British Army Photo Contest (Daily Mail)

IMO some very fine shots among these.

British Army public vote on Army Photographic Competition 2018 | Daily Mail Online

Men and their toys. Definitely some good : er : shots. (Language is so telling.) Love the cadet at Sandhurst, as a photo that is. Girls and women as props, supporting characters.

:rolleyes: It is about the photos not (your) ideology. This is a photography site! :)

This is a photography site!

Thanks for pointing that out. Photographs are not just about the gear used, the tack sharpness of the lens, or the nostalgia of when we first picked up cameras. Photographs are about much more than just the content or subject matter but they are certainly about the subject matter and its portrayal. I'm surprised you don't understand that.

I'm actually going to take this a step further. There have been many threads about the portrayal of women in the nudes forum here and the portrayal of homeless people in the street forum. There have been discussions of the difference between Adams's portrayal of the Japanese Internment Camps and Lange's portrayal. I don't recall anyone being bothered by those discussions of content and the ideology involved in both the photographing of those subjects and the responses to the portrayal of those subjects. This, on the other hand, is all about your disagreeing with me. You have every right to and I welcome your ideological disagreement, but to say my response to the subject matter doesn't belong on a photo site seems to miss much of the point of a : photo site. This was my honest, simple, and rather brief reaction to the photos you posted. If you can't stand the heat, you might step out of the kitchen.

I always consider the source of comments as I evaluate their validity. This is a photo site, except possibly to those who are agenda driven and into virtue signaling.

Sandy, you must have know this would be exactly the reaction to posting military photos. You bate, they bite...

I always consider the source of comments as I evaluate their validity. This is a photo site, except possibly to those who are agenda driven and into virtue signaling.

This is your right, though you might consider the ad hominem nature of your response. You might try to respond to what people say as opposed to the personality type you project them to be. My response was about the subject matter of the photos. Your response is about me. Do you see the difference?

Anyway, I look forward to hearing discussion of the photos, what they portray, and how well they portray them. I don't look forward to further discussion about the individual posters.

I made a general statement - that you chose to apply it to yourself...

That's because I can read.

As with nudes or any other "controversial" subject so identified there is the simple opportunity to pass it by and leave it for others who find such things of interest.

Why would I pass it by? I find nudes interesting to look at, Adams's photos of the Internment Camps interesting to look at even though I find the sensibility behind them somewhat questionable, and war photos interesting to look at, though some may bother me and some particular series may bother me more than others, for a variety of reasons. I have no intention of passing many subject matters by. And I have no intention of being bullied into not expressing my opinions of photos and what they portray.

The subject and source were deliberately made apparent in the title. As with nudes or any other "controversial" subject so identified there is the simple opportunity to pass it by and leave it for others who find such things of interest. I very rarely comment on photos or topics that I find unpleasant.

Your response is about me.

I made a general statement - that you chose to apply it to yourself...

Men and their toys.

OK Gary.

Explain your post.

Do you know the difference between a weapon and a toy?

Do you know what a soldier is?

Man up.

The subject of my post is your post, “Men and their toys”

What does that mean?

Girls and women as props, supporting characters.

What does that mean?

Do you know the women were used as props?

OK Gary.

Explain your post.

Do you know the difference between a weapon and a toy?

Do you know what a soldier is?

Man up.

The subject of my post is your post, “Men and their toys”

What does that mean?

Thanks for asking. Happy to discuss.

 

To help explain, I provided a link below, which is a google search of "great war photography". The British Army photos that this thread is about put a lot more emphasis on the weapons than a lot of other army and war photos I've seen, and I've seen a lot. Many of the photos in the Daily Mail link are posed, considered photos with weapon in foreground or at least featured, sometime even seeming larger than life. That seems forced to me or at least by design, and not all that thoughtful an approach to documenting soldiers. In any event, it's hard not to notice all the weapons if one looks carefully so I see no reason not to feature them in my response. Even the photo I liked most, the cadet at Sandhurst, which I think is a good portrait, seems posed and features a tool of war more than the action of war and soldiering.

 

Yes, I know the difference between a weapon and a toy. I used "toy" as a euphemism for "weapon."

 

Yes, a soldier is typically someone who fights in war. Women can be soldiers.

 

I have no need or desire to "man up" though, as I said, I'm happy to discuss my reaction to the photos.

 

LINK

 

What does that mean?

Do you know the women were used as props?

It means there is only one woman soldier shown and, interestingly, she is one of the few soldiers shown without a weapon. As the only woman soldier shown, it stands out that she's in a very non-aggressive posture as well. The other woman is featured as an accompaniment to the man in the photo.

 

I don't generally look at photos I wasn't personally involved with as a matter of knowing. It's about how things appear in the photo, not necessarily what I or the photographer know. There are obviously exceptions and it's a whole discussion in itself. So, no, I don't "know" the woman, presumably his wife or partner, was used as a prop. But that's how it appears to me when I look at a series of photos of all male soldiers (except one), the one female soldier conspicuously not holding or accompanied by a weapon, and the other woman being the partner of the male soldier.

Uh, the woman is a nurse.....I suppose someone could have handed her a rifle.

I guess that is stereotypical manipulation as well, that she is a nurse.

I sense a political predisposition in your reply.

Uh, the woman is a nurse.....I suppose someone could have handed her a rifle.

That's a good observation, thanks. It's also a small detail in what I said by way of answering your question which seemed more about my overall reaction to the photos than one gotcha detail. It's easy to find a fault or two in what details another viewer might miss. I'm glad, however, I was able to discuss the photos themselves with some insight. It's also easy to question the opinions of others without expressing one of your own, and backing it up.

I suppose this disqualifies your link

Sorry, but I don't find it useful to discuss photography from the standpoint of gotcha moments. I talked about the photos and my reactions to them, which is what you had asked for. Instead of reacting to the thrust of my comments, you're attempting to put me on the defensive by trying to score points. I'll wait for others' reactions to the photos or to my actual thoughts.

The “small detail”,the fact that she is a nurse, is the central point establishing the main flaw in your post.

What was that you posted about the heat in the kitchen?

I simply pointed out why your premise is flawed.

 

This was my honest, simple, and rather brief reaction to the photos you posted. If you can't stand the heat, you might step out of the kitchen.

 

I find it very useful to examine what people post here.

It gives measure of their opinions, advice, and accuracy.

 

No establishment of women as props.

No establishment of the greatest war photos being scoured of “men and their toys”.

We’re making progress here.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Moving On

Some might think the fact that the only woman soldier shown is a nurse helps establish my point about the portrayals of men and women in the series of photos.

 

You have established nothing but your ability to nitpick and bully.

You have established nothing but your ability to nitpick and bully.

“Bully”.???

There is that “heat” thing again.

Some might think the fact that the only woman soldier shown is a nurse helps establish my point about the portrayals of men and women in the series of photos.

Er uh I covered that already....

See post #15.

“I guess that is stereotypical manipulation as well, that she is a nurse.”

You tend to turn photo criticism into interrogation sessions of the critic. If you want to give alternative interpretations of the photos of your own, there might be something of a discussion. Otherwise it’s just a bullying session and a self-created one way street. I manned up. You’re hiding behind the critique of a detail or two. The fact that the one female soldier shown is a nurse or not seems much less relevant than the fact that there is only one female soldier shown in the series. The latter fact you don’t address because your interest is in putting a shiny object elsewhere.

 

Of course there’s a political component and perspective to my response. There is also an aesthetic and technical component to my response. Why shouldn’t they work hand in hand in my response to a series of photos selected for highlighting in an article about a photo competition?

You tend to turn photo criticism into interrogation sessions of the critic

No

I specifically addressed your words in your post.

The fact that the one female soldier shown is a nurse or not seems much less relevant than the fact that there is only one female soldier shown in the series.

Certainly, until you ascribed to her a circumstance that fit your narrative, but was in direct conflict with the facts of the photo.

 

Where are the female soldiers in your link?