Homelessman in gutter

My issues are not whether or not the public place is fair game or not. My issue is that this has been posted on the internet without the individual's permission. I believe the subject deserves the right to decide whether or not he should be put on display. Its about human dignity.

A secondary aspect is, as Scott mentions, the disconnect I find between the image and Stephen's narrative. This is where a more thoughtful shot could have and should have been made; and yes, permission granted if not a model release signed.

Is it cowardly to take the image: not at all. Is it cowardly to post it here without the knowledge or permission of the subject: yes! This isn't a street shot of a person doing an interesting thing it is the public display of a voyeuristic intrusion on someone who has ether hit rock bottom or is heading there fast.

I am sorry for the harsh words, but when you make grandiose statements regarding the shot you leave your self open for a critique of equal weight. I stand by my statements, but I'll not make anymore. I honestly believe that Stephen is sincere, but misguided in this instance.

Im not going to comment any further on this image, Its raw documentary of a moment in someones existence. Weather I'm voyeuristic for having captured a tragic reality, Im simply the messanger.

What I have done is beginning to remind me of this image

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/meisabel/Myspace%20Page%20Front/1CRAWL400.jpg

I dont think the shot is a crapy shot. What everyone here is upset about is Stephen's description of the shot. Here is why this photo struck a nerve with everyone (This picture makes me feel dirty just looking at it.) Those words told me what he felt inside about the homeless man and to be honest, it turned my stomach just hearing it. I feel Stephen has no humanity for the person and gets joy from further abuse of the person in the shot.

KPT, i agree with you. although the picture captures a moment in a homeless man's life, something we all should be aware of, it is the "makes me feel dirty" comment that bothered me as well. i would have expected a more empathetic comment because, as vic said earlier...''there but for the grace of god go i".
~~marianne

Stephen -

I don't think there is a valid comparison between your photo and the one you just linked to. There is a different dynamic in yours than there is in the linked image - your image has a direct viewer/subject relationship. I think it succeeds on an artistic level by making that VERY direct connection between the viewer and the subject. I believe you are taking a lot of heat because almost everyone seeing your photo will feel discomfort, and displace that discomfort on to you, justified or not.

The photo you linked to IS classic documentary - there is no relationship between the photographer and the subject- the photographer is the impartial observer of the dynamic between the person on the ground and the person walking away. It also has a number of artistic motifs (happy accidents though they may be) - the contrast between the black person crawling and the white robes of the person walking away, the horizontal vs vertical movement, and so on, that all make the image mean MORE.

Your image is direct, in-your-face, on-camera flash-lit, and feels like a papparazzo shot. There but for the grace of god goes Britney Spears.

Life is wild animal, living inside us.

I saw image yesterday and read comments. I wanted to reply ... but.
Stephen made photograph. Of a man on the bottom. I think, that Stephen is now, with this photograph in the land he never visited before, and he is alien there. He is addicted photographer, with some style and inner engine, but ...
Technically the photograph is not bad for me, because the dirt and waste is very natural in color photograph and is striking emotions. But ...
The face of man captured in this situation and Stephen's judgement to post it on "very public place", even not meant for any critique of technical aspects and help with project about something, but just so as an result of his work, is from my point of view simply dirty thing....
There is lot of judgements now, but it is OK, Stephen did first judgement.
I wrote this, because I have some simillar expirience.
I lived inside for some time, and met lot of such as people. Many of them fighting alcohol daemons, coming from jail, etc ... bla bla, but ...
Their lives are almost the same as anybody else's, and if someone will publish the shot like this, in this context I feel sick of it.
Once, walking though the city, I was on "rich" people street, with jewelery shops and other shops and shops ... There was blind, crippled man begging for money. He was sitting before one big bank window, just before advertisement " For your richer life". And the well dressed people passing him made final part of incredible composition. I looked on him through mid range lens, framed shot, and ... I walked to him and asked him for permission to make a shot. As I said, just for me. "NO. I have very bad expirience, none is asking for that and social worker visiting me said, I was in newspapers." He was blind, with scary face. He didn't know were is sitting, etc, etc. I didn't take any shot, even not for me.
Speaking about lawyers is bullshit, speaking about ethics is bullshit, I just feel here an aggression, strong aggression. Maybe I am wrong, but ... I feel it so.

Have to say APUG is useful place and now it works perfect. The issues about this shot rised up strong discussion, I think, very useful.


r.

P.S.: Stephen, I don't want to be offensive and I find some your photogrpahs very interesting, but here I feel this is blind shot and not documentary photograph, and it is out of target.

Stephen, for future reference, I'd suggest if you want to do spontaneous photos, take the picture THEN talk to the person immediately and ask them for permission. If they say no, then don't post the work, simple as that. I know technically this still isn't on the good side of the law but it's a bit more morally acceptable.

"...Speaking about lawyers is bullshit, speaking about ethics is bullshit, I just feel here an aggression, strong aggression. Maybe I am wrong, but ... I feel it so." -dida

Maybe you are wrong. When I mentioned lawyers and what could possibly happen, it was on Stephen's behalf. I wish him no harm. Stephen's a good guy. Maybe the laws are different in Australia and, therefore, maybe I'm wrong.

But beyond that, as has been mentioned before, put yourself in the homeless person's place. Another person walks up to you, at perhaps your lowest point of your life, snaps a photo, and walks away. It's similar to what people with cameras do at the zoo. The big difference is that there's no cage around the homeless person and, unlike with an animal, a little communication could have gone a long way, good or bad. How many people out there like the silent treatment?

Marc, I didn't spoke about Stephen, but about Homeless man. My english is quite bad. I just wanted to say, that laws about photographing someone and ethical codexes are not so important as what we feel internaly about such moments and photographs. The ZOO metaphor is very close, what I tried to express. But enough of philosophy for today, the roots of this discussion are very strong and very deep.
Regards,
r.

Is it by choice or by a failing system. Many in Florida show up every winter from up north. How I'm not sure, but when asked if they want to get a good meal and a place to sleep and shower at night in a shelter, most say NO! they don't want to hear about the lord and how they could be turned around and have the good life. Most just want to be left alone because that is what they want. Not all but most down here.