| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2006 11:28:54 AM · #1 |
I didn't vote this round but take a look through the pictures and I thought "uh oh" when I saw the one picture....and guess what? I was wrong in my assumption of what it was.....
Here's the photo in question:
 |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:35:28 AM · #2 |
You make an excellent point, and while this isn't a photo I came across in voting (couldn't quite get to 100%!) I would have likely made the same assumption...
only to be incorrect as well!!
I think what the photographer's notes said may be true. While in their region of the world this costuming might be synonymous with a religion, in other parts of the world a similar costuming evokes much different responses.
It sort of makes me wonder....the pictures that we "ooh" and "ahh" about from third world countries may evoke very different reactions from people who live in those countries. Personal experience is certainly a large part of viewing art and life. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:36:07 AM · #3 |
Yep proves how people oftentimes put too much emphasis on subject matter rather than photographic merits.
Not to say this is an incredible example of tech or comp or anything but 25 1's were due to the subject matter.
Even if it were what many thought it to be (KKK) this shot would deserve more than a 1 anyways based solely on its evocation of strong emotions. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:36:27 AM · #4 |
I hadn't even seen it, but thanks for bringing this up.
It is a good reminder of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:42:42 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I hadn't even seen it, but thanks for bringing this up.
It is a good reminder of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. |
Excellent analogy.....
PS: Have to say....I'm curious if some of the commenters will apologize to the photographer for their assumption :)
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 11:43:34. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:44:28 AM · #6 |
Didn't vote, but made the same assumption
I don't know if "shame on voters" is right or not. I've ALWAYS been of the mantra 'your vote is your vote' and that the voter has the right to do whatever they want with it. The voting criteria is BAD <--> GOOD and if I had some personal negative emotion from this, I might think it was a BAD photo.
The current voting guidelines make no distinction between technically good, photographically good, challenge sutability good, or emotionally good. I think most voters use some combination of these (and more) to come up with a score.
Question: If I submitted a technically brilliant photo of dog poop, should voters be shamed for voting it low based on the subject matter? Should this photo get special treatment because it is an emotionally charged subject? I say no to both those questions.
Personally, I think those '1' voters should have been '5' voters because technically it's a good picture, it fits the challenge pretty well (though it might be argued it is a bit more photojournalistic than candid), etc. Averaging out all those criteria with a '1' emotional factor should have come out in the middle of the road somewhere. But, on the other hand, voters can decide how to weight each of the criteria, and so if it was SUCH a negative photo for some, then it's within their right to vote '1'.
In the end it doesn't really matter what the photo is really a photo of... it's the voter's (sometimes viceral) reaction that matters. Shannon's red clearly isn't someone's face and hand melting into liquid metal, but that's what it looks like so we all think its cool. This photo looks like a KKK rally, and so I don't think we can fault the 1 voters of this photo any more than the 10 voters of Shannon's.
Just my $.07.
---A
Edit: Shannon got a RED
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 11:46:26. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:46:28 AM · #7 |
25 "1's"
And in truth, it's quite a decent shot. Had it in fact been a KKK rally this shot would have been a potential poster child "front page" news shot. To get such a slear shot of a person's eyes. And thus would be even more deserving of a score for capturing that which is hidden.
This just goes to show how "political correctness" affects our voting. KKK = bad. I agree. But is the photography bad? Very good point made prior about all the "great shots of poor starving children". How do the people in those regions feel about such photos being given "photographic awards"?
I really dislike how most people vote their 1's. *blarg* |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:47:21 AM · #8 |
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, this picture is simply saying the wrong words. It certainly isn't saying anything that would make me think that it̢۪s a depiction of a religious ceremony. It̢۪s easy to see how some people took it the wrong way. After all, few of us are really good at mind reading. :)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:47:37 AM · #9 |
I voted an 8 on this one....( i was on the wrong mind set too) But i did looked past the picture for the moment and vote on the picture it self.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 11:48:38. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:47:58 AM · #10 |
Kinda funny, my sister and I came across the exact same situation when we both independently saw a picture in the paper of some Catholics doing some Estarte Goddess Celebration rituals. We both immediately thought KKK and had to look twice before we were corrected. The picture we saw had some weird incense burning thingy that we thought also had some pretty questionable looking use.
Like the picture says, this is a pretty 'late in the day' development by the Roman Church, he seems to feel that it dates back to around the 15th century.
You can pretty much take that to mean that NONE of Jesus' disciples/apostles EVER donned such a mask to celebrate the reworked passover celebration. It's a pretty far cry from the simple instructions that Jesus himself asked to have done in memorial of him.
I'd consider either of the options pretty scary to be honest. Jesus never asked anyone to serve him in any way by dancing around or putting on silly masks.
On the other hand, there's no way I would have voted this pic down for that. I probably would have given a 6-7 because it is quite slick and I've got a bit of a sweet spot for well-captured white fabrics... That's tricky territory.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 11:51:01. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:54:24 AM · #11 |
I actually made the assumption that it was a KKK member. BUT, I rated it a 9. I didn't make any assumptions as to WHY the photog was shooting klan members, I just thought it was a good candid or a group member.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:56:17 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
It is a good reminder of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. |
Innocent or guilty of what exactly? Carlos took a photograph of something that's part of Spanish culture and tradition which goes all the way back to the 15th-16th century (I have several photos of the "Penitentes" myself, such as this one), and some people in their ignorance -and arrogance- punished him for what they assumed he had done (as if taking pictures of Klansmen were something to be ashamed of). I wonder if any of the self-righteous voters would have bothered googling it, had Carlos titled the photo "Semana Santa" or "Penitente".
Originally posted by eschelar:
...Jesus never asked anyone to serve him in any way by dancing around or putting on silly masks... |
Good, Semana Santa processions has nothing to do with what the apostles did or what Jesus would've liked people to do to serve him, anyway.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 12:07:17. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:00:08 PM · #13 |
Yup, I thought the same. What is the user name of the white-robed picture. I have not seen the comments. I saw the pic and scrolled on.
I also have seen another pic, I don't know where, but very similar, with a red robe. I think this is actually the KKK. I might be wrong. They are marching down the street and there is a crowd of people behind them in the pic. Can somebody find it? |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:01:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by gotyellowmike:
I also have seen another pic, I don't know where, but very similar, with a red robe. I think this is actually the KKK. I might be wrong. They are marching down the street and there is a crowd of people behind them in the pic. Can somebody find it? |
There was another challenge entry with a different color robe, and it also was a religious group, not the KKK.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:04:36 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by gotyellowmike:
Yup, I thought the same. What is the user name of the white-robed picture. I have not seen the comments. I saw the pic and scrolled on.
I also have seen another pic, I don't know where, but very similar, with a red robe. I think this is actually the KKK. I might be wrong. They are marching down the street and there is a crowd of people behind them in the pic. Can somebody find it? |
 ?
But not the KKK either. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:06:00 PM · #16 |
So it is wrong to assume that you know what a photo is of or is it wrong to vote a 1 because of purely emotional reasons? What is the "correct" vote for this photo?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:07:00 PM · #17 |
Whether this shot was of a KKK member or not should have no bearing at all on technical merit. Of course, it would have tremendous importance to the emotional impact. We should all remember that the goal of photogrphy is to convey emotional impact. That impact is not always a warm fuzzy feeling. Much great photography portrays things we'd be happier not seeing but that doesn't lessen the value of the photography. Sometimes we need to see things that are unpleasant. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
Rating a photo "1" because you have a negative emotional reaction is, IMO, extremely short-sighted. That said, some ones should be expected given the distribution of votes on this shot. 25 ones is more than one would statistically expect, though, and that's too bad, especially since the image was not intentionally controversial. I'm glad to see that the vast majority of voters took a much more enlightened approach.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:07:09 PM · #18 |
Give me a break.
How can the voters be wrong on this? Isn't all about the image they see, and how they interpret it?
It's part of submitting on an international site... You have to think about your audience, your WHOLE audience...
It's like the candid challenge in general. Some of the shots looked posed. Maybe they were, maybe the weren't but as a voter, I look at the image and say, gee, that looks posed. So, for candids, maybe it's smart not to enter a shot that looks posed...
Give me a break. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:17:23 PM · #19 |
I didn't vote on this challenge nor did I see the image until this post. Living in the heart of the South, I probably would've made the same assumption as the large majority. It just goes to show how we should make every effort to step outside of our little "box" and try to see the photos as representative of an entire world rather than images from a strictly western culture. I must admit, I would've voted this one low also based on what I thought the image was representing. I must further admit that the image is in fact a very good one!!! My personal views of hate organizations would've strongly swayed my vote in this case. I'm afraid that this is a good image that received a much lower score than what it truly deserved.
The point of photography is to stir an emotion, make a statement, or capture a moment. In retrospect I think this image does an excellent job of accomplishing all three of these criteria (as exhibited by this thread). I would've been wrong to vote this low (based strictly on photographic merits). I'm honestly glad I didn't vote on it since I would've simply contributed to the low scoring. I also would've been the first one to step up to the plate (hat in hand) and ask forgiveness for passing such harsh judgement on an excellent photo that was taken way out of context.
The way I look at it, several people owe this photographer a very sincere apology. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:20:59 PM · #20 |
I didn't vote that challenge, but had I that photo would certainly have garnered a low vote from me. Maybe not a -1- but certainly no higher than a -3-
Regardless of what the photo *is*, it's the message it conveys to it's audience. And this being an international audience, I'm sure the photographer knew that his photo would be taken for a photo of a KKK member, and hence not go over well. It's the chance he took, and I'm actually surprised the number of low votes isn't much higher.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:24:29 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by tryals15:
Give me a break.
How can the voters be wrong on this? Isn't all about the image they see, and how they interpret it?
It's part of submitting on an international site... You have to think about your audience, your WHOLE audience...
It's like the candid challenge in general. Some of the shots looked posed. Maybe they were, maybe the weren't but as a voter, I look at the image and say, gee, that looks posed. So, for candids, maybe it's smart not to enter a shot that looks posed...
Give me a break. |
I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. If photographers thought about their entire audience, many great works of art would've never been created. Take a look at my earlier post... photography should provoke an emotion!!! The photographer should consider the audience yes, but should NOT shoot to always give the audience a "warm/fuzzy" like kirbic stated. The most interesting thing about this site is the wide cultural diversity that is represented here. I for one am open to other cultures and make every attempt to expand my views. This particular image is a good lesson for me personally to not judge an image based solely on my own personal paradigm.
With all due respect, my advice to you is to try and open your eyes and step outside of your box and try to appreciate an image for what it is, and not what you think it might be. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:28:24 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kashi:
I didn't vote that challenge, but had I that photo would certainly have garnered a low vote from me. Maybe not a -1- but certainly no higher than a -3-
Regardless of what the photo *is*, it's the message it conveys to it's audience. And this being an international audience, I'm sure the photographer knew that his photo would be taken for a photo of a KKK member, and hence not go over well. It's the chance he took, and I'm actually surprised the number of low votes isn't much higher. |
Should I interpret your comments as meaning that when you score a photo....the quality of the photo is not the primary factor of consideration, but rather YOUR interpretation of the message is?
I realize it's your vote, but surely the prime objective is to consider the quality of the image.... or am I missing something.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:40:24 PM · #23 |
There are really three areas we should be looking at when scoring:
1.) Technical merit: lighting, focus, DoF, sharpness, noise, color, etc.
2.) Esthetics: composition, shapes, textures, etc.
3.) Emotional impact: does the photo evoke a strong emotional reaction, either positive or negative?
The emotional component is where we fall into the trap of voting low on something that we "disagree with." Shots of the American flag regularly draw 1 votes and even nasty comments from certain voters, for example. Whether or not we agree with the message, if the message is effectively conveyed, the photo does not deserve a low vote, IMO. As voters, we need to open our minds. After all, opening peoples' minds is one of the highest goals a photographer can have.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:41:55 PM · #24 |
What if there was a picture of a KKK member and the internatinal members thought it was of a religous ceremony? I wonder if this argument would be different then?
The photogapher explained in detail what this photo was about - knowing many people would get the wrong impression. Going back in a thread like this and telling voters they are ignorant because they got the wrong impression is ridiculous.
There was no way of knowing via picture or title which this picture was of and many people voted it HIGHER or lower based upon their assumption. (If the voter was of that religion or had an affinity for that ceremony they very likely would have voted it higher based upon their ASSUMPTION of what it was ie: not a KKK member). If the picture had been of a Klansman would we be here talking about how the people who voted it high are racist and ignorant?
I'm not surprised by the vote and I don't knock anyone for voting or believing the way they did. It is (especially wiothout any explanation) a very controversial picture. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:41:57 PM · #25 |
I'm gonna play a little devil's advocate here. I didn't vote on this and did immediately make the wrong assumption. (the description is very interesting though).
Were I to take a picture of my boy with his fingers making a "V" and the back of his hand facing the camera, should I be surprised if the European contingent votes me down because it is an offensive gesture to them (but not to us)?
Carlos knew this could be interpreted as a KKK thing (unless his comments were post voting). We the voter have no insight other than the picture or the title. Carlos did not avail himself of either resource to steer us away from the association most Americans would make. Being a candid, I can't blame him for not being able to get some holy relic or device into the frame to help us understand it's a religious procession, but he easily could have used the title to steer us away from the klan.
I cannot fault the voter for giving a one. If the picture is strongly offensive to you, why not? The quality of the image includes the message it sends. If the message (rightly or wrongly) is read as hate, bigotry and violence, then can't people judge that as a poor image? |
|
