News Photo Diagnosis

No doubt this must be a thicker than usual day for my perceptions, but this attached photo accompanied a NYT's article on road rage and I'm at a complete loss to interpret what it shows.

The roof members of the crossing overpass above are clear; but is the bottom area a mirror of above? And what is the dark glob at middle level right? How are the two cars driving on a thin plane of pavement?

I accept that we live post reality in many ways, but has simple clarity become this devalued?

It looks to me like the lower part of the image is a reflection in large puddle.

Two cars driving under an overpass, standing water reflecting as it should. Nothing special here.

Eric, the blob in the middle right is dark, kind of crusted ground or earth surrounding a puddle that is the rest of the foreground of the shot. The puddle produces a relatively clear reflection. Since you're used to looking at it one way, it may take a bit of effort to shift your perspective. Once you see it, it will be more clear.

Wow...yes, of course - Thanks - Mods, pls delete thread to save me more embarrassment.

However the photo was constructed, it doesn't in the least express 'road rage' to me. I find it difficult to understand how this photo would visually support an article on 'road rage''. It's an interesting photo but it seems to me to be completely OT.

ye

However the photo was constructed, it doesn't in the least express 'road rage' to me. I find it difficult to understand how this photo would visually support an article on 'road rage''. It's an interesting photo but it seems to me to be completely OT.

ah, give me 10 minutes, and a country plow truck and well get lots of good road rage footage.

However the photo was constructed, it doesn't in the least express 'road rage' to me. I find it difficult to understand how this photo would visually support an article on 'road rage''. It's an interesting photo but it seems to me to be completely OT.

That was my next question:)

Ah hmmm... wel the original photo (admittedly questionalbe, RE road rage) aside, a friend of mine who is a talented photographer has worked for many years for our local newspaper- which has long since stopped printing actual papers and only publishes online articles and "content". He tells me the paper no longer cares, really, about photos in their articles- even tho they still employ a staff of photographers. The biggest push by them is for anything and everything- in the name of "content".

 

it comes as no surpise that such a pic -that has zero parallels to the actual written content and title, would be published in support of the article. Perhaps it's an editorial oversight but jeez, come on. Its not as though the NYT is a 4th-rate rag from some god-forsaken back-water... or is it?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Ricochetrider

Shouldn't we see or be linked to the article in order to make a determination about the photo that is said to have accompanied it? I'd want to see it all in context before judging.

Here's the online copy of the article. I read quickly and didn;t notice any relationship. It seems it was a catchy picture to highlight the article and draw attention.

Angry Drivers, Lots of Guns: An Explosion in Road Rage Shootings

Here's the online copy of the article.

Thanks!

I see lots of stock photos that are only marginally connected to the article thesis these days. Content creators are under a time gun to vomit out new stuff. In that they reach for what is handy in the moment.

 

Often a complete fail.