust and then goes back to his hotel room to prepare for his next entertainment. If the man begs for water it must be given. If one walks by as a man is dying, then what?

I'm just trying to face up to the fact that we cannot say, "Mission Accomplished" and pat oneself on one's back so fast!

Asher

Asher, two parts..first is the immediate nature of providing medical care. That must not be witheld for
any reason..moral,ethical,financial and thought of subsequent consequences.

The second part, which you address is a much more complicated issue to which I do not have a ready made solution. We, collectively as humans, bear a joint responsibility to sow the seeds for future goodness. it is however impractical for one person to bear the all the responsibility, wish as one may. All we should strive for is to do the most that one can.

I would not only attempt to feed a person but also attempt to teach him/her to fish. Most times, however,
I fail to teach for various reasons. Some justified but many times I make excuses so as to cover my failings.

Kindest regards.

fahim mohammed said:

Asher, two parts..first is the immediate nature of providing medical care. That must not be witheld for
any reason..moral,ethical,financial and thought of subsequent consequences.

The second part, which you address is a much more complicated issue to which I do not have a ready made solution. We, collectively as humans, bear a joint responsibility to sow the seeds for future goodness. it is however impractical for one person to bear the all the responsibility, wish as one may. All we should strive for is to do the most that one can.

I would not only attempt to feed a person but also attempt to teach him/her to fish. Most times, however,
I fail to teach for various reasons. Some justified but many times I make excuses so as to cover my failings.

Click to expand...

So where is there any difference, Fahim in our values here?