Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: stamper on May 12, 2016, 04:10:26 am
-
I posted the image to Flickr with the caption Breakneck Speed. I thought about not posting because it looked like I was mocking the person? It seemed to be well received but one person commented that he looked deformed which I agree with. Does anyone agree that it is mocking and unethical or it was "reasonable" to post it? Where do you draw the line when taking images and posting them to Flickr or other sites?
-
My first impression when I saw your photo was that this was an 'easy meat' shot. I changed my mind quickly when I spent some time with the image. I now find the shot rather empty of meaning - it doesn't bring me any new information about him or the world in which we live - just that he might have a medical problem with his neck down the line. I would not go so far as saying your photo is unethical, just not very interesting.
Brian
-
As you ask, I certainly would never have thought of shooting it.
Whether the guy's actually deformed or not, it's just plain ugly. What were you thinking?
Rob C
-
The quality of the image aside, I would say the person is not physically impaired in any way, he's juggling a jacket and trying to hold a phone between his shoulder and his ear, that's enough to make anyone look a bit odd when a moment is frozen in time. It's a common enough sight on any city street and certainly not indicative of anyone having a disability, except maybe a disability which symptoms are being unable to stop moving for just a minute to hold their phone properly.
This image says one thing to me, Slow down, stop and do things properly or you'll look like a fool.
-
The quality of the image aside, I would say the person is not physically impaired in any way, he's juggling a jacket and trying to hold a phone between his shoulder and his ear, that's enough to make anyone look a bit odd when a moment is frozen in time. It's a common enough sight on any city street and certainly not indicative of anyone having a disability, except maybe a disability which symptoms are being unable to stop moving for just a minute to hold their phone properly.
This image says one thing to me, Slow down, stop and do things properly or you'll look like a fool.
Do you practice street photography? That is not what you do. If you did then you wouldn't get images at all. Not sure what the fool bit is about. :-\
-
As you ask, I certainly would never have thought of shooting it.
Whether the guy's actually deformed or not, it's just plain ugly. What were you thinking?
Rob C
Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder? Street photography isn't about beauty,it is about finding quirky and unusual images imo. You have stated in the past that you don't like someone taking an image of you in public? Perhaps I now know why. :(
-
My first impression when I saw your photo was that this was an 'easy meat' shot. I changed my mind quickly when I spent some time with the image. I now find the shot rather empty of meaning - it doesn't bring me any new information about him or the world in which we live - just that he might have a medical problem with his neck down the line. I would not go so far as saying your photo is unethical, just not very interesting.
Brian
How is it possible that I could bring you any information about a stranger that I have never met. The meaning of the image to me is about people relaxing but there is one person that is rushing about. Typical of modern life? Then again if you have to explain it, it doesn't work.
-
Do you practice street photography? That is not what you do. If you did then you wouldn't get images at all. Not sure what the fool bit is about. :-\
Apologies Stamper in the whole line you've bolded I was referring to the subject, he is looking like a fool not the photographer :) I should have made that clearer.
-
Apologies Stamper in the whole line you've bolded I was referring to the subject, he is looking like a fool not the photographer :) I should have made that clearer.
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
-
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
philaitman's original message was also pretty clear to me. Maybe that's because my own interpretation of the image almost exactly matched his.
stamper, do you yourself interpret the image differently, not how philaitman described it? Judged by the title, it seems like no, but what do I know... Somehow, you managed to misinterpret his reply.
Speaking of the question in the OP, I see nothing wrong with posting this image.
P.S. Lots of surprising answers in this thread...
-
I immediately saw it as someone trying to hold a phone, so I didn't really have a problem. There remains the issue of invasion of privacy... but of course I always see that more in someone else's photos than in mine ;)
I would hope that street photography is about more than finding what is quirky or unusual, but rather something that communicates a feeling or impression. That seems to be happening here with a story about the modern need to be doing 3 things at once, whatever the physical and mental consequences.
-
It's pretty clear what's going on, Robert. But I commend your concern. It's a concern I always have too, and I have a number of what I consider to be fine street shots I won't post or display for that very reason. Pictures of hoboes and the mentally disturbed are particularly prone to that defect.
I think Graham's point is right on the money. Although there are several books that seem to think street photography is about the quirky or unusual, anyone who's studied the masters of street understands that it's not a "gotcha" exercise. There has to be a there there -- something that informs you about the human condition (to use a wretched cliché).
But in the US there's no concern about invasion of privacy. If you're in a public place the law says you have no expectation of privacy. Looking at the photographs of Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Ronis, Brassai, and Riboud, it's clear that used to be the case in France. A pity it no longer is.
-
Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder? Street photography isn't about beauty,it is about finding quirky and unusual images imo. You have stated in the past that you don't like someone taking an image of you in public? Perhaps I now know why. :(
What gives, stamper?
You ask an open question on an open forum, and then react with defensive indignation when you don't like the responses.
No wonder I seldom offer comment on your pictures.
Rob C
-
I find all street photography intrusive and offensive
-
It's an ungenerous photograph. I wouldn't post it.
-
I find all street photography intrusive and offensive
Best to stay off the street then.
-
P.S. Lots of surprising answers in this thread...
I find all street photography intrusive and offensive
And here is another one... :o
-
I immediately thought he was holding a phone too. Looks awkward.
I find most street shots pretty uninteresting and this one falls into that category for me too. I'll be the the first to admit I don't really get it (or I must not since people who do get it seem to like the genre). Every now and then one really grabs me but that is probably less than 1% of what I see. Occasionally a very well-composed street shot comes along that does tell an interesting story so maybe I'm just too picky. I've tried my hand at it and also felt like my photos were pretty boring but I just don't have the tolerance for conflict that I would probably need to get better shots.
-
Hello...
If you didn't see this person in a "normal upright" attitude at some point in his "walk" - it may have been this:
http://www.medicinenet.com/dystonia/article.htm
I have a friend with dystonia and his symptoms are neck muscle pull into an almost exact position as the fellow in your photo.
On the other hand, you may have just caught a fully functional person in a "juggling six things at once posture." But from the shape of his jawline and mouth and the radical lift of the right shoulder, I'm inclined to think dystonia.
I like some street photography, but would agree with another poster that this is gratuitously ungenerous. I wouldn't have taken it, or posted it. Then again, I'm sensitive to people who have disabilities like this and whether this "is one" or not it "mocks" from my life experience. Not intended as criticism, only attempting to share another perspective.
Rand
-
...This image says one thing to me, Slow down, stop and do things properly or you'll look like a fool.
Do you practice street photography? That is not what you do. If you did then you wouldn't get images at all. Not sure what the fool bit is about. :-\
Stamper, your response says one thing to me. Slow down, stop and READ things properly or you'll look like a fool. :D
-
I have a friend with dystonia and his symptoms are neck muscle pull into an almost exact position as the fellow in your photo.
On the other hand, you may have just caught a fully functional person in a "juggling six things at once posture." But from the shape of his jawline and mouth and the radical lift of the right shoulder, I'm inclined to think dystonia.
If he does have what used to be called a wry neck, he's jolly lucky that it aligns so well with modern technology. Can you not see the phone wedged between his cheek and his shoulder?
Jeremy
-
What gives, stamper?
You ask an open question on an open forum, and then react with defensive indignation when you don't like the responses.
No wonder I seldom offer comment on your pictures.
Rob C
I will tell what gives Rob. The image wasn't posted for critique but to illustrate a question. The question being is it unethical to post an image that has someone with a possible affliction in it? You completely ignored that and attacked the image. I wasn't asking for a critique. Calling it ugly wasn't smart? I had a genuine concern about the image and Russ's post about taking images and deciding not to post was the answer I was looking for.
-
I immediately saw it as someone trying to hold a phone, so I didn't really have a problem. There remains the issue of invasion of privacy... but of course I always see that more in someone else's photos than in mine ;)
I would hope that street photography is about more than finding what is quirky or unusual, but rather something that communicates a feeling or impression. That seems to be happening here with a story about the modern need to be doing 3 things at once, whatever the physical and mental consequences.
In the UK there isn't any invasion of privacy. Street photography is perfectly legal unless you are harassing someone.
In this instance I was framing the people sitting down enjoying the sunshine when he walked through the scene. I only saw him for two seconds and I thought there was a juxtaposition between him and the stationary people.
-
Then I'm not sure why you posted a picture of a guy walking past using his phone and ask a question about whether it is ethical to post a picture of somebody with a possible affliction. He probably does not have a disability.
It's not an image I either like or dislike really. Like most street photos - I think it will be a lot more interesting in 50 years time.....
Jim
-
I didn't post the image for a critique because I didn't think it was good enough for judgement by the members. Some of them can be scathing if it doesn't have "merit" I posted it to Flickr because the members there aren't as scathing. However one member thought that the person had a deformity which got me thinking about ethics. On one hand I am surprised by the reactions of some of the members here but I fully expected one or two to over react which they did. At the end of the day I suppose a clash of personalities come into play? It does seem like a lot of the members don't see any merit - or understand - in street photography. Perhaps their fear of shooting strangers overwhelms them. :(
-
Can you not see the phone wedged between his cheek and his shoulder?
Jeremy
No I don't see a phone. What may appear to be the edge of a phone looks to me like a turned up collar on his dress shirt.
If it is a phone, where is the other collar point on his shirt?
-
In the UK there isn't any invasion of privacy. Street photography is perfectly legal unless you are harassing someone.
Ethics cannot be reduced to legality. If only legality was in question, I doubt there is a law specific to street photography of persons with a hypothetical disability.
So what would be the point of the question?
Actually I just checked Wikipedia, and it seems the theoretical legal situation in the UK is not so different to France, because of EU legislation. The practice may of course be different:
A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[28][29][30][31][32]
Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[33] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
-
In the UK there isn't any invasion of privacy. Street photography is perfectly legal unless you are harassing someone.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on location/country and jurisprudence.
To give you an idea, and maybe that is different in the UK, in the Netherlands (with one of the more liberal Copyright systems, if not superseded by European law), it is as a general principle permitted to take pictures of scenes in public space, including pictures of people. There are limitations, usually around copyrighted objects in the scene, but people are not excluded from the general principle.
However, there is also a portrait right section in the Copyright Act, which describes that publication of portraits taken of a person might be prohibited. There are several situations which legally do allow the use of such a portrait, but one of the possible illegal uses is if the portrait conflicts with the personal interests of the person(s) shown in the image.
Those interests could be anything, and it's again up to the judge (the courts) to decide if those interests are at stake. Therefore, the general rule is, since you cannot know if you are violating the interests of the person in the image by publishing it without permission, it is wise to not push your luck or ask for permission. For example, maybe someone is (accidentally) seen together with someone of questionable reputation, or in a location where he/she should not have been at the time.
The very clear explanation of the Dutch Portrait-right section of the Copyright law can be found here (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.auteursrecht.nl%2Fauteursrecht%2FPortretrecht&edit-text=) in a Google translation, so it will read somewhat crooked here and there, but you'll get the gist of it.
People tend to forget that rights also come with obligations, i.e. to use those rights with proper care and consideration for others.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No I don't see a phone. What may appear to be the edge of a phone looks to me like a turned up collar on his dress shirt.
If it is a phone, where is the other collar point on his shirt?
That's my conclusion on close inspection as well.
Rand
-
Here's a fairly common reaction to being photographed on the street.
-
Russ that is one situation that I probably would have avoided. At the end of the day common sense plays a big part in what you choose to photograph, or not. Personally I don't like using a wide angle prime lens because to use it properly and fill the frame one has to invade someone elses space and I try to avoid that.
-
Russ that is one situation that I probably would have avoided. At the end of the day common sense plays a big part in what you choose to photograph, or not. Personally I don't like using a wide angle prime lens because to use it properly and fill the frame one has to invade someone elses space and I try to avoid that.
I agree, although the size of that 'space' differs between cultures, and local tradition.
Anyway, Russ can consider himself lucky that the subject had no money for bullets in his gun ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
"What gives, stamper?
You ask an open question on an open forum, and then react with defensive indignation when you don't like the responses.
No wonder I seldom offer comment on your pictures.
Rob C"
..........................................................
I will tell what gives Rob. The image wasn't posted for critique but to illustrate a question. The question being is it unethical to post an image that has someone with a possible affliction in it? You completely ignored that and attacked the image. I wasn't asking for a critique. Calling it ugly wasn't smart? I had a genuine concern about the image and Russ's post about taking images and deciding not to post was the answer I was looking for.
stamper,
I sometimes don't quite know if you are making statements or asking questions - not at all clear.
However, such doubts aside, it would be interesting to know your ideas of where the lines between thinking an image ugly because of its content, execution, concept, or even the moral quality of the stimulation to make it lie, and when it may or may not be legitimate to voice opinions on same. Perhaps you prefer answers in the mode of the curate's egg? However, in the case of this image, ugly probably covers all points. Whether the final composition was or was not your intention, whether or not that poor guy just wandered into shot by accident or not doesn't matter: what matters is that you decided to press ahead with it, and publish the result, which is the only relevant evidence any of us here has on which to form opinion.
Somehow, I get the distinct impression that you already knew the answer to your own question, indicated by your point about Russ's reply, which leads me to wonder why you bothered to start the thread in the first place; your gut instinct had already told you no, scrap it. Do you see what I mean?
Rob C
-
Russ that is one situation that I probably would have avoided. At the end of the day common sense plays a big part in what you choose to photograph, or not. Personally I don't like using a wide angle prime lens because to use it properly and fill the frame one has to invade someone elses space and I try to avoid that.
Actually it was a 50mm on an Epson R-D1, which was an early attempt to compete with the Leica M8, which, considering that first Leica digital's gross imperfections wasn't too hard. The thing actually was a split-image rangefinder, just like its Leica brother. Unfortunately it had its own shortcomings, so I sold it. But at the moment, with the Pen-F and a 25mm Leica Summilux, which, on the Pen is the equivalent of the 50 on my Leica film cameras, I'm back to where I want to be. I agree that wide angle is carrying things too far, but 50 mm gives you normal perspective, which is what I prefer.
Oh, and this is the kind of situation I normally avoid too, but this guy was asking for it. The only reason I posted the picture here is because he's unrecognizable. His finger covers his face.
-
Actually it was a 50mm on an Epson R-D1, which was an early attempt to compete with the Leica M8, which, considering that first Leica digital's gross imperfections wasn't too hard. The thing actually was a split-image rangefinder, just like its Leica brother. Unfortunately it had its own shortcomings, so I sold it. But at the moment, with the Pen-F and a 25mm Leica Summilux, which, on the Pen is the equivalent of the 50 on my Leica film cameras, I'm back to where I want to be. I agree that wide angle is carrying things too far, but 50 mm gives you normal perspective, which is what I prefer.
Oh, and this is the kind of situation I normally avoid too, but this guy was asking for it. The only reason I posted the picture here is because he's unrecognizable. His finger covers his face.
"Actually it was a 50mm on an Epson R-D1,"
Never knew of anyone who actually owned one; seemed, on the face of it, to be quite an interesting idea.
Rob
-
I misspoke when I said I had a 50mm lens on it, Rob. I just did some research to refresh my memory about the details on that camera. It had a 1.53 crop, 6 mpx sensor, and the Voigtländer lens I had on it was 35mm, which gave me the equivalent of a bit over 53mm on a full frame; close enough to satisfy my 50mm eye.
After working with Leicas for many years the fact that it was a split-image rangefinder made me feel like I was coming home. But there were some problems with it. Don't remember what they were. I put it up for sale and sold it at a slight loss. Even now I sometimes think about going back to a Leica, but it strikes me Leitz has become more a jewelry company than a camera company.
Here's one of my all-time favorite pictures from that camera. I was at an art show in Orlando, and my wife and I were sitting down for a rest. This kid came bopping by, blowing bubbles. She stopped in front of us, turned, did this, then ran off. I had roughly a second to get this shot. It was enough, though the focus isn't exact and the sharpness fanatics will go bonkers.
-
Focus doesn't matter. It's a magical shot.
But Russ, you do realize that that 53mm lens actually ever so slightly cropped the image that a 50 would have gotten. Was that ethical??? :D
Eric
-
What's that old saying, Eric? "Close enough for government work?"
-
What's that old saying, Eric? "Close enough for government work?"
;)
-
stamper,
I sometimes don't quite know if you are making statements or asking questions - not at all clear.
However, such doubts aside, it would be interesting to know your ideas of where the lines between thinking an image ugly because of its content, execution, concept, or even the moral quality of the stimulation to make it lie, and when it may or may not be legitimate to voice opinions on same. Perhaps you prefer answers in the mode of the curate's egg? However, in the case of this image, ugly probably covers all points. Whether the final composition was or was not your intention, whether or not that poor guy just wandered into shot by accident or not doesn't matter: what matters is that you decided to press ahead with it, and publish the result, which is the only relevant evidence any of us here has on which to form opinion.
Somehow, I get the distinct impression that you already knew the answer to your own question, indicated by your point about Russ's reply, which leads me to wonder why you bothered to start the thread in the first place; your gut instinct had already told you no, scrap it. Do you see what I mean?
Rob C
You are the one who thinks it to be ugly not me. I didn't ask for a critique but you seem to be determined to give one. Scrap it? Why should I? Just because you don't like it? On Flickr it was well received so I will let it live. :)
-
You are the one who thinks it to be ugly not me. I didn't ask for a critique but you seem to be determined to give one. Scrap it? Why should I? Just because you don't like it? On Flickr it was well received so I will let it live. :)
As testament! Well done, well said, +1.
;-)
;-(
Rob C
-
I posted the image to Flickr with the caption Breakneck Speed. I thought about not posting because it looked like I was mocking the person? It seemed to be well received but one person commented that he looked deformed which I agree with. Does anyone agree that it is mocking and unethical or it was "reasonable" to post it? Where do you draw the line when taking images and posting them to Flickr or other sites?
As you were there, perhaps you could clarify whether the man's bodily contortion is the result of a mobile phone or a medical condition? Initially I assumed the former, and I enjoyed the shot for the extremity of the contortion (modern phones are increasingly difficult to cradle like this). But now that it's been pointed out that what I thought was a phone is possibly just the collar of the poor chap's shirt, and that he might indeed have a disability, then the photograph (and especially its public posting with the title 'breakneck speed') does seem to be in poor taste.
-
As you were there, perhaps you could clarify whether the man's bodily contortion is the result of a mobile phone or a medical condition? Initially I assumed the former, and I enjoyed the shot for the extremity of the contortion (modern phones are increasingly difficult to cradle like this). But now that it's been pointed out that what I thought was a phone is possibly just the collar of the poor chap's shirt, and that he might indeed have a disability, then the photograph (and especially its public posting with the title 'breakneck speed') does seem to be in poor taste.
My initial reaction was it was a medical condition. I accept it could be seen as poor taste hence the reason for the post. Wondering about the ethics.
-
Watching Rob C argue with stamper is like watching Richard Dawkins argue with Donald Trump.
Very entertaining, please don't censor.
-
My initial reaction was it was a medical condition.
Thank you for acknowledging this. I think it lends clarity to the discussion.
Rand
-
... like watching Richard Dawkins argue with Donald Trump.
This may be the funniest post I've read in years - both chaps being completely bonkers to my way of thinking.
Rand
-
I did a screen grab and enlarged. It's a phone.
-
My initial reaction was it was a medical condition.
If anything, this guy is healthier then me, as I cannot pull that trick w/o breaking my neck, while he can. Lucky bastard...
-
I did a screen grab and enlarged. It's a phone.
See? A True Enigma in the short, which is a sign of a Masterpiece. Something for many future generations of photogs and critics alike to ponder...
-
I did a screen grab and enlarged. It's a phone.
They guy might have a medical condition, but you are surely visually impaired ;)
My working hypothesis is a phone is somewhere there, but there is no way you can see it, no matter how much you enlarge.
-
True, I couldn't see the keypad. He may have a specially made shirt with a collar much larger on the rhs, which he has starched into a straight-edged form with a 10mm rounded edge. Then with a strange case of acute dystonia that effects only the neck while allowing him to walk normally, this might be what we'd see.
-
When you google "dystonia" for images, this is one of the eerily similar illustrations:
-
When you google "dystonia" for images, this is one of the eerily similar illustrations:
Slobodan,
Thanks...
Rand
-
True, I couldn't see the keypad. He may have a specially made shirt with a collar much larger on the rhs, which he has starched into a straight-edged form with a 10mm rounded edge. Then with a strange case of acute dystonia that effects only the neck while allowing him to walk normally, this might be what we'd see.
As I've indicated, I agree that it's a phone. There's nothing unusual about a dystonia affecting only the neck, though: google torticollis (or, as I referred to it earlier, wry neck) for details.
Jeremy
-
It's not a phone. When you cradle a phone, you cradle it your ear, not your eye.
-
It's not a phone. When you cradle a phone, you cradle it your ear, not your eye.
?
Peter
-
?
Peter
+1.
-
?
Peter
+2
-
?
Peter
Some were postulating that the collar of his shirt (on his right hand side) is in fact a phone. I'm pointing out that he wouldn't have the phone positioned like this, as he wouldn't be able to hear the caller.
-
Ok, I get the question marks.... I was reading the 'phone' in the image differently... as a flip phone....
Anyway, doesn't matter, it's his collar...
-
My initial reaction was it was a medical condition. I accept it could be seen as poor taste hence the reason for the post. Wondering about the ethics.
The person who took the photo said it appeared to be a medical condition...not sure why all the debate about whether he is on the phone.
To me the best street photos are of people who agree to having their photo taken...who are willing to let you take their photo. They make themselves vulnerable to your camera - not a victim of it.
Sharon
-
The person who took the photo said it appeared to be a medical condition...not sure why all the debate about whether he is on the phone.
To me the best street photos are of people who agree to having their photo taken...who are willing to let you take their photo. They make themselves vulnerable to your camera - not a victim of it.
Sharon
Nice distinction...
Rob C
-
To me the best street photos are of people who agree to having their photo taken...who are willing to let you take their photo. They make themselves vulnerable to your camera - not a victim of it.
I'd agree that the photo should not embarrass its subjects in any way. But as to the "willingness"... I'm afraid it's quite the opposite is true for me; I prefer street photos where the subjects are completely unaware of the image being taken.
One of my all-time favorites:
(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=106253.0;attach=137239;image)
I fail to see how these guys could be "willing to let" Mel DiGiacomo take their photo; they are so busy with themselves...
-
That is good.
This is one I like - http://www.shorpy.com/node/195?size=_original#caption
And I love Vivian Maier's work. She connected with her subjects. I find it most interesting what people reveal about themselves.
-
The person who took the photo said it appeared to be a medical condition...not sure why all the debate about whether he is on the phone.
To me the best street photos are of people who agree to having their photo taken...who are willing to let you take their photo. They make themselves vulnerable to your camera - not a victim of it.
Sharon
Most street photographers probably don't talk or interact with the public. Personally I don't. I am looking for something natural. Ideally a street photographer would be invisible but not because he/she is wanting to be furtive, just not part of the scene.
-
I find that so-called street photography has the propensity to draw even more pretentious claims for itself than art photography. Maybe art photographers are a more sophisticated lot: they realise the fragility of the ground they tread, smile when they are ahead and stay shtum on the inner workings of their minds, playing that down and shrouding it in smiles...
After a long connection with photography, I conclude that one's best moments come from technical preparedness, which means a little bit of understanding of how to set up the machine, and one helluva lot of good luck. Without the good fortune, there's nothing. And I don't care who you think you are: it's the ground rule of the game.
If you spend the required time paying your dues to those Atlases of the past, you won't find one who doesn't admit to the factor of luck. Genius can afford to be modest.
Rob