I'm curious to how many were wrong on this

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/19/2006 12:48:55 PM · #28

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If the message (rightly or wrongly) is read as hate, bigotry and violence, then can't people judge that as a poor image?

Yes they can......whether they should or not is the essence of the argument in this instance.

If one feels so strongly about something that they cannot provide an impartial opinion as to the quality of the image.... then perhaps the best course of action would be to abstain.

Ray

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/19/2006 12:53:30 PM · #29

Originally posted by RayEthier:

If one feels so strongly about something that they cannot provide an impartial opinion as to the quality of the image.... then perhaps the best course of action would be to abstain.

Ray

Well, that would certainly be a reasonable option, but we all want to be heard and I wouldn't expect too many to have the calm to do that. Believe me, if I saw a crucifix sitting in a cup of urine, I'd be giving it the old 1 vote no matter how well the urine was captured...

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

04/19/2006 12:59:06 PM · #30

Originally posted by kirbic:

....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....

Could not have said it better. I liked the photo (I gave it 7) because it was a good composition, exposure e.t.c. and it demanded your attention, which to me is what a good photo needs. I was not sure of the context due to the tight crop but to be honest would have guessed the clan if I have to pick one - I know they are not the only ones to use this head-dress but would have assumed the most likely from a heavily US based membership.

I find it fascinating though, how the comments and, most likely, votes project emotions onto the photo that are just not there. There is a great quote [sorry; cannot remember the source (Adams??) or the exact phrase] but to paraphrase; There are exactly 2 and only 2 people in every photo, the photographer and the viewer.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/19/2006 01:03:23 PM · #31

I'm amazed at how many people didn't know that other groups besides the KKK wear that sort of hood. I'm not Catholic or European and I managed to learn this information a long time ago. This pretty much perpetuates the stereotype of the uncurious xenoclueless American.

Beetle

04/19/2006 01:04:56 PM · #32

Originally posted by Tycho:

Originally posted by Beetle:
It is a good reminder of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

Innocent or guilty of what exactly?

Let me try to explain:
I do believe that the emotions provoked do and should form a part of our score.
However, if we wrongly condemn a photo, for instance because of lack of knowledge, then that isn't entirely fair.

I know that it is up to the photographer to get the message across, but if I am having a senior/blonde/dull/prejudiced moment, then he or she shouldn't have to pay for it.

If I am not quite sure about the photo, I vote in favor of the photographer - innocent until proven guilty.

gotyellowmike

Sony DSC-F828

04/19/2006 01:06:12 PM · #33

"If one feels so strongly about something that they cannot provide an impartial opinion as to the quality of the image.... then perhaps the best course of action would be to abstain" (don't know how to italicize)

Word, the best idea yet.
Something like, if you don't have anyhting nice to say...

But are we saying that we can't vote low or high purely motivated by emotion. Sure, the technical skills are important, but so is the viewer's response. I just relooked at the submissions. I saw an entry with a guy kneeling at a grave. The picture didn't come in that high. I would have given it a high score because of how intimate the picture was and how it made me feel. We can't forget how important our emotions are. Emotions always play a part. In this case a very big part having to do with one of the strongest emotions, anger.

04/19/2006 01:11:31 PM · #34

Originally posted by robs:

There is a great quote [sorry; cannot remember the source (Adams??) or the exact phrase] but to paraphrase; There are exactly 2 and only 2 people in every photo, the photographer and the viewer.

"There are two people in every photograph; the photographer and the viewer." â�� Ansel Adams

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/19/2006 01:15:55 PM · #35

I am familiar with this Spanish tradition and had a feeling that this could be exactly that.

To make the message clearer the photographer could have tried to use a more telling title that you can use to Google. Or to include more telling elements like Christian signs.

If this had been KKK I wouldn't have voted differently. Not that I like the KKK or its ideology.

And about Jesus saying nothing about wearing silly hats like this: He didn't say anything about the headdress of the pope, cardinals and bishops either. The pope has a silly hat as well.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

04/19/2006 01:16:37 PM · #36

I didn't vote in this challenge, so didn't see the image being discussed until now. I will admit that I have a few "prejudices" when voting that I'm actively trying to "overcome." I'm not fond of pictures that use naked women if they're obviously trying to get votes by simply using naked women. This is not to say that I don't appreciate well done nudes. I'm not fond of overly religious pictures that appear to me to be pandering to that sector.

Instead, now I try to look at a picture for it's merits. And yes, emotional reaction is one of those merits. If the picture is done such that it evokes a strong emotional reaction, be it positive OR negative, that to me is a good quality in a photograph. In other words, just because a picture evokes a very strong negative emotional reaction does not mean that it's a "bad" photograph.

04/19/2006 01:26:11 PM · #37

It's interesting to me to see a strong consensus developing among a fair-sized bloc of voters that we ought to be voting relatively highly any images that provoke a strong emotion in us, be it negative or positive. On the surface, this POV seems enlightened, as it were; "The photographer intended to provoke a negative response, and he did it well. Not every photo is about warm, fuzzy things."

But actually, taking such a position on THIS picture is not logically consistent. Why? Because if everyone who despises the KKK voted this picture high because it evokes that negative feeling, on the assumption that this is what the shooter was aiming for, then they'd actually be giving the image points it did NOT deserve. After all, it's nOT a shot of the KKK...

Someone else used the "beautiful shot of a turd" analogy. Consider this; if I put an actual turd in a punchbowl, do a good job of shooting it, and title it "The Turd in the Punchbowl of Life", then by this reasoning the image shoiuld score well even IF the voters "don't like turds", right? But suppose I shoot a candybar in the same puncbowl and title it "Candybar in Punchbowl", and the comments show that many people voted it down because "it looks more like a turd than a candybar", isn't that a negative reaction to turds and isn't that a valid reaction?

This isn't a simple either/or situation here, not at all. And of course, in practical terms the discussion is meaningless; we broad-based group of voters are gonna keep right on doing what we do despite all pontification and attempts at "education" to the contrary, and who's to blame us, collectively?

IMO nobody owes the shooter an apology, and I'm sure he doesn't expect one either, based on his own comments on the image.

R.

militarygirl10

Nikon D2H

04/19/2006 01:28:40 PM · #38

Why would taking pics of Klansmen be wrong, that is photo journalism. Who am I to judge... but only to document?!

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/19/2006 01:40:20 PM · #39

Originally posted by militarygirl10:

Why would taking pics of Klansmen be wrong, that is photo journalism. Who am I to judge... but only to document?!

Perhaps for the same reason they don't show people on TV who run onto baseball fields. Recording the event only gives it credibility.

That's just a reason off the top of my head.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

04/19/2006 01:55:30 PM · #40

A different title would have made a big differnce here. I did not vote on this challenge so missed it. Whilst it screams KKK it just goes to show that what you see is not necesarily what you see, if you get my drift.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

04/19/2006 01:59:38 PM · #41

Originally posted by posthumous:

Yes, I found this strange as well. Its not as if its anything new!

behindthescenes

Nikon D70

04/19/2006 02:21:21 PM · #42

Doesnt the KKK carry crosses as well? If so would a wider crop showing a christian symbol really alter the perceptions of the "uncurious xenoclueless Americans"?

DanSig

04/19/2006 02:26:34 PM · #43

WOW how touchy people still are about the KKK that they even vote a picture down due to the subject might be KKK.

I wonder what kind of comments I'd recieve if I reconstructed Hitlers famous Olympic speech in 1938 and sent a picture of that in a competition...

the KKK were bad people, and if they still exist they still are bad, but there are so many things much worse.

the KKK worldwide might have killed 100.000 people in the past 2 centuries, cigarettes kill thousands each day, alcohol kills hundred each day, AIDS kills hundreds each day, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires and other disasters kills thousands each day, even just the normal traffic kills about 30.000 americans each year.

so we should vote down pictures of...

water
trees
cars
skies
wine
cigarettes
people.. they might have AIDS
and so much more...

this sounds stupid, but it's exactly the same thing so many people have done to the picture in the first post..

hope you people think before you judge in the future...

LeeD

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/19/2006 02:30:31 PM · #44

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

IMO nobody owes the shooter an apology, and I'm sure he doesn't expect one either, based on his own comments on the image.

R.

Based on the comments I read, there were several who made negative even inflammatory comments on the image as they perceived it. The interpretation by the viewer was incorrect and the comment was not merited.

A story my boss often tells of paradigm shifts...

"A rather large lady is driving in her convertible when a man walking down the street screams "PIG". The lady is so pissed at the comment and preoccupied with the "appropriate gesture" she was giving him that she did not see the 1000 lb hog in the middle of the street and she totalled her car."

The point is that if one makes a potentially harmful comment in response to something they perceive in an incorrect way, then yes I feel an apology is in order.

Had this been an actual image of a clansman and the intent was to invoke a negative response, I would probably feel differently, but as it is, someone shouted "PIG" and the perception was all wrong.

Edit to add... Actually I think the story is an excerpt from "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" (if memory serves)

Message edited by author 2006-04-19 14:36:01.

04/19/2006 02:44:20 PM · #45

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

The point is that if one makes a potentially harmful comment in response to something they perceive in an incorrect way, then yes I feel an apology is in order.

Had this been an actual image of a clansman and the intent was to invoke a negative response, I would probably feel differently, but as it is, someone shouted "PIG" and the perception was all wrong.

The photographer himself noted in his comments that he expected the image to be misunderstood as KKK by some people. It's not surprising that they did so "misidentify" it. The reactions are honest, and the photographer is fully capable of understanding that the negative reactions are actually not directed at "him" in reality, as this is NOT a KK scene, so no harm is being done and no apology is required, IMO.

It doesn't seem to me to be a major issue here; the shooter knew damned well the image would be misunderstood, and I'm he's not not suprised it was.

R.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/19/2006 02:46:59 PM · #46

deleted by me

sorry I can't talk calmly about these things.

Message edited by author 2006-04-19 15:09:20.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/19/2006 02:53:59 PM · #47

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

someone mentioned a crucifix in urine, being jewish this wouldn't offend me at all. everyone is offended by something.

That's interesting; I'm not Jewish, but I assuredly react with anger to newspaper photos of synagogues defaced by skinheads...

R.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

04/19/2006 02:54:51 PM · #48

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the message (rightly or wrongly) is read as hate, bigotry and violence, then can't people judge that as a poor image?

Yes they can......whether they should or not is the essence of the argument in this instance.

If one feels so strongly about something that they cannot provide an impartial opinion as to the quality of the image.... then perhaps the best course of action would be to abstain.

Ray

The fact that the image produced a very strong emotional response (negative) to me means that the image was very successful. I do agree that it's hard to be impartial with negative responses.

Look at photos of war situations for instance.

Some context may have helped this one.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/19/2006 02:59:14 PM · #49

deleted by me

Sorry but I can't stay calm and talk about these things.

Message edited by author 2006-04-19 15:07:07.

Elvis_L