Nice to see your critical pixels here, Frank ;-)) I was about to post a similar comment ...
Although it's not ~necessary~ to see the eyes, the eyes often complete, if not tell, the story. That's something of a generalization, but it's also something to consider each time one presses the shutter release. Also, this fellow has a wonderful face that expresses his experiences. The details of this fellows face could be rendered stronger, and that would give the photo a lot more depth. Chris, it's not really a bad shot, and in part it suffers because of the use of the word "Homeless" in the title. Once you've categorized an image like that, there'd better be something in the photograph to show it. Had you described this pic as "Man Asleep" it may have worked a little better since not much more is needed to explain, photographically, the story. frank theriault wrote: > > I more or less agree with Marnie WRT "Homeless at Rose Bay". He could any > old guy sleeping at any place. Or, he could just have shut his eyes when > you snapped. To me there's no context here. I'm not necessarily saying (as > I think Marnie did) that there should be more visual cues of his > surroundings. But, if one's not going to do that, there should be something > intrinsic to him to tell us something about his character. In that regard > it would be nice if we could see his eyes (not that it's necessary to see > his eyes) or something about him to give us some small piece of insight to > the man. > > It's not that this is a bad shot, but for street photography, there's just > something more that I'd want. I don't know what it is, I just know I don't > see it.
