Condemned Man

I like the picture but wonder if less grain would make a stronger expression on his face. Now it is almost as if you have used some sort of pattern that in my opion does not add to the atmosphere. What made you decide to have this composition?

 

Regards,

 

Arthur

It IS over dodged, and blatantly so. Because it's B/W though the politically correct double standard engine kicks in and that's ignored, even though it's technically a very BAD dodge (or most likely burn) that wold get the print thrown back at me from even the most desperate editor. I assume Chris has better dark-room skills than this.

I also feel free compelled to add that because this image is dark and morose it's assumed good from artistic standards.

This image actually made me feel good. 'Good' in the respect that after driving all day in snow flurries, grey skies and 6 inches of brown slush on the road it made my day seem bright and colorfull.

In a pure objective sense, I looked at this image in depth, but couldn't quite come to a conclusion other than a subject who likely has no concept that they are being photographed. The image is interesing, but it's vague, and demands some story to fill in the blanks. Because it represents (or portrays) a negative charicture doesn't automatically make me give it better marks. The image evokes interest on my part, but the near fetish attraction to it by the many of the comments in this thread makes me shutter.

Hanging out in mental institutions and insane asylums to get subject matter also warrants a big thumbs down on my part. It's exploitation at the least, and nothing more than 'easy prey' in terms of subject matter. Maybe I'll go to the local orphanage tomorrow and hold candy bars above my camera to get the kids too look real destitute.

Harrumphh, the hands are cut off! As I recall, that's a MAJOR RULE VIOLATION. I have no clue whether the man is wax or not, though I believe everyone should be believed unless proven otherwise, but this certainly is a striking expression, in a compositionally strong photograph.

If we were given no title and no explanation, how would we tend to assess the merits of this photo? So far the title remains ambiguous and the explanation has not been forthcoming. On the basis of the picture itself, free of title or explanation, I cannot say what I would feel or think about this photo. In and of itself, out of context, it has no effect on me whatsoever. I do like the folder, however, and I am not challenging the selection, just wondering what's going on.

A few random comments about other comments I just read...

"I am not quite sure about the correctness of photographing people who are obviously facing inconceivable misery and then discussing the virtues of lighting, exposure and composition in the photograph. Doesn't quite feel right people."

Yes, I agree somehow with this. I think this discussion would take a more interesting turn if it would be a bit more respectful of the subject as such. I think that the technique is totally secondary here anyway. I personally would like Chris to tell us soon a little more about the image, so that the discussion may be re-routed towards a larger discussion about journalism... and the documentation of human misery - which to me, matters a bit more than the amount of dodging in the hair.

"Is it a restraint and not a pocket?" Mary Ball

Looks pretty much like a restraint to me. And I hope it would be a good enough reason to justify the "crop" of the hands somebody was talking about....

"Are we taking bets? I bet it's a genuine photo, not a wax figure."

I'm with you on this Doug. But let me add 2 things...

1) If we are wrong, and if this IS a wax figure, then we need to really congratulate the artist AND the photographer. I have never in my life seen such a realistic representation of what it is like it to be "condemned".

2) I wonder whether it occured to some people that there might be much less difference than one would expect between a wax face and a face that has virtually lost all its life through suffering at an extraordinary level...?

As Mary puts it perfectly, "the face is very dead - void of emotion to me." My point is: that's exactly what suffering does to a face at such stage. Have you ever seen a mentally ill person ? There is a point where the mind just cuts off and blacks out. All expressions may be lost here for that reason, don't you think...? Most certainly we do not see such faces in the streets every day, but that's exactly where humanity becomes almost true wax. The only remedy human beings have to fight absolute despair is to keep the shutter closed.

"The face is turned away from the camera, no eye contact. There is nothing around the subject or in the background to covince me that this chap is most certainly suffering."

Suffering - at least to THAT extent - may just be that: having lost the eye contact all together, being out of any real world, in the dark...

"What made you decide to have this composition?"

To find an answer to this question, I would rather ask: what was the main subject ? Is it there ? Yes...? Is there any distracting element ? ...no ? Then it's a good composition.

"Hanging out in mental institutions and insane asylums to get subject matter also warrants a big thumbs down on my part. It's exploitation at the least, and nothing more than 'easy prey' in terms of subject matter." Scott Eaton

Scott, if this is indeed a picture taken in an asylum, it is called "journalism". The purpose is to document how other people leave, and what their problems are. Just like documenting how a flower looks, and not the problems it doesn't have.

Circa 1600, the letter B was worn by people accused of Blasphemy. Read Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter (1850). My best guess would place the photo's subject between three and five-hundred years old. This would explain the hand-stitched prison uniform, and the subject being devoid of life.

Looks like a wax figure to me, and if not I'd bet my pants it's at the very least a staged, made-up shot. It's nice to see a second well-executed POW shot in a row for a change, at any rate.

 

I can't say it gave me goosebumps. I don't think I'm heartless, though. I think it has to do more with the complete lack of eye contact, lack of emotion in the face.. and the distractingly weird hair and hand-sewn straitjacket. The lighting and tonal range are well-chosen here, playing up the damp, cold atmosphere. Same goes for the angles: they work perfectly to underscore the somber sense of isolation Chris was most likely going for.

 

Assuming it is a faked subject, I'm not sure what use this picture can be put to without another revealing the fakery for context. It's too realistic to be a wry comment on museums by itself.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm a bad, bad person. But I'll take that chance.

The soiled straight jacket and the skin, the 'dead' stare and the dejected look and the posture that is full of pain and suffering -- all filled and surrounded by a gloomy darkness. A terrific capture, really.

 

BUT, don't know why, still I am not terribly moved by this (though I feel awful about myself as a humanbeing for that). Maybe it could partly be because of the uncertainties surrounding the context. Or perhaps this photo somehow does indeed not fully convey the true potential of the scene and the emotions contained in it. Some say that it's of wax (but not in my wildest imagination), some even claim it's staged, though I doubt it.

 

Are we all able to fully and truly appreciate this photo without knowing the context? Did the elf who chose this knew what is going on here, by merely looking at the image and the title? (I, for one, like so many others cannot tell what it is) Though it almost looks like a straight jacket, can we say for sure it is, with the pocket there?

 

How would we read this shot had we not known the title? How's the title helping here? Is the photo truly self contained? Should a photo be, anyway?

 

How does this shot merit technically -- light, tones, contrast? Is the photo so overwhelming one can overlook the technical aspects? And in general could one overlook such things (other than composition) in a (journalistic) shot conveying human pain and suffering.

 

It does evoke compassion and sympathy, but I somehow feel it lacks something that could help intensify the emotions. I don't get all these questions when I go to this Ian MacEachern folder every time and when I see this shot every time. Is that because the content is more explicit there and loaded with more shock value? Not to take away any of the fully deserving credit from the photo and photographer, what is missing here, if anything?

 

Appreciate if someone can help me find answers for these.

Some images do not require all of the intellectualism and technical focus given to it. This is one of those exquisite images of simplicity which really reach a "family of man" type of status.

 

Words cannot re-phrase the experience here. As I recall from the 1960s: "May the baby Jesus open your eyes; and shut your mouth."

 

Surely this image is one of the best of the year, making me speechless.

 

Excellent!

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

The problem, Timber, is that we do have words: the title, and that biases our interpretations a good bit, I think.

This discussion prompted me to recall the story of a 'Washington Post' reporter who, some 21 years ago, created quite a scandal when she submitted (and the paper published) an especially well-told story about a youthful addict that turned out to have been fabricated. The resulting controversy led, among other things, to a revision of guidelines for awarding the coveted Pulitzer prize.

 

This photo was not submitted as journalism, nor as part of a story, but perhaps it has been selected, at least in part, because it purports to tell a very gripping "story." And perhaps it's less compelling -- for some of us -- if it's not real.

 

Many are curious as to whether this photo depicts fact or fiction. It might well be worth discussing the implications of each, provided that discussion is not held at the expense of this immensely capable photographer who, so far as I can tell, cannot be accused of anything more serious than uploading a very good picture for the rest of us to see.

 

Michael

I had hoped that the days of hyperbole descriptions by the elves

was a thing of the past. There's a forum discussion that

considers what we can tell about the makeup of a photographer

by analyzing his images. The interpretation by the viewer may

also say a great deal about him or her self. (and, I suppose, the

critic who insists on analyzing both of them :-)

 

IF this is a wax musem image, then I think it's only fitting that we

remove virtually all of the accolades that we've laid on the

photographer. Impact of subject goes to the maker of the wax

figure, timing is laughable, since it will go on unchanged for

some time. The composition is detrmined by the barriers

between onlookers and subject and by the background that was

designed by someone else according to their ideas of impact.

The lighting, which seems to come from the upper right, is also

designed by the museum.

 

I don't think it premature to take the photographer to task for

trying to pull a fast one. I've been wrong before, but too many

things just don't add up. If we're in an institution, why are the

walls so dark, and where does the light come from?

"so that the discussion may be re-routed towards a larger

discussion about journalism...and the documentation of human

misery-which to me, matters a bit more than the amount of

dodging in the hair."

 

Personally, I think that is the worst avenue that this thread could

take. If I'm not mistaken, this is a site devoted to photography

and the critiquing thereof, not of the moral status of the

journalistic profession, and most definetly not the realm of

human misery. I'm not saying that those topics are not worthy of

discussion, I just don't think they fit here, now.

 

With that being said, I'll say again, I think the area around the

head is dodged too much and it looks unbalanced when taken

with the rest of the photo.

This photograph, despite its technical shortcomings, provides the sensitive viewer with an opportunity for shared subjective experience, and that is a bona fide achievement. Much as one might insert a quotation from literature into an essay, to illuminate some rare point of feeling and insight, so a photographic appreciation of a particularly dramatic dioramic presentation is also valid. My only criticism would be an apparent attempt at misrepresentation on the part of the photographer, analogous to literary plagiarism.

If this image were real and present it would be a Journalist's dream photo and the media would pick up the related story (because it would be atrocious if true) in a heartbeat.

That said I have to venture that the image is either staged or fake (in that it was taken in a wax museum). There are simply too many clues, most importantly, the subject matter itself if you have any sense of place and history. The image itself just doesn't seem to quite add up when viewed in relation to the rest of Chris' portfolio.

I will reiterate an earlier post. Have a look at this image. The comments and consideration might be better directed at this image than the current POW.

And not incorrect.

Why don't we just agree to shoot one photographer a week and save ourselves a lot of time?

Kelly, I wasn't talking about "moral status". YOU did. Let me explain what I meant by this sentence you disagree with, which I may have expressed a bit wrongly - sorry for that... What I would personally find interesting would be a discussion that would evaluate what are the PHOTOGRAPHIC (not moral) dos and donts of this sort of images.

Besides that, Carl... If this is a wax figure, you are obviously correct that the timing doesn't matter at all... Yet, I wonder why the light, because it would be the existing light, wouldn't matter... Don't you think light matters in just every shot ? I doubt that one needs to be in a studio-like situation and have control over flash heads, for his picture to have good or bad light. Once again, I feel that we are talking about "merits" instead of photographs. What is the merit if you go out today and find a wonderful scene under a sun you can't (and wouldn't need to) control ? Yet, your photograph might be excellent.

Another interesting comment here:

"This photo was not submitted as journalism, nor as part of a story, but perhaps it has been selected, at least in part, because it purports to tell a very gripping "story." And perhaps it's less compelling -- for some of us -- if it's not real."

This comment raises 2 very interesting questions for me...

1) What do we call a "story" in the first place. Are only REAL stories "stories" or not ? Are only "realistic" stories actually stories ? Are only journalistic stories REAL stories ? My personal definition of a story is "something that is told", meaning "a message that is sent about something happening"... Or it could be that something happening itself...

2) Whether this picture is or isn't BELIEVABLE, and whether or not it tells a story is what I am interested in. Of course, if it tells me something that I know for sure is very real about a real person, I'll be more concerned by what I see. Regardless, pain is still a real thing, and if anyone can see suffering in this image, be it a wax figure, it surely still tells a story.

The story has nevertheless to be believable. If it were obvious to me that this were a wax figure, I would stop believing that what I see is real, and the story told would fall appart. Yet, right now, I don't see anything that would mean to me, that this is a wax figure - whereas I do see an incredibly strong representation of suffering... So why disqualify the picture till we know more about it ?

By the way... If Chris doesn't come to tell us the real thing, this discussion may very much not make any sense all week long, I'm affraid...:-)

The problem is that we're all still waiting for Chris B. to show up.

I don't understand the 'blame' that seems to be put on the photographer here.

He did not ask for his photo to be chosen POW.

He has not stated that it is NOT a photo of a doll.

He just took a photo he liked and posted it here.

Marc, even though you didn't use the term "moral status", thats

exactly what you wrote about in respect to this type of

"journalistic" photo. You referred to respect of subjects in

accordance to the larger discussion of journalism and the

documentation of human misery, and how technique is totally

secondary.

 

I don't want to get into one of these thread arguments about that

which i don't feel is relevent, so i'll ask you, do you think the

dodging is too heavy aroud the head?

Great work! I say work because I dont think this is a grab shot or even a documentary one. The title is very appropriate. The dark room, dirty wallfaceneck, and dirty straight jacket makes it look real. The hacked hair could be pure luck. But, even though all the ingredients that make it seem like a real scene are there, I have a little bit of a problem believing that someone in such a depressive time in his life (as this fellow seems to be) would have the frame of mind to get a clean shave. Especially since it seems that he hasnt taken a shower in days. How is it that he is clean shaven and yet his face is so dirty? Therefore, I give this photo 10/10 as a work of art. In any case I hope Im not wrong, the condemnation of a life term in prison, or the death penalty, is not something pretty to look at; much less so to be the one in that position. If this man is really condemned, you can add me to the list of those wanting to know why this man is condemned and what is he condemned to?

Marc, We certainly agree that light matters. Sometimes, we are

given a gift and we wander onto a scene that says "shoot me!"

We raise the camera and we have a keeper.

 

But that's not the norm, I think. I know you do a lot of studio work

where you have to decide what, where, and how much light.

Outdoor shots require knowing how to anticipate how the

everchanging light will affect what we want. My point in this shot

is that the light was set up specifically to illuminate the

composition. It's already an artisitic creation, soup to nuts.

 

Not that we can't shoot man made objects that have some

creative artisitc input in their design. Nearly all of my subjects

are man made objects. The art, I hope, is to get the viewer to

see these objects in a different way, using light and compostion

to show the viewer what I think is interesting. That's what

'originality ' means.

 

I don't see anything at all that the photographer has brought of

himself to this subject beyond framing it to eliminate elements

that might compromise the deception. That would be a '1' for

originality. The emotional response that some have written

about. might suggest high marks for 'aesthetics', except that they

have been prepackaged, conceived and executed by others.

I know! He was condemned to win PoW!

In answer to this question: "I'll ask you, do you think the dodging is too heavy aroud the head?"

I am not sure, honestly. I see what you all mean here, but it doesn't shock me as a flaw - at all - on a monitor. I think the print only could really tell whether it's really "TOO" heavy or not. For your information, I'm really the wrong person to ask this, by the way, simply because I have stopped printing B&W myself for about 12 years, and I'm shooting 99% of my work in color... So, I'll pass on that one...:-)

As for what I meant with my earlier post, I have already clarified it. Please bare with the fact that English isn't just every one's first language. Regards.