November 11, 2015

[BobDavid]

This restaurant is known for its flame-broiled chicken. The picture is intended to be viewed as a large print. So I've included a detail to show her better.

[Diego Pigozzo]

It remembers me an Hopper painting (nighthawks, if I'm not mistaken), with a disturbing twist due to the woman looking in camera.

I think it's very very interesting: at a first look that's not an image I would personally print and hang but it gives me a very strong sensation that this opinion of mine would change very soon.

In short, it's an image I'll keep looking in order to find it a place in my mind.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I agree that it I quite Hopper-esque. A fine image, with lots of grids within grids, that mark it as your work.

The woman looking at the camera gives it an intensity that would be lacking if she weren't aware of the camera.

I like it a lot. But I must say, she doesn't look flame-broiled to me.   

[BobDavid]

I agree that it I quite Hopper-esque. A fine image, with lots of grids within grids, that mark it as your work.

The woman looking at the camera gives it an intensity that would be lacking if she weren't aware of the camera.

I like it a lot. But I must say, she doesn't look flame-broiled to me.   

I was out of her sight--separated by a parking lot, a four-lane road, and another ten feet plus. As luck would have it, I just waited for her to do something interesting. I've been patronizing this restaurant since we moved to Sarasota. About a week ago, it occurred to me that it would be a good setting for taking pictures. I dropped by that location a couple of nights to scope out good vantage points. I have another photo that came out well, but I think this one is stronger. I like to become familiar with subjects before trying to photograph them. I try not to venture more than twenty minutes from home. Partly out of necessity--I am forgetful and sometimes do not pack a lens, a spare battery, a tripod plate, etc.

[GrahamBy]

I like it a lot. It does raise the question about the "universality" of photos containing a recognisable person: in Europe it would be illegal to exhibit that photo without the permission of the woman, but aside from that, how does someone feel about hanging a photo which contains a recognisable, non-famous stranger?
To me, it feels like a sort of intimacy to have some's image on my wall... and I'd quite expect someone to ask "Who is that?"

There is sliding scale in my perception: to illustrate, two photos taken recently in Barcelona. The first is possibly legal, since I think Spanish legislation allows photos of "crowds" defined as at least 6 people: I could imagine hanging it because the subject is "bunch of people in a shoe shop". The second I'd be less comfortable with, because it could be "scene from a tapas bar", but it could also be seen as a portrait of the guy (and maybe of the woman behind him)...

Both would be clearly illegal in France. I have another photo, a head-shot portrait taken on the street, which I don't even feel comfortable posting here although it would certainly be within Gary Winogrand's comfort range...

[RSL]

The picture would be more Hopperesque if the girl didn't look as if she were ready to stab you with that fork.

[BobDavid]

In the US, it's legal to photograph people who are unaware of being photographed. There was a big brouhaha over a collection of nighttime photos that an artist had taken through a long lens of people inside their high-rise apartments and condos.  The photos were  exhibited in a NY gallery. There was some fallout pertaining to the legality. The court ultimately ruled in the artist's favor. Peering into someone's home with a camera crosses a line way outside of my comfort zone.

Hopper's work is extraordinary. Nighthawks at the Diner is an iconic image. His paintings are representational, although they are neither photo realistic, impressionistic, nor abstract. I know many painters who project photos onto a blank canvas and sketch an outline that corresponds 1:1 with the photo. Why painters are not subjected to the same scrutiny and flack photographers are is curious.

As a viewer, can you be 100% certain that the woman's face has not been transmogrified? I don't know how recognizable she is due to: telephoto/optical compression, irregularities of the plate glass, features altered by light and shadow play. How does a viewer know whether or not I've mucked around with pixels to alter her features?

[GrahamBy]

Why painters are not subjected to the same scrutiny and flack photographers are is curious.

There is a prestigious portrait prize in Australia, the Archibald, established by a bequest in the will of said Mr Archibald. It stipulates that the painting must be made "from life", and there was a scandal some time back after a prominent entry was disqualified because the artist had used photos as a prompt (to what degree is unclear, given that the work was for from photo-realism it was certainly not an issue of tracing).

I guess if a person fronts in the gallery (or online site etc etc), recognises herself and launches a court case, it would be up to the court to decide if it was recognisably her. There was a case where it was ruled that the person was recognisable even from a rear-view, because of the location and the particularities of the manner of dress etc etc. It would be hard to argue that you had randomly modified the face and by pure coincidence happened to create the face of a specific person.

[BobDavid]

Fortunately, I live in the USA. This photo is not intended for commercial use. And, since I archive RAW files, it is easy to verify to what extent all, if any, of my images have been altered in post. I am not going to lose sleep over this. I intend to exhibit it. Street photographers in the US are less constricted than their counterparts in many other countries.

Since I am not a photo journalist, I am not concerned about getting my wrists slapped one way or  another.

Mr. Archibald and me are on the same page. I do not like it when painters paint from photos, unless the photos were taken by the painter. I don't think painters like it when photographers take pictures of their paintings and manipulate the image in Photoshop.

[Phil Indeblanc]

In the US its pretty simple for some situations. If the subject is in plane view from public space, and as long as you didn't go out of your way, like use a ladder or stand on top of something to extend your perspective, than you are mostly OK.

[Telecaster]

Personally I'm not fussed by photographers basing photos on paintings, as has been done for example with Hopper's Nighthawks, or by painters basing their work on found photos, as is the practice of John Winship. van Gogh was fond of copying paintings by Jean-François Millet. As long as the new work actually offers something new…

There are countless folk songs, murder ballads to be more specific, based on the same basic story of Stack Lee/Stackalee/Stag-o-lee/Stagger Lee/etc. Digging into the history of this, and listening to all the different recorded versions, is a rewarding endeavor.

-Dave-

[BobDavid]

Personally I'm not fussed by photographers basing photos on paintings, as has been done for example with Hopper's Nighthawks, or by painters basing their work on found photos, as is the practice of John Winship. van Gogh was fond of copying paintings by Jean-François Millet. As long as the new work actually offers something new…

There are countless folk songs, murder ballads to be more specific, based on the same basic story of Stack Lee/Stackalee/Stag-o-lee/Stagger Lee/etc. Digging into the history of this, and listening to all the different recorded versions, is a rewarding endeavor.

-Dave-

In re to those who paint, use pastels, or pencils, I agree about it being fine to extrapolate something new from a found photo or image. It just bugs me to see an "artist" thoughtlessly use an opaque projector to make a facsimile.