* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #944 / Revived #164 on 2026 05 20 *

Cool use of the reflection.
Many photographers shooting people and situations on the street, don't pay attention to shadows and reflections, while these can add so much to an image.

What you write about not shooting people who have lost self-control, is interesting and valid.
It is a matter of consent.
This does not mean that I believe that there should always be consent in photography between shooter and subject.
But there should be a POSSIBILITY of consent.

Several aspêcts make the image stand out (apart from the obvious that it is a good capture of an interesting subject or phenomenon, as indicated in your narrative).
Three points that struck me:
1) The sign saying "Krishna", adding spirituality to the urban scene
2) The use of space (as a result of your choice when exactly to depress the shutter). I am sure that people hurrying by sometimes pass much closer to this dog, but you have picked a moment where the dog has space, like an invisible territory surrounding it.
3) A true photographer's touch : your choice of shutter speed. A modern high ISO camera would certainly allow to shoot this scene without subject motion blur. So you made a conscious choice (I think) to go for a slower, longer shutter speed, that anonymizes the people rushing by (and gives them motion and dynamism), while the dog is so still that it is sharp in the frame (as is the immobile background setting like the sign and walls etc.) This contrast between dog at rest and people under commuter stress is what ultimately elevates this image.

Great thoughts, thanks for contributing to what is turning into the most interesting exchange of ideas.

Good observations.
Intent is indeed a crucial factor in the matter of acceptability of images.
But intent is hard to judge.
If we know the photographer and his/her track record (as a decent and moral human being - or as a well known photojournalist), then it is easy.
But the trouble is of course that we seldom really know the photographer.
And then the context of publication is the only thing we can go on.
The same image can be acceptable or not, depending on what context it is used in (with the example you give).
Sometimes it is a fine line.
Take Steve McCurry's "Afghan girl".
Probably the best known photo portrait in the whole of photojournalism history.
It is a stunning portrait, but it could also be regarded as exploitative, because McCurry photographed the traumatized girl in a refugee camp and she did not really know or appreciate what was happening. But of course we don't assume exploitation because we know the photographer.
In that sense, McCurry's efforts, decades later, to find that girl (then a woman) back and tell her story, is valuable.

Great comments.
Thanks for sharing.

(How valuable this thread is fast becoming...!)

I have not been able to retrieve the (heated) conversation/discussion in DPR forums.
But I have managed to dig up the image.
(I knew it was shot in either China or Vietnam or Singapore so that narrowed it down!)
I'll share the image in next week's thread.

Even if you had not named the city, I would have placed this image in Cusco (knowing it was in Peru), from the combination of stones from Inca and Spanish eras.
(We see that mixing of architectural eras also in European and Middle Eastern cities, but less in South-America, I suppose.)

I like your image and the explanations.
It is a good echo of Pete's image of a dog in Mumbai this week, but OTOH very different.
In Pete's image, the people provide context. Here it is the building.