Post by: John R on January 01, 2019, 01:10:51 pm
JR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-isKDVNFIEM
Post by: RSL on January 01, 2019, 01:35:52 pm
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 01, 2019, 02:35:23 pm
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SugdoTut0hJk_-IkfKnGFCcfFXjvIf165kJI5vrBYYuGwnCvJpIyYtnpBR39B1MHYEsMh_rLI5TKt1quAoNI6ItAf226AD4MvqW9rOqu016g3bculVzaDzsIHaZhRdqMcHzXqsvnuA=w2400)
Post by: RSL on January 01, 2019, 04:00:16 pm
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 01, 2019, 04:13:42 pm
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 01, 2019, 07:15:00 pm
The problem, Peter, is the guy's face. Either you were getting some really flaky light, or the guy has some serious skin problems. If it was the latter, I'd say "yes" to your question.
Oh well.
Dozens of people have seen this image. Some even have it on their walls. The image is at least 40 years old and all that time, not one person has commented negatively about the guy's skin.
Or the image, for that matter. Most viewers love it. As do I, frankly.
The lighting is self-evident.
Post by: Two23 on January 02, 2019, 01:14:37 am
How about this? Disrespectful?
No, but I like any photo with a cat in it.
Kent in SD
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 01:51:12 am
How about this? Disrespectful?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SugdoTut0hJk_-IkfKnGFCcfFXjvIf165kJI5vrBYYuGwnCvJpIyYtnpBR39B1MHYEsMh_rLI5TKt1quAoNI6ItAf226AD4MvqW9rOqu016g3bculVzaDzsIHaZhRdqMcHzXqsvnuA=w2400)
How can this be disrespectful?
It’s a man standing in front of a bakery. How he looks like is who he is. Finding that disrespectful say something about how men feel about the man’s skin issue.
Photography can be disrespectful because it is subjective. It can be cynical, sarcastic, brutal.
And all the above is sometimes justified.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 02:32:14 am
I took this shot a few years ago. I was in Antwerp with my daughter and the yearly gay pride was on. It was the first year where politicians mingled among the parade to fish for votes.
It gave, and still give me an obnoxious feeling (The politicians)
Is this picture disrespectful?
To the gay community?
To the ‘knight’?
Or is it disrespectful to the politic party or maybe to that one member?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190102/b8d991151a3cc8d239330764a045202c.jpg)
Post by: faberryman on January 02, 2019, 09:25:34 am
The image is at least 40 years old and all that time, not one person has commented negatively about the guy's skin.It's about the level of discussion you get from some members around here.
Post by: RSL on January 02, 2019, 09:35:30 am
Dozens of people have seen this image. Some even have it on their walls. The image is at least 40 years old and all that time, not one person has commented negatively about the guy's skin.
The lighting is self-evident.
What that shows is that there are a lot of blind people commenting on photographs.
And when is lighting not "self-evident," Peter?
Post by: 32BT on January 02, 2019, 10:37:32 am
But what about this picture?
I took this shot a few years ago. I was in Antwerp with my daughter and the yearly gay pride was on. It was the first year where politicians mingled among the parade to fish for votes.
It gave, and still give me an obnoxious feeling (The politicians)
Is this picture disrespectful?
To the gay community?
To the ‘knight’?
Or is it disrespectful to the politic party or maybe to that one member?
No, it isn't. It probably tells the story just fine.
Disrespect is when you de-anonymise an individual in a compromising situation without it being their choice. (Victims of violence or disaster for example). None of these people seem to be recognisable or present without consent etc...
Were you btw carrying your telezoom for extra statement?
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 10:40:36 am
Were you btw carrying your telezoom for extra statement?
Tx and no, it’s a 35mm shot slightly cropped.
Post by: RSL on January 02, 2019, 10:51:49 am
Is this picture disrespectful?
To the gay community?
To the ‘knight’?
Or is it disrespectful to the politic party or maybe to that one member?
Of course not, Ivo. There's nothing in the picture that explains what's going on. It's just a picture of a guy with a flaky-looking hat and a fake sword.
Post by: rabanito on January 02, 2019, 10:52:27 am
The story is in the eye of the beholder.
Unless there is an explanatory caption (not just a title)
Just MHO
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 10:56:12 am
Of course not, Ivo. There's nothing in the picture that explains what's going on. It's just a picture of a guy with a flaky-looking hat and a fake sword.
The image is more than a superficial look, I admit. Not for everyone.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 02, 2019, 11:01:31 am
... There's nothing in the picture that explains what's going on...
I think there is ;D
Post by: RSL on January 02, 2019, 11:05:11 am
Post by: 32BT on January 02, 2019, 11:23:59 am
I think there is ;D
You need the sword, the angle of the sword, and all of its connotations as well.
Post by: rabanito on January 02, 2019, 11:31:29 am
Other countries know what is called "Personality Rights". Its treatment differs from land to land
I presume that the person in front of the bakery has rights over his image that the person with the sword hasn't, since he's taking part in a public show.
But I'm no lawyer.
Post by: 32BT on January 02, 2019, 11:36:30 am
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127912.0
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 11:47:20 am
Ivo, your picture here is perhaps a more interesting case from a philosophical pov:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127912.0
Ok, explain?
Post by: Two23 on January 02, 2019, 11:53:11 am
Kent in SD
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 12:08:38 pm
My own general rule is to not take a photo of someone when I wouldn't want a photo of me taken in the same circumstances. I think some here might be getting too carried away with "sensitivity".Well, that’s the whole point of the topic.
Kent in SD
Did the politician exposed himself to visual interpretation and registration by profiling himself in a public parade? Is there something disrespectful in play here? Or not.
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 02, 2019, 02:08:09 pm
What that shows is that there are a lot of blind people commenting on photographs.
ie, "blind" when they don't agree with you.
Quote
And when is lighting not "self-evident," Peter?
You're the one who said "unless you had flaky lighting". What did you mean by "flaky"?
My question was "is this image disrespectful?" Most agree with me that it's not. YMMV.
Post by: Rob C on January 02, 2019, 02:36:36 pm
The problem, Peter, is the guy's face. Either you were getting some really flaky light, or the guy has some serious skin problems. If it was the latter, I'd say "yes" to your question.
Though you obviously wouldn't mention it, the problem with the "bakery" is that not a lot's going down, and the best thing for it would have been to crop into it a bit (lot) and concentrate the shot on the cat, guy and the word. Some less-than-straight
As with all street, my own rare and humble efforts very much included, I can't ever imagine why anyone would actually print one up and hang it somewhere. Bang goes the credibility of the art world.
:-)
Rob
P.S.
Oh dear, I think I've gone past my two posts per day allowance again! Sorry!
P.P.S.
I liked the video, by the way, even if the guy's bucking for sainthood.
Post by: 32BT on January 02, 2019, 04:00:54 pm
Ok, explain?
Well, the picture clearly puts her in a mildly embarrassing insinuated situation. She is recognisable, as is het friend (maybe even client?). So it makes me wonder whether they are in consent with your publication. For philosophical purposes, it doesn't really matter whether you have actual permission. It simply raises the question. Is this art? Sure. But is it art enough to overcome the objections that may arise?
Post by: Ivophoto on January 02, 2019, 04:21:59 pm
Well, the picture clearly puts her in a mildly embarrassing insinuated situation. She is recognisable, as is het friend (maybe even client?). So it makes me wonder whether they are in consent with your publication. For philosophical purposes, it doesn't really matter whether you have actual permission. It simply raises the question. Is this art? Sure. But is it art enough to overcome the objections that may arise?
? Embarrassing situation?
I don’t see it to be honest.
In the first picture, it is clear there can be debate.
In the one of the two girls, I don’t see the issue, apart from a potential GDPR issue.
Post by: 32BT on January 02, 2019, 04:59:51 pm
? Embarrassing situation?
I don’t see it to be honest.
In the first picture, it is clear there can be debate.
In the one of the two girls, I don’t see the issue, apart from a potential GDPR issue.
That's because you're from EU.
It's not very dignified. Think of it this way: what if the women were well-known female politicians or highly regarded, well-respected world-leaders, perhaps Michelle Obama. Would it still be valid?
Post by: elliot_n on January 02, 2019, 05:30:55 pm
That's because you're from EU.
It's not very dignified.
I can't see it either (I'm from the EU). In what way is it undignified?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 02, 2019, 05:35:29 pm
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 02, 2019, 07:27:29 pm
Though you obviously wouldn't mention it, the problem with the "bakery" is that not a lot's going down, and the best thing for it would have been to crop into it a bit (lot) and concentrate the shot on the cat, guy and the word. Some less-than-straightprintingprocessing could have brought the three features out and created a link of sorts, if only through their relative brightness against a darkened backdrop, making the subliminal idea of a collective hunger seem the point.
P.P.S.
Rob, that's some of the most honest, helpful criticism I've received. Thank you.
I'll get back to work on this image with your suggestions top of mind.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 02, 2019, 07:39:24 pm
Oscar, what are you talking about?+1!
Post by: Ivophoto on January 03, 2019, 01:19:22 am
That's because you're from EU.
It's not very dignified. Think of it this way: what if the women were well-known female politicians or highly regarded, well-respected world-leaders, perhaps Michelle Obama. Would it still be valid?
I lost you completely, my fault probably. Explain a bit further?
If it was Michelle Obama I’m sure she got enough media training to make the casual look amazing. Nothing much real to snap.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 03, 2019, 01:29:26 am
The topics title is :respect for subjects and society.
The picture plays on both fields: Subjects and a social theme. What is the most relevant? What is the reason to exist for this picture? Is it how the subjects are pictured (and the politician not very flattering) or is it the social critic?
...
I don’t see anything obtrusive in the Starbucks girl picture.
Question: should photography be respectful to society?
Post by: 32BT on January 03, 2019, 06:55:33 am
I lost you completely, my fault probably. Explain a bit further?
If it was Michelle Obama I’m sure she got enough media training to make the casual look amazing. Nothing much real to snap.
Okay, so think of it in a general sense. What if you have a compromising picture, or at least, a picture with a less than flattering narrative, of recognisable individuals. The image itself may be a great narrative storytelling image, but it puts the subject in possibly inappropriate footlight. It may rub off on a client who is also in the picture.
Are you going to publish the picture without consent on the basis of "art > privacy"?
Post by: 32BT on January 03, 2019, 06:59:05 am
Question: should photography be respectful to society?
It should at least try to be respectful to the audience, which are generally exponents of society. If you want people to take the time and effort to look at and think through your image, it helps tremendously to be at least somewhat respectful to society. If you're not respectful to society, you shouldn't be surprised if your imaging is ignored, or worse, you get prosecuted.
Post by: rabanito on January 03, 2019, 07:17:23 am
If you're not respectful to society, you shouldn't be surprised if your imaging is ignored, or worse, you get prosecuted.
Or stoned. ;)
I remember being at La Quiaca where there was a market going. No money involved, just exchange
I went to one of the kolla women there and gave her a broad smile (I have a nice smile) and asked her for permission to take some pictures of her and her surroundings.
She indicated some Lama excrements on the ground and explained "Last time there came some gringos who began to take pictures. We chased them with that. To those that didn't go, we chased with that"
And showed me a pile of big stones.
I continued doing landscapes there ;D
Post by: OmerV on January 03, 2019, 07:49:28 am
It should at least try to be respectful to the audience, which are generally exponents of society. If you want people to take the time and effort to look at and think through your image, it helps tremendously to be at least somewhat respectful to society. If you're not respectful to society, you shouldn't be surprised if your imaging is ignored, or worse, you get prosecuted.
Is book burning a thing again?
Post by: 32BT on January 03, 2019, 08:09:37 am
Is book burning a thing again?
Not sure, but then, digital bits don't generally burn like a good old wooden cross will...
https://stock.adobe.com/ee/editorial/pictures-of-the-year-a-picture-and-its-story/238535268
Post by: OmerV on January 03, 2019, 08:39:08 am
Not sure, but then, digital bits don't generally burn like a good old wooden cross will...
https://stock.adobe.com/ee/editorial/pictures-of-the-year-a-picture-and-its-story/238535268
That is a very disrespectful image. As for burning digital bits, surely some enterprising kid will create an app for that.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 03, 2019, 09:03:44 am
It should at least try to be respectful to the audience, which are generally exponents of society. If you want people to take the time and effort to look at and think through your image, it helps tremendously to be at least somewhat respectful to society. If you're not respectful to society, you shouldn't be surprised if your imaging is ignored, or worse, you get prosecuted.
Well, your explanation is a bit scary.
Since when is not showing ‘respect’ for society in visual art an offense that should be prosecuted?
Maybe we are to much pampered and don’t realize how society can be an exponent of awkward ideology and should not get respect and should get offended by poetry, visual art, etc, etc ...
And since when is ‘respect’ granted? Is respect not something that comes in return for something else?
Post by: 32BT on January 03, 2019, 09:24:53 am
Since when is not showing ‘respect’ for society in visual art an offense that should be prosecuted?
Not showing respect for a society may involve not showing respect for its laws. (Childabuse, to name just one example).
I know you like your daily dose of anarchy, and like I said earlier, sometimes anarchy may even be necessary, but I personally don't believe in anarchy as a constructive method of evolution. If you allow anarchy to reign, then you also subscribe to a philosophy of survival of the strongest (not fittest), which ultimately turns out to be the one who is willing to unscrupulously nuke the entire planet.
Since you're from Belgium: I'm sure you're familiar with Dimitri Verhulst (https://www.bol.com/nl/f/godverdomse-dagen-op-een-godverdomse-bol/9200000079757050/)... ;-)
Post by: Ivophoto on January 03, 2019, 09:48:15 am
Not showing respect for a society may involve not showing respect for its laws. (Childabuse, to name just one example).
I know you like your daily dose of anarchy, and like I said earlier, sometimes anarchy may even be necessary, but I personally don't believe in anarchy as a constructive method of evolution. If you allow anarchy to reign, then you also subscribe to a philosophy of survival of the strongest (not fittest), which ultimately turns out to be the one who is willing to unscrupulously nuke the entire planet.
Since you're from Belgium: I'm sure you're familiar with Dimitri Verhulst (https://www.bol.com/nl/f/godverdomse-dagen-op-een-godverdomse-bol/9200000079757050/)... ;-)
Of course I am familiar with Dimitri’s work.
But, really, Oscar, what direction is this conversation going? Are you not shifting from one extreme into the other? It started to call a photo of two nice girls on a Mac potentially subject of prosecution and now we are at child abuse? And I am an anarchiste?
Really Oscar?
Post by: 32BT on January 03, 2019, 10:04:52 am
Of course I am familiar with Dimitri’s work.
But, really, Oscar, what direction is this conversation going? Are you not shifting from one extreme into the other? It started to call a photo of two nice girls on a Mac potentially subject of prosecution and now we are at child abuse? And I am an anarchiste?
Really Oscar?
Hey, I knew I was dealing with you, so I just adapted my style accordingly! ;-)
Post by: Ivophoto on January 03, 2019, 11:34:42 am
Hey, I knew I was dealing with you, so I just adapted my style accordingly! ;-)
No need to go personal if you’re short of arguments.
Let’s call it a day. Ok?
Post by: Rob C on January 03, 2019, 11:44:16 am
Rob, that's some of the most honest, helpful criticism I've received. Thank you.
I'll get back to work on this image with your suggestions top of mind.
Well, Peter, it's based very much on my own method of working with street/windows, because not much ever seems to happen for me when I'm there, with or without camera.
It seems that something - not usually quite sure what - draws me to going click, and then later on I get more of an idea about what had attracted my eye and it becomes a matter of trying to accentuate the elements to get the effect I think I want. Very rarely does the completed idea hit me right away. If it did, it would save a lot of wasted effort!
Rob
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2019, 03:03:58 pm
Post by: petermfiore on January 03, 2019, 03:47:20 pm
Rob, you, even more than I, should know that there’s no way around wasted effort in this racket. I look at my collection of what I think are my best street shots, spread over more than sixty years, and I think of all the thousands of rejects along the way: the shots I blew learning to compose, the shots I’ve missed because I wasn’t quite fast enough with the camera, the shots I’ve missed because I was set for work at a distance and the thing happened close-in. As HCB said: “It’s always luck. You just have to be receptive. That’s all.”Russ,
That's not called wasted effort...It's called gaining experience. A very important truth that one needs to grasp and relish. it's part of the journey.
Peter
Post by: Chris Kern on January 03, 2019, 04:20:47 pm
I think of all the thousands of rejects along the way: the shots I blew learning to compose, the shots I’ve missed because I wasn’t quite fast enough with the camera, the shots I’ve missed because I was set for work at a distance and the thing happened close-in.
Not to mention the uncooperative subjects who fail to do what you expect them to do, don't stay where you want them to stay, are occluded by someone else who suddenly walks between them and your camera, or notice you snapping them and decide to "help you out" by striking a pose.
Post by: Rob C on January 03, 2019, 04:41:21 pm
Rob, you, even more than I, should know that there’s no way around wasted effort in this racket. I look at my collection of what I think are my best street shots, spread over more than sixty years, and I think of all the thousands of rejects along the way: the shots I blew learning to compose, the shots I’ve missed because I wasn’t quite fast enough with the camera, the shots I’ve missed because I was set for work at a distance and the thing happened close-in. As HCB said: “It’s always luck. You just have to be receptive. That’s all.”
I don't disagree: I just wish the duds could be avoided by being better and/or more perceptive at the moment of truth or, rather, that said moment happened in camera and not later on!
But then I was never a street shooter as such: my many clicks were all small changes around an idea, not the painful waiting for something outwith my control to just up, and happen; it was amazing enough when that sometimes occurred in the middle of a shoot where we thought we already knew where it was headed - more or less. But time was money, and waiting a luxury beyond reality in most cases, though even then, I did seem to have a personality that waited until the last moment before getting seriously into what I was supposed to be doing; drove my muse mad, but it worked when we could both be on the same job.
Ah, them wuz the days. I think.
:-)
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2019, 07:51:49 pm
Not to mention the uncooperative subjects who fail to do what you expect them to do, don't stay where you want them to stay, are occluded by someone else who suddenly walks between them and your camera, or notice you snapping them and decide to "help you out" by striking a pose.
Right on, Chris. I can tell you've done it. It's the "striking a pose" thing that buffaloes a lot of people who think they're still doing street photography once the subject realizes you're actually shooting a picture.
Ah well. . .
Post by: John R on January 03, 2019, 10:33:25 pm
How about this? Disrespectful?I think the image is quite good. The tonality is expressive in itself. Lots of contrast between darks and lights that gives the environment a certain look even though it is almost shadowless. The empty store shelves and Bakery sign convey irony and are symbolic of the empty look and apparent social desolation of the man. Look at his clothes. His face and demeanor just reinforce the harsh reality of his situation. I can't understand why his face is an issue. It is part of his condition. Can you crop? Sure. But watch you don't strip the image of its good qualities or alter the focus to something other than his situation. IMHO.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SugdoTut0hJk_-IkfKnGFCcfFXjvIf165kJI5vrBYYuGwnCvJpIyYtnpBR39B1MHYEsMh_rLI5TKt1quAoNI6ItAf226AD4MvqW9rOqu016g3bculVzaDzsIHaZhRdqMcHzXqsvnuA=w2400)
For me, showing respect is not a rule, just a general feeling to not take advantage of people's unfortunate circumstances for the sake of a photograph. 95% or more of what I see on the internet that tries to pass as "street" photography, just looks like random and often chaotic snapshots; And many are aggressive and unnecessarily provocative and mean. Not very good photography, let alone good "street."
JR
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 04, 2019, 04:17:24 am
It started to call a photo of two nice girls on a Mac potentially subject of prosecution and now we are at child abuse?
Their attractiveness tells you nothing about how nice they might be. Perhaps they're looking with approval at the stock photo to which Oscar posted a link.
Jeremy
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 04, 2019, 04:18:30 am
That is a very disrespectful image.
Why? Lacking in respect to whom?
Jeremy
Post by: Ivophoto on January 04, 2019, 04:22:53 am
Their attractiveness tells you nothing about how nice they might be. Perhaps they're looking with approval at the stock photo to which Oscar posted a link.
Jeremy
Fair point, this is a shortcoming of a single photo. And for the same it is the so honored ambiguity.
Post by: elliot_n on January 04, 2019, 05:40:16 am
Rob, that's some of the most honest, helpful criticism I've received. Thank you.
I'll get back to work on this image with your suggestions top of mind.
I assume that you're joking (?) Or perhaps Rob was joking (?)
The relationship in your image between the man, the cat and the 'bakery' sign couldn't be clearer.
Post by: petermfiore on January 04, 2019, 07:20:02 am
Hi All,
After a good look and over time, I'm thinking looks like Gray scruffy beard.
Peter
Post by: Rob C on January 04, 2019, 08:00:58 am
I assume that you're joking (?) Or perhaps Rob was joking (?)
The relationship in your image between the man, the cat and the 'bakery' sign couldn't be clearer.
Which proves that ambiguity matters.
;-)
Post by: OmerV on January 04, 2019, 08:26:38 am
Why? Lacking in respect to whom?
Jeremy
Technically, to anyone who was, and might now be reminded of the hatred their kind was subjected to by the Nazi. Of course facsimiles of hatred will have degrees of effect. But this kind of imagery should not be censored or hidden away for the sake of respect.
My reply to opgr was an attempt at irony. Or something.
Post by: rabanito on January 04, 2019, 09:01:33 am
Which proves that ambiguity matters.
;-)
For me it is very clear.
A man in front of the bakery searchin his pocket for his car's keys.
Everybody looks like this when doing that
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2019, 10:54:38 am
... But this kind of imagery should not be censored or hidden away for the sake of respect...
Which is the crux of the matter. “Respect” is often used as just another PC straightjacket, like “bigotry,” “racism,” “misogyny,” a tool to anihilate political opponents. In certain countries, literally anihilate. You “disrespect” their royals, or religion, or even president, you go to jail, or worse. Even in this country, it is used in certain subcultures as a reason to shoot.
Respect is a voluntary act. Like love, it can not be demanded (well, should not).
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 04, 2019, 01:06:14 pm
Which proves that ambiguity matters.
;-)
In fact, I believe that's one of the image's strong points - its ambiguity.