apparently I work for a racist night club

11/10/2009 12:28:56 AM · #1

So I have this regular gig as a nightclub photographer for some tiny profit and major shameless self promotion.

All of my pictures have always been posted on the website until this week. The club owner felt that some of them were too "ghetto" or contained gang hand gestures and needed to be deleted for maintaining a reputable image. Well I checked the site to see which ones had been deleted, and apparently maintaining a reputable image translates to zero tolerance for African Americans or Indian people, hand gesture or not.

I know that a job is a job and I shouldn't complain too much... but this irks me to no end. It's just so obviously racist when the deleted pictures contain the same quality, exposure, composition and attractive people as the posted ones.

I also feel guilty and bitter because I tell people their pictures will be up at the site and they're not.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/10/2009 12:36:03 AM · #2

You could always place some of the remaining images on Yelp or some other search portals to insure people get a true taste of the joint in question. That would be fun.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/10/2009 12:36:54 AM · #3

I'm picturing a different hand gesture...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/10/2009 12:39:43 AM · #4

If anyone who has had their "appropriate" picture deleted is a regular patron of this club, they may want to inform the owner that this action/attitude will cause them to be taking their business elsewhere.

Covert_Oddity

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/10/2009 12:41:30 AM · #5

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If the club is deleting the "inappropriate" photos, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be too upset if they did, it would help them maintain the "image" they are after.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/10/2009 12:44:42 AM · #6

Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
If anyone who has had their "appropriate" picture deleted is a regular patron of this club, they may want to inform the owner that this action/attitude will cause them to be taking their business elsewhere.

If the club is deleting the "inappropriate" photos, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be too upset if they did, it would help them maintain the "image" they are after.

Good point -- maybe inform the owner they'll be bringing all their friends (and maybe a newspaper reporter) the next time ...

11/10/2009 12:48:24 AM · #7

I would add that I kinda find all that gangish stuff, whether it's the real thing or the faux versions, pretty repulsive. I honestly can't relate to it on almost any level BUT I'm wondering if the images you showed them, might have scared them a bit and set an odd tone when the were judging the rest of your work...?

Just a thought.

Even if it's fun and innocent it could scare the shit out of the clubs investors and the shots could have made them even more image conscious, than they were at the outset.

Message edited by author 2009-11-10 12:53:54.

11/10/2009 01:02:07 AM · #8

Originally posted by pawdrix:

They only hand gestures besides the occasional peace sign I get were university frat signs. It's understandable when they don't want to associate with a certain frat, but this is different.

Thanks for the yelp idea. I'm considering it, but I don't know if I want to do free PR for them.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/10/2009 01:06:04 AM · #9

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
If anyone who has had their "appropriate" picture deleted is a regular patron of this club, they may want to inform the owner that this action/attitude will cause them to be taking their business elsewhere.

If the club is deleting the "inappropriate" photos, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be too upset if they did, it would help them maintain the "image" they are after.

Good point -- maybe inform the owner they'll be bringing all their friends (and maybe a newspaper reporter) the next time ...

mmm or maybe next time I'll take disproportionate amount of the pictures they don't want. Nothing like passive aggressive behavior right? x.x

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/10/2009 07:59:26 AM · #10

Originally posted by wanjun:

I know that a job is a job and I shouldn't complain too much... but this irks me to no end. It's just so obviously racist when the deleted pictures contain the same quality, exposure, composition and attractive people as the posted ones.

In the end, it's what you stand for......either suck it up and deal with it, or make a stand, tell the club owner he's a racist @$$hole, and quit the job.

Your choice & conscience......8>)

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

11/10/2009 08:09:47 AM · #11

I note that we as a collective are rather quick to pass judgement on the owners of the establishment based solely on one person's perception of the event.

Perhaps due consideration might be given to discussing the matter with the owner in an effort to gain a full appreciation of exactly what it is that led to the decision rendered in this instance. It may well be that the OP is justified in making this claim, but surely a bit more analysis is warranted before making such disparaging remarks.

Just a thought,

Ray

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/10/2009 09:29:51 AM · #12

Hard to form any opinion without seeing the photos that were deleted. Can you post some of the photos that were deleted?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/10/2009 01:08:48 PM · #13

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I note that we as a collective are rather quick to pass judgement on the owners of the establishment based solely on one person's perception of the event.

Well, nobody's really suggested anything other than possible ways for the OP to ID and/or deal with her perception.

Ultimately, she gets to decide where she wants to stand on the situation and live with her decision.

I worked for a man at one point whose business practices were so awful from a moral standpoint that it seriously affected my health worrying about my own integrity by my tacit complicity as his employee.

I was fortunate enough to be terminated because of a comment that I made in reference to actively looking for a job. I have never slept so well in my life as I had the night I was let go.

If this works on your conscience, you may be much better served to step away, regardless of what the owner's motivation may be.

It's just a job.....health & peace of mind are important.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Perhaps due consideration might be given to discussing the matter with the owner in an effort to gain a full appreciation of exactly what it is that led to the decision rendered in this instance. It may well be that the OP is justified in making this claim, but surely a bit more analysis is warranted before making such disparaging remarks.

Just a thought,

Ray

I'm certainly not advocating anything other than examining the situation from a purely selfish standpoint as it pertains to the OP. It can really work on you to work for someone you find to be morally reprehensible.

How people perceive you when you have a business is very important, both by the general public, and the people you have working for you.

If the owner made the OP this uncomfortable, there is a problem; the extent of it is unknown to us.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

11/10/2009 06:11:58 PM · #14

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

If the owner made the OP this uncomfortable, there is a problem; the extent of it is unknown to us.

Who knows what the "problem" is for certain. There are two sides to every story...right?

Flipping the race card is a pretty heavy thing. From what I see, it's done too often and more often than not, unjustly. Of course, the issue IS certainly out there and there's no denying that. Just when it comes up, it's worth hard scrutiny to be fair to all points of view.

David Ey

Nikon D80

11/10/2009 08:44:20 PM · #15

There is no way the owners of that club should be able to run it as they see fit. As an employee\contractor, you should stand your ground and insist the photos you choose be the ones that represent your business....Oh wait, this is not your business is it? Well, develop your own business with your own money then you can decide what kind of clientele you would like. Until you have done this and have your own money at risk you may not understand why they wish to choose which photos to use and who they want to attract as customers. This is called FREEDOM.
Freedom many of us have fought for and many have died to secure and protect.

Now, be thankful for the one who hired you to take the photos and will be issuing you the check.....or quit, and find someone who will let you have it your way.....but be sure and have a backup job because you likely will need it if the owner lets the employees make the decisions. Have a nice day. :}

11/10/2009 09:14:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by David Ey:

There is no way the owners of that club should be able to run it as they see fit...

That's not the issue. Freedom isn't the question. There's a claim that the work was given a whitewash...literally, in fact. In other words, whitey's in... everyone else is out! She's not questioning the managements right to be a-holes but merely pointing that they may be a-holes, which may very well be true...right or wrong. I have no idea if it's racism but because there are many factors that could be in play and certainly without seeing the images that were rejected OR the ones that were chosen to promote the club, we'll never know.

Frat signs...huh? It's funny but Frats scare me almost as much as street gangs but on a different, creepier level. That might actually affect my judgment, believe it or not...

Message edited by author 2009-11-10 21:17:52.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

11/10/2009 09:22:52 PM · #17

Not to stoke the fire, but if the club owner had taken out all shots with white people in the site, would we be having this discussion? Think about it, and carry on : )

11/10/2009 09:39:06 PM · #18

Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

Not to stoke the fire, but if the club owner had taken out all shots with white people in the site, would we be having this discussion? Think about it, and carry on : )

We wouldn't be talking about it because it generally means more to those who feel the pains of discrimination (racism), closer to the bone and more easily dismissed if it's not something you are affected by on a regular basis. However slight, this type of thing cuts deeply to some.

The topic has more gravity if your culture, people with the same skin color, religion have a history of getting the short end of the stick. Like, if you're on top or in respectable standing, this type of stuff is pretty easy to brush off....as it probably has no real affect on your daily ins and outs.

Me....cut me out of every photo, I say. I could care less.

Message edited by author 2009-11-10 21:42:57.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

11/10/2009 11:44:18 PM · #19

Well if you must...

Some of the Rejects (first six I saw going through the comparisons):
//www.flickr.com/photos/wanjunz/sets/72157622655364801/

Posted ones:
//www.smugmug.com/gallery/10253302_WPALJ#707265128_kYgMa

Previous gallery at the same place without face control:

//www.smugmug.com/gallery/10099493_3FmZF#693458019_v8iNe

Yes I do realize I do not own the business, and am just a hired hand, which is why I posted in the rant section. To be fair, I noticed that a couple of pictures were also rejected because people weren't dressed nicely enough. And looking back at the rejected sample, I realize that they were mostly couples. So maybe the club wants people to believe that girls there are mostly single. However, no Caucasian couple was cut, and a single black chick was.

You may judge however you like, but when I look at final posted images, the face-control is very obvious.

I plan on speaking with the club owner this weekend and tactfully ask exactly what he's looking for.

For now though, I will probably post all of the images on Facebook and tell people to friend me. It's going to be win-win since people will get their pictures and I get more exposure and shameless self promotion.

And I know how bad reverse discrimination can be. I'm simply stating my own opinion from a simple observation.

Finally, it's disheartening how freedom is randomly linked to everything in order to justify it. To steal a bit from Jon Stewart: OMG! MY PEN! It's filled with ink! which is what the Declaration of Independence is signed with. FREEDOM!!!

fireserpent

Olympus E-3

11/11/2009 01:04:27 AM · #20

I deal with this sort of thing in the club/event photography I do as well. I don't tell people that their images will be on the site. I just say that the images are for the club and the club will put them on their site. I'm paid to do a job and I do that job well. If my client only selects one aspect or group from their club to promote then that is their issue, not mine. However, I review every image I submit to them before giving them the images. I don't want them showing my work in a bad light any more than they may not want certain things on their page. So, a week after they've had the photos and have reviewed the images I ask them about the content and they tell me which direction they would like the images to be going towards.

It is your job as a photographer to give them what they want or are looking for. If you have an issue with it, quit after getting hired on somewhere else.

Tank

Message edited by author 2009-11-11 01:09:46.