Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Rome isn't just glitters and tourism
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:11 pm    Post subject: Rome isn't just glitters and tourism Reply with quote
Pentacon Six, Biometar 80/2.8 and Ilford D100, shot in a sunday morning in July in front of a church.



PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very good and sad one.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Very good and sad one.


I decided to make it public after some time as on a second review of that image it seems the person in it is unrecognizable.

I don't like to show this kind of images without a good reason as I'm not a photojournalist.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent shot! Sad subject.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Orio wrote:
Very good and sad one.


I decided to make it public after some time as on a second review of that image it seems the person in it is unrecognizable.

I don't like to show this kind of images without a good reason as I'm not a photojournalist.


I am thinking same way than you. Picture is so excellent!


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rome has always had its dark side - this is a moving illustration of one part of that scene.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A great picture. I am pleased you showed it.
You should do more 'Street' shots.
It is IMO social comment and such images should always be shown


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Our city has many homeless their case is enough trouble without make attraction from them. This is a shame for any country to not care this people.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob I agree with you but a casual snapshot isn't the way to handle situations like this one.

One should program and prepare a journalistic work through images with the aim to be published or to expose it in public places so to sensibilize the public opinion about it.

Otherway is a sort of vouyerism, reason why I published this image because the person wasn't recognizable.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Rob I agree with you but a casual snapshot isn't the way to handle situations like this one.
One should program and prepare a journalistic work through images with the aim to be published or to expose it in public places so to sensibilize the public opinion about it.
Otherway is a sort of vouyerism, reason why I published this image because the person wasn't recognizable.


I'm sorry but I can not understand.
Would you not photograph a robbery because you are not a reporter police?
Or would you not photograph the strike of taxi drivers because you are not part of the syndicate?
Or would you not photograph an eco-monster abusive building because you are not subscribed to Greenpeace?
Facts like these are part of the experience of a person that walks in a city. You don't have to be a journalist to report what you see in a public place.
If you don't publish a photograph for privacy reason, then you should also not publish any photograph that potrays any person in a recognizeable way. Maybe you photograph a person in a street and he was not supposed to be there and he loses his job because of your picture. This has the same probability to happen than to photograph a vagabond and have him happen something bad.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don’t understand the logic. The privacy laws are very clear here in the UK and we are also recorded by CTV cameras most places we go.
On purely moral grounds or consideration for others, do you ever think of the number of vegetarians you upset and offend by showing a photo of a juicy piece of Roast Beef!
Yes I know that is very silly and so is the idea of never photographing or showing a photo of a stranger in a public place.
I can respect your opinion and sensitivities but not if they imply others who do it are wrong.

Last edited by Rob Leslie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not a matter of privacy, it's a matter of ethic.

If I shoot a drunken hobo sleeping on the ground is the same as the tourists who travel to poor countries taking snapshot and then going back to their homes to show their friends how "pictoresque" are the places where they went.

It's different if you travel to make a reportage, talk with the people, try to understand the problems and then make an attempt to explain them through the images.

Without this work a photo like the one above is just an exercise in style and it's acceptable until none is exposed in his identity.

IMHO of course.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some people don't care if photographed, some people care. My face is my property I don't like to see anywhere without my permit even if law allowed to make it without my permit. This is aesthetic question to me.Sometimes I did also street shoots , sometimes I removed immediately right after it was inconvenience filling to me a few times I published, but I never was proud about what I did.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

Without this work a photo like the one above is just an exercise in style


Why you call it that?
It's just honestly reporting what you see. No style issue implied.
It's about truth, which is the closer to truth? the one who photographs what he sees objectively, or the one who makes a selection and photographs only a collection of cute things?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
It's not a matter of privacy, it's a matter of ethic.

If I shoot a drunken hobo sleeping on the ground is the same as the tourists who travel to poor countries taking snapshot and then going back to their homes to show their friends how "pictoresque" are the places where they went.

It's different if you travel to make a reportage, talk with the people, try to understand the problems and then make an attempt to explain them through the images.

Without this work a photo like the one above is just an exercise in style and it's acceptable until none is exposed in his identity.

IMHO of course.


I did travel in India pretty lot I made shoots from people because was so exotic to me. "Paparazzi" shoots still not make me happy what I did, but I have also great feel about that shoots when I made after friendly talks. They were friendly lovely people with amazing smiles, these shoots still my favorite ones. I would return back sometimes I would also follow this way what Alessandro say.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:

Without this work a photo like the one above is just an exercise in style


Why you call it that?
It's just honestly reporting what you see. No style issue implied.
It's about truth, which is the closer to truth? the one who photographs what he sees objectively, or the one who makes a selection and photographs only a collection of cute things?


Truth doesn't exist.
Every image, photo or movie is filtered by ourselves and our choices, sensibility, culture, believes or simple unability to get the whole scene.
Messages exists and to be a useful message an image like the one above shouldn't be used out of its context.

Let's make an example with an iconic photo of the XX century by Pulitzer winner Eddie Adams:



Tell me the truth about this image.

Then read the interview made by Oriana Fallaci to Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam's national police chief who executed the prisoner and I bet the truth would change.

And still we don't have the whole scene. None could ask the dead one which his truth was.

"Adams wrote in Time :

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.

What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'

Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyen and his family for the irreparable damage it did to Loan's honor while he was alive. When Nguyen died, Adams praised him as a "hero" of a "just cause"."

(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2QxNWY0N2ZkY2IxMWJhZGQ4MTU3ZjhlZjg3NTk0NzE=#more)


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well said Alessandro. We hear too much about a photograph being "the truth". It's always just photographer's view of it. Not to mention possible photoshopping Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is power of media, people are too stupid they believe everything what journalist says.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

Truth doesn't exist.


If truth does not exist, then not even the moral that you invoked does, and the whole of your argument falls down.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Truth exists, but a photograph is just photographer's subjective view of it through a lens. A photograph can tell a very different story from what it should. The photo of this thread could be just someone who got tired on his way home, not necessarily a homeless person Confused


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my experience most amateur picture takers don’t photograph strangers because they are frightened to do so and lack the confidence, evidence of which can often be seen by all the back of head or distant shots they show.
Others go to the other extreme and try telephoto lenses, concealed cameras or other furtive actions as a result they often end up with a punch on the nose or attracting the attention of the authorities.
In reality ‘Street’ photography is not fraught with danger or intrusive.
I never try to conceal my camera and most photos are taken as people walk into the frame. When possible I try to give my subject a smile and speak to them and in many situations I will see a shot, approach the person and ask if they mind me taking a ‘Natural’ picture of what they are doing, the hard part is then to stop them posing.
I have found 99% of people are happy to be photographed and the 1% who are not are always polite in their refusal. Perhaps because I am open about it I have never had anybody be abusive to me or anything like that.
I have had people ask what I am doing and it is always a question I welcome. The person asking often ends up posing for me or telling me about some interesting photo location.
All of this ‘Chat’ about the truth etc of photography makes little sense and IMO is a subject for the viewer not the photographer. The photo used as an example is excellent and it matters little if it was posed, misrepresented or even a manipulation. It is a great image and it also opened many peoples eyes to the everyday horrors of war.
As Riku has just posted photos can always be interpreted in different ways. IMO this isn’t the fault or even the concern of the photographer. I'm sure many still believe the Hills of Wales (UK) are natural wonders, in reality most of them are old coal slags and mining works, the photographer can't be responsible for the opinions or ignorance of the viewer.
(Time for some to ask if they are photographers or still just viewers! (You have to think about that one!)

When Nguyen died, Adams praised him as a "hero" of a "just cause"
Here we go. A 'Just cause' ?
Whose just cause?
It is generally considered by many that the Vietnam war (Which the Americans lost) was a very unjust cause which came about through a misunderstanding. Ex servicemen now go on holiday there and have a good time with those 'Bad guys'
I agree this isn’t something we should go into here but it is an example of ‘Interpretation’ before and after the fact. It doesn’t matter if I am right or you are right there is a difference of opinion and so there is a difference in interpreting this image.

Typical ‘Intrusive’ photo which is always worth taking and showing.
Taken last weekend, Remembrance Sunday


More of those photos
http://roblesliephotography.blogspot.com/2008/11/remembrance-sunday.html

Last edited by Rob Leslie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:

I agree this isn’t something we should go into here but it is an example of ‘Interpretation’ before and after the fact. It doesn’t matter if I am right or you are right there is a difference of opinion and so there is a difference in interpreting this image.


I completely agree, everyone interprets the word around her trying to catch the truth. But it's always her opinion on what she perceives, not absolute truth. Otherway we'd be God.

Anyway this discussion was made in past by philosophers for centuries... (aletheia = truth)

What I tried to tell was a smaller concept, alas when in front of complex scenes or subjects (could be a hobo but could also be a portrait or a work of art) some work is needed to know them so to being able to respect them in the images you take.

I didn't have the time to barely know that person who was sleeping, so the image of him is just a snapshot, maybe a good looking one (alas an exercise in style). But nothing more.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

I completely agree, everyone interprets the word around her trying to catch the truth. But it's always her opinion on what she perceives, not absolute truth. Otherway we'd be God.
Anyway this discussion was made in past by philosophers for centuries... (aletheia = truth)


Well, Alessandro, you are now turning the cards.
First you say that truth does not exist, now instead you speak of "absolute truth"... but did I ever talk of absolute truth?
Obviously I always talked of human truth, truth as we perceive it. I look at a scene in the streets. The things and persons are there. they are real, not an illusion, so they are something true. Perhaps reality is just the first step of truth, but there it is. That sleeping person was not an optical illusion, and he existed in the same reality level as the Colosseo or the Pantheon, which are also true, because they are what they are (monuments), just like that man is what it is (a man).
This is the truth as we humans can perceive it.
Nobody can speak of absolute or God's truth, except priests (and I am not).

Anyway, you mention philosophers, you should ask any real philosopher if a moral can exist, when there is no truth.
They all will answer that it's not possible, because a moral to exist requires the possibility to tell right from wrong.
If truth does not exist, and only subjective opinions exist, then neither the moral can exist, because in absence of truth it's not possible to tell what is right and what is wrong.
-


PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

I didn't have the time to barely know that person who was sleeping, so the image of him is just a snapshot, maybe a good looking one (alas an exercise in style). But nothing more.


But what could be known more of him, if truth does not exist?
If we are unable to give anything but our subjective views, why care at all to get to know the person that was sleeping?
That would be wasted time, starting from your point of view.
So just be content with your style exercise. Even if you spent one year living with that person, you would not be able to get to the truth of him, just your personal vision, so why bother at all?
And why give the thread a title "Rome isn't just glittering and tourism" ?
So you imply there's something more to it. But you can not know it because it's all subjective and individual opinion... so why bother at all? Why open a thread with that title?

Sorry, but to my mind, you're inside a big contradiction here.
-


PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

If truth does not exist, and only subjective opinions exist, then neither the moral can exist, because in absence of truth it's not possible to tell what is right and what is wrong.
-


Hmm... we're on dangerous terrain here and I don't know if I'm able to express this kind of concepts in a foreign language.

Anyway...

Your point Orio is exactly the same of the Catholic Church. Without God and Faith can't exist any truth, without any truth there's no moral or ethic.

Still I believe in personal, laical ethic. An ethic that knows we're limited beings and can't ever get the "whole frame".
An ethic that can change following the experience without having the support of some book or men cladded in black who said to you "this is good, this is bad".

I guess there's some middle road between the faith in supernatural beings and the complete amoralism of Nietzsche Overman and the ideologies that stole his concept and that, by the way, felt in the "Gott mit Uns" syndrome to justify their practical acts.

Orio wrote:

But what could be known more of him, if truth does not exist?


Maybe his truth. Maybe he could tell me that that is the life he choosed to live, not forced by disgrace. Or maybe the opposite. This doesn't mean this would be the real truth, but I'd have paid respect to the subject.
Some of you said that the scene depicted was "sad". Maybe he was happy to sleep there. Maybe not, but he could have said otherway because of pride.
For sure I couldn't enter another person's mind, but some work to create a relationship imho is needed for some kind of photographic (and also journalistic) production. This doesn't mean one would have the arrogance to pretend to have grasped all the truth about the subject.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2