Condemned Man

"Technical details: Available light, Tri-x. 15@ f4" Does Chris really mean "15"? Or did he mean "1/15"? I'd be interested to know. Might give some idea about what we're looking at here.

Until now, I have sat on the sidelines on this one because, to be honest, I just did not know what the origins of this photo were. Detective Nance may have uncovered the decisive clue though - an obvious one that we all seemed to miss. And yes, it dramatically changes my opinion as to the merits of the photo.

 

The photo does not strike me as an overtly "tongue in cheek" museum photo (ala Jo Voets), nor does it strike me as a documentary photo of a well known artistic piece (ala photos of Michelangelo's David). Rather (if it is, in fact, a wax figurine) it strikes me as an attempt to be something that it is not.

 

However, I could be wrong... and probably am since Chris would be unlikely to quote a 15 second exposure if he were attempting to be deceptive.

 

Bottom line is that the photo is great if it is "real", and only average if it is not because, to me, context is important.

Hi Gang.

 

Tony Dummett called me on Monday night and said, 'Chris, congratulations on winning POW...again'.

which is a bit like being 5 years old, when your best mate runs out of his house and says,

 

'Hey Chris your house is on fire! There are Fire engines everywhere!!!'

 

'Fire engines', I say, '...FANTASTIC!

...what?

My house is on FIRE!!!'

 

So.

The picture then.

Yes he is a dummy, but I don't know if he's wax.

To be honest this picture is really more about my imagination, and, mixed with a lazy afternoon in Photoshop; I imagined myself back in the eighteenth century Photographing the dispossessed, the condemned...hey if you've read Papillon, well what an assignment that would be, Devils Island, le guillotine...it's good to think like a five year old sometimes.

 

Technically this was a very poor underexposed thin neg, of a very unconvincing facsimile of a convict in a Melbourne Jail.

(Gasp..but wasn't it France, le Revolution...wasn't it Dickens, perhaps Bluebeard. Wasn't that you back in Paris in 1789?)

 

Gawd...I wish it was.

 

Anyway for those who enjoy using their imagination...enjoy.

 

And for the rest, well yeh it's a bit crap isn't it, just a dummy in a wig.

Talk about getting your knickers in a twist!

Carl, as you seem to be the leading proponent of the "deception" argument, let's go through the logic again.

This image was posted 8 months ago, almost to the day. At that time, I doubt whether Chris would have been considering its potential as a future POW. He was asked, by the upload form, to provide a title (note: not a descriptive title, just a "title"). He did so, calling it Condemned Man. I've seen some purely numeric titles here (i.e. no title provided). I've seen some pretentious ones. I've seen some "poetic" ones. You surely know the drill: the title is not obligatory and it is not required to be descriptive. In my POW last week the title was Speakers' Corner, or alternatively, Hyde Park Corner (both synonyms for the same place in London): I don't remember seeing any "corners" in that photo. I hope you get my drift.

Fast forward to early December. The image is voted on by the elves. It received more votes than the other candidate photos, hence it becomes POW. The image is posted without the elves asking Chris whether he wants it to be POW. He might have said "yes", he might have said "no". Chris might be a hard-working guy who only checks in on Sunday, or every second Sunday, or every third. It might be a Wednesday... who knows? He might be overseas on assignment somewhere, where logging on to photo.net is one of the least possible, or, if possible, least exciting things he could do at any particular moment. He doesn't have some kind of duty to log on, does he, just in case an image he posted 8 months before (and which has garnered only a few comments and respectable, but not overly high ratings) wins POW all of the sudden?

Now you're making multiple posts demanding that Chris answers your theory that this image is "deceptive". He may be blissfully unaware of all the kerfuffle his innocent post all those months ago has caused.

You mention that Peter Daalder has posted a "deceptive" shot of a sculpture, but that he is sharing the joke with us. The "sharing the joke" seems to make it OK in your mind. Speaking for myself, I prefer jokes that don't have to have their punchline delivered to me on a plate. If Chris's posting of this image is some kind of joke, why should he ruin the effect by confirming or denying this so soon in the piece?

One alternative scenario - if this image is not from life - is that Chris just posted the image because he is allowed to by the photo.net rules, firstly, and because he likes the picture and thought some others might like it too, way back in April when the "deception" (as you call it) was first deviously hatched. If the elves didn't, or couldn't tell him he'd won POW (perhaps they tried and couldn't get through?) then he had no chance to advise them that they might pick another image. There are a thousand scenarios that might pertain to the circumstances surrounding the posting of this image. Why do you get so hot under the collar over just one of these possibilities? There is not one shred of evidence that Chris has tried to deliberately foist a damaging or malign hoax on the photo.net community. The worst anyone could assume was that he didn't consider this as a POW candidate (or even all that important an image) when he posted it, he wasn't informed in advance when it was picked, and that he doesn't have either the time or the opportunity to respond to the hot air that has arisen from a situation over which he has little control.

If viewers want to believe that this image is from life, then let them do so. It certainly seems to be technically a photograph, not a composite or a painted image, so what's the problem? We are deceived every day of our lives by images: at the movies (where we willingly suspend disbelief), on TV (where They report, We believ...er...Decide), by sermonising politicians who tell us about Axes of Evil (most of whom have oil that they and their friends want to control), by terrorist messages that may or may not be faked. Compared to the latterly listed "deceptions", this image - if it is a "deception" (as you call it) is remarkably benign, and not too bad a photo into the bargain.

I'm only guessing, of course.

I need to add something...

 

Why "average" if it is not a real person? Because, on the upside, it is a well rendered, well presented "print". I like the effect. On the downside, and this should be clear, one is compelled to ask "what is the point?" I'm sure there are thousands of photographers populating this site who could produce well rendered, well presented "prints" of a cardboard box. Again, what is the point? None that I can see (notwithstanding the very real possibility that Chris is having a rather prolonged laugh at the expense of all of us).

 

To me, this is an analog example of the digital manipulation debate that consistently plagues these discussions (and one which I am all too often eager to participate in). Some prefer to know that what they are looking at is "real" (me), and some have a far more liberal interpretation of the photographic enterprise.

Obviously, Chris responded in between the time it took to make the last two posts. Therefore, take my second (of now three) posts accordingly.

I'm going to add my 2 cents here, little as they may be worth...

I think the "15" is a very good indicator, I saw this before and figured from the start that this photo was either a wax exhibition or an actor holding a pose. I hadn't even thought if "1/15" was meant, because to me and what I know, this situation/environment cannot be anything that has existed in the 'real world' in the past 20 years. I think the title simply extends to us what the photographer sees in this image, not the actual situation being portrayed.

The strait-jacket, the stone walls, the letter; this all leads me to believe that this is NOT a 'real' condemned man. Unless this photo was taken in the early 20th century and '1987' is wrong, I don't believe there is any way this photo is not wax or staged. We can't get upset at the photographer for not saying "Wax" or "Actor" in the title - titles of photos are like titles of songs or books. They're not literal, they're figurative, they're imaginitive, they describe the idea involved.

In any case, to me it doesn't matter that this photo may be staged - it's still a thought-provoking image and portrays a very dark and moody scene. If you saw it on the wall in a gallery and had no one around to ask or who knew (kinda like here), it's kind of like watching a magician do a trick that you can't explain. You saw it, you don't understand it, you know some trickery was involved, but you're still entertained by it. Magicians do many tricks that were invented by other magicians years ago, yet they still inspire awe, wonder, and entertainment - we don't rag on magicians for doing this, so why would anyone feel differently about this photo if Chris says it was staged? If he does disclose the situation surrounding the photo, I think it's like a magician telling how a trick was done and thus would ruin all the wonder involved.

Anyway, just my humble opinions on it all...

I knew that was going to happen - I finish writing my comment and go back to the discussion and Chris and 5 others have already responded. Just my luck... Oh well!

You know, I love Photography...and I love talking about pictures.

And this is probably why I posted this picture.

Not to create a debate or be cunning, but because out of something that was totally false in life, I had with Photography created something that was deceptively real.

 

This isn't a Pandoras box, this is not the Hitler Diaries, and this picture was not on the front page of any newspaper.

 

I have simply used my knowledge and understanding of the Documentary Genre, to create a Photograph, a still Life...and it's a bit of a dig because it fools some of the people some of the time.

 

But in itself it is remarkable because it looks so real, and that's why it's on Photo.net because it shows what Photography can do and also demonstrates what people think Photography should be.

 

PS. The title quote is from 'The life of Brian' and is not about me being the Messiah or anything...although I do have a picture of JC if anyone's interested ;)

Now I'm really getting sucked into this discussion... I need to add something else.

 

Chris, I have visited your portfolios many times, and I consider you to be an excellent photographer. Just to underscore that point, I should add that I hold Tony Dummett in very (very, very, very...) high esteem also - and I think he knows this. But, I do recall that I made precisely the same comment on one of his more notorious photographs... to wit, "what's the point" (Tony knows the one I speak of). Just wanted you to know that I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, but I nonetheless maintain my reservations about this particular photo.

 

However, thank you for joining the debate and for sharing your talent with the photo.net community.

Between the title and the exaggerated pose, there is an atmosphere of an outake from a silent movie of the 20s. One can surmise many things about this just looking at the image that has little to do with Death Row, or any other type of condemnation. There is no context beyond the figure and the garment he is wearing.I'm guessing that this is part of a photo essay about Something Grim. Sometimes pictures do need words, and sometimes they don't, but in this case the elves have done us a disservice, saying too much in their interpretation of the pic, and too little in the title. The fact is that the confusion expressed by so many of us here proves that this subject does not "speak for itself".

Eeee-gads, with the truth out, what will we talk about between now and sunday?

Chris, thanks. I feel a bit like a moron now, and I owe it to you ! and to these bloody Elves ! Couldn't they have a picked another of your works, huh ? :-)

Ok. Well. If it ain't real, it just ain't... Yet... I've had a real shock seeing this picture from day one, and I still feel that it deserves an accolade. May be an interesting start for another discussion, that Nick Scholte was already pointing to:

"To me, this is an analog example of the digital manipulation debate that consistently plagues these discussions (and one which I am all too often eager to participate in). Some prefer to know that what they are looking at is "real" (me), and some have a far more liberal interpretation of the photographic enterprise."

I think I agree with Nick here about the existence of 2 interpretations, and as well about the analogy with PS works. If this picture stands on its own with no explanation - and I think it does -, then I wonder why a PSed piece couldn't...? :-)

By "stand on its own" I mean: to look good and be impressive and work because it is believable. But then comes another question, which I'd like to discuss... Finally, why do people want stories to be believable...?

A little chat about truth versus reality, maybe...?

Congratulations on POW II! (provocative though it may be).

 

I don't think Chris owes the photo.net community anything regardingthe photo. Yesterday I almost said that this shows for onceand for all that the POW selectors need to consult the photographerprior to finalizing the choice, but now I'm not so sure. We'd havebeen denied this entertaining thread, where everyone (including myself)has been forced to face up to their preconceptions and gullibility.

 

In any case, it's an extraordinarily well-executed image.

You know Marc, when I was typing the sentence which you have now quoted, I was going to cite you by name as one with a more "liberal" interpretation of the photographic process. This is not meant as a slight. You are a very talented photographer yourself, and a genuinely sincere contributor to this site. We just happen to draw our "lines in the sand" as to what constitutes a photograph at a different spot on the beach. You have used this photograph as validation of the editorial capabilities of PS while I have done the opposite - I have seized upon the well-worn PS debate as a method of denouncing (this particular) photo. Touche ;-)

I must admit I don't post pictures hoping that they become POW.

That's not why we're here is it?

 

I'm a bit dissapointed with this picture, in the sense that it's a bit of a Pinnochio, not a real boy...and like a wonderful illustration on a Beer mat, well it's just a beer mat.

 

But it could be argued that this is in fact a true documentary Photograph. Because it is. In the sense that it's a found object, the situation was real (dummy in straight Jacket in a Prison Cell) and so to be truthful the only real manipulation has been the cropping and sharpening, dodging and burning. The elements remain intact.

 

The fascimile is the dummy behind the camera.

 

But I'm not really interested in defending this Photo from a Documentary point of view...what inspires me is the story that the finished work points towards.

 

It's a work of fiction, and I love a good story.

I find it incredible, that there are so many gullible and impressionable people on this site who are ready to wax lyrical over the most jejune and pretentious tat, that's served up for their delectation week after week by the usual suspects.I amazes me that so few seem to have developed the faculty of distinguishing the phoney from the genuine. Apart from last weeks POW, which was a breath of fresh air, it's the usual warmed up 'what shall we try today' dead at birth idea masquerading as photography, totally lacking in spontaneity, freshness,originality or the virtue of truth.

What? You mean photographs can be fictitious? Dang, who would have guessed that. Next thing you'll tell me is that there is no Santa and no Easter Bunny.

Last night I wanted to play detective so I download this weeks POW and took a thorough look at it. Today I was ready to report my findings, ie. This guy doesn't have an ear canal. Well, the confession has been made with Photoshop as his accomplice. It's very realistic. Technically, I would like to see more of the background. Also, I wish you would have waited a few more days before spilling the beans. Congratulations on POW.

So much depends, it seems, on what we are led to think that a photo represents -- or what we believe we have been led to think about what a photo represents, since in some cases (like this one?) the photographer is not "leading" us at all, except perhaps by artful ambiguity in captioning. Somehow, as much as I dislike captions that try to add to a photo's weight by declaring it to be something more than it is, I'm not bothered by Chris' decision to caption this one "Condemned prisoner", and I still like the photo.

For another take on the issue this photo/caption combo creates (or has been taken to create), take a look at Stephan Funke's Gabi No. 5. It fooled me when I first saw it, and then I realized after I heard from Stephan about it that it had not necessarily been intended to "fool" anyone in the first place. It's just a photo. And I still like it.

This photo served its purpose of providing a subject which provoked a good deed of comment and discussion. However, the 5-ish rating is about right, as it is not a great photograph, although it is technically well done. The comments regarding the possibility of it being faked or staged are valid, as the circumstances presented by the photo ask many questions. Regardless, it is not a "6" or "7", as it is not a photo one wants to view time and time again.

I feel sorry for Chris: this shows how important (I think) for people to disclose how photos are created. I don't mind this being a creation, but I think most viewers want to know. It does matter how images are created and what exactly they are supposed to represent. There's a big difference bettween a photoshop fantasy and a "street" shot. This is analogous to the fact I don't like novels masquerading as biographies.

 

This POW the week choice is unfortunate since Chris has such a fine portfolio of "straight" photography, including his other outstanding POW. It seems as if the elves were trying make another "safe" choice, but this week that strategy backfired.

Why do so many people care if the subject is a wax figure or not? Ultimately the subject ended up as a photograph that has the power to impact people in a negative/positive way.

 

To all the nit-picky "professionals" in this forum that would devalue the artistic integrity of this picture simply because the subject is possibly a wax figure, I would like to ask if the same theory applies to all photo's taken of wax figures? I would then like you explain to me the success of Hiroshi Sugimoto's portraits of Madame Tussaud's wax figures. Then you can explain to me how you have never shown somewhere like the Fraenkel gallery, having such an abundent knowledge of the rules that constitute a "good" photo.

 

http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/artists/a_sugimoto.html

 

The goal of photography still is "to create an image", hopefully one that has some kind of impact on the viewer, right? As far as I know, no one has perfected a universal process that has to be followed in order for a photo to be "correct", which makes me wonder where all these rules keep coming from.

 

Anyhoo, congratulations on POW Chris.

Street photography is in my opinion not fully understandable without the Habermas concept of INTENTION. A shot is WORTH what the photographer wants to say with it, what the AUDIENCE is able to perceive, and the intensity of communication that is established.

 

How much MESSAGE is there in this picture? This is the question.

 

Besides that, and not less important is credibility. In order to create communication, some TRUST from the viewer is needed. Some plausability must be present. The viewer must believe that there is something REAL behind, that the picture represents TRUTH.

 

For this, given that the author is dissapeared, we do not know. I would never say that a "wax" figure cannot be photographed. Of course, it would be great. But I want to know if it is the case.

 

If not, the POWER of TRUTH of this picture is vanished, the viewer does not BELIEVE and no communication is established, therefore, ruining the VALUE of the picture. (We, photojournalists suffer today from little credibility of pictures due to the bad use of photoshop)

 

Dear authour, thank you for the marvelous picture, but help us go out of this loop and tell us the story behind. Whatever it is, you will improve the picture.

I love reading these POW discussions. It's a real blood sport!

 

But seriously, I find it fascinating to follow the discussion and argument. I learn a lot from the willingness of you people to express ideas freely and to be unafraid of engaging in 'friendly' argument - although I pity anyone who gets chosen.

 

Congratulations, Chris, on being selected and handling it all so well. In the final analysis it's the photographer's idea that counts, and your ability to express it meaningfully.