Foundry Worker #1

I really don't see how this image can rank on originality. The theme of the worker in industry goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution - this is certainly not a new idea. Its also been well photographed - for social change in the 1920 and Salgado more recently in 3rd world countries. Yes, physical labor is tough and dangerous and we'll communicate that with dark contrasty prints.

Well done? Of course. Original? No.

An excellent choice for POW! I always liked this photo Ian, and I am keen to hear the story here (were you working to a brief?). His pose is just fabulous. He looks so brazen, unintimidated by the camera or his surroundings. The sweat on his brow immediately prompts me to wonder exactly how hot it is in that factory. [My son claimed his factory have ovens over 200 centigrade and I assumed he had made a mistake, meaning 200 fahrenheit. Apparently it was no mistake]. So, in what I would consider unbearable heat, the poor guys have to wear all this protective kit too? Obviously they want to protect themselves from hazards (& is accepted as obligatory), but just how comfortable would I be in this get-up for hours on end?? Well I'd be about as comfortable as could be expected lying amongst the dust on the concrete factory floor.... And, how to handle and manipulate materials and objects with gloves and glasses impeding your senses? Forget precision. I know I would just get frustrated and cack handed. Factory conditions are rarely acknowledged by the uninitiated.

The contrasty tones and shallow DOF work really well together IMO. It places emphasis on, and separates the main guy from the background shapes, though the shapes remain obvious enough for environmental context. The added person contributes much to the picture for me, it demonstrates the "teamwork" ethic required amongst the workers.

Regarding the glasses, I haven't yet made up my mind. In a way I like the anonymity which they lend to the portrait, but at the same time they leave me wanting to see the "windows to the soul". There was probably no option anyway if you were shooting as efficiently as possible without wanting to disrupt the general activities, and the glasses are informative to the viewer as an indication that his particular role involves hazardous tasks.

All in all, this guy impresses me to be sure, not just because I'm a feeble female, but also because I know plenty of youths around these days that don't know the meaning of a hard day's work. My Grandad always said he was lucky to suck on an old piece of coal for dinner after a hard day's work, and he had to dig it out of the coal mine himself first.... of course that would be after he'd finished chewing on leather to soften it, and hand stitched it with spun chickweed stalks in order to make his gloves and shoes.... Oh the kids these days, they just don't know how easy they have it....

Hey man, nice work! It's nice to see a pic with some content. It's a little dark on my viewing end, but that could be for many reasons not under your control. I suppose the eye contact thing might be an issue, but I see this shot in a context of a whole range of shots, in which, perhaps, there are other portraits where people aren't wearing shades. On its own, it works better as portrait than an industrial commentary because it's not even clear what industry this is. Hey, it could be a great job with great benefits, and while the guy seems to be working hard, he's doesn't appear to be 'exploited' in any way. I think most of us are so far removed from manual labor that ANY shot of someone doing it makes it seem exploitative, which is more a reflection of our romantic notions of work than anything the picture is doing.

 

Anyway, blah blah. Nice work. I'd love to see a whole series of, like, thirty photos taken in the same place.

This is a fabulous photo. The lighting is undescribably beautiful, and it has an inherant integrity and grittiness that the photographer not only saw, but was able to capture. You are doing yourself a great dis-service if you do not check out the photo.net entiretly of his work. Incredible.

Talk about nailing the exposure. Wow. All the hilights have the perfect amount of Tri-X "bloom".

Is this photo a woman repellant or something? I haven't seen a single post by a woman so far. I like the photo, as I said before, and I cannot understand why people are talking about a pose for a camera. This guy doesn't care if the camera is there or not. He's just going through the motions until the whistle blows, and right now he is waiting until he has to turn that wheel again.

This photograph reminds me of the factories I've worked in, both as an employee, and as a outside photographer assigned to photograph the various goings on inside. It was always fun to see how things were made, but doing the photography was never easy. There were always busy backgrounds to contend with, loud bang noices, crazy-ass lighting situations, grumpy machine operators, dirt, grease, sharp things sticking out all over, fork-lift trucks zipping around, etc. It was almost a guarantee that each day shooting in the factory meant at least one broken or lost piece of equipment, anything from a PC cord to a camera body.

Ian here has made a pretty good image with what looks like nothing more than his camera and lens, without auxilliary lights, umbrellas, extension cords, etc, which is smart for at least one reason because from the looks of the guy in the picture, he's got little patience for the photographer. He doesn't strike me as willing to hold the pose longer than a couple of seconds so he can get back to work.

What I also remember as challenging about this type of photo work is being able to roam the entire facility and bag enough images that cover the scope of activity AND hold together as a unit because sometimes factories have both dirty and clean areas, and sometimes these areas are right beside each other and you, the photographer, have to make the dirty area fit photographically beside the clean area. Not always easy, and not always conducive to your particular style of shooting. This image has that down and dirty look to it, spontaneity and caught in the action. Was it for a newspaper? A magazine story? A sales brochure, or maybe an annual report? Each type of use would almost necessarily dictate a certain approach to the photography.

The guy in the back is smiling and makes me think the guy in the front has just foul-mouthed the photographer to hurry up. Depending on who's behind you, and your skill in dealing with people, a few choice words in the same vein thrown back will sometimes do wonders to lift a tense situation.

I haven't seen a single post by a woman so far

Not true. There is one post from a woman; she just doesn't give her whole name in her photo.net handle anymore. Of course, there being one post from a woman doesn't exactly turn the tables entirely on gender-equal participation here...

Compare to Eugene Smith's "Pittsburg". Both are awesome. I think the glasses are extremely powerful, in both images. See E.S. photo at following link:

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_pittsburgh_goggles.html

Am I the first to mention Selgado? This photo of 'work' is comparable, which is high praise.

 

I sure someone has picked the nit about the slightly intrusive and messy background, especially around the head, but that is not the main point.

 

The man looks like he has BECOME a foundry product and that is a very telling thing. He has been captured at home in his work place but a bit out of place in front of the camera. The high contrast looks good on the monitor.

 

Elves, I think the goggles are important.

I'll accept the "Cranky Baton" from Doug. Ta Doug.

Ian's picture is part of a series of people at work. They wear heavily tinted glasses to protect their eyes from blinding light and shrapnel. They're probably required by law to do so - at all times - if self-preservation isn't enough impetus. Maybe we could make him prettier, or more punchy if we could see his eyes, but that is beside the point.

His character is as captured by the photographer. There's not much to tell, or even wonder about. The guy is in situ, at work, doing the same (or similar) thing, day after day.

The tonality is possibly a bit dark in the shadows for my liking, but strange things seem to happen twixt Photoshop (where everything looks great, what with ICC profiles and all) and Photo.Net.

I don't think it's one of Ian's best. It lacks the pure poetry of some of his wonderful (and memorable) images in other portfolios, but it's so far above the usual run-of-the-mill, stand-on-street-corner-with-tele-lens efforts we've had to become used to as excuses for "street photography" here that it could hardly help being elected POW, once nominated.

Ian has the ability to quietly attend to the ordinary happenings of any particular day and, by using generally lowish focal length lenses, to be seen to become part of the action (although never depicted in his own images, of course) and to report back from the trenches in an extraordinary way.

For Ian, this is a workmanlike image, perhaps taken a little closer-up than is his usual style, coming more into the "portrait" class, rather than "reportage". We don't see his trademark wide open spaces providing context to the subject. On the other hand, there's no doubt at all where this pic comes from, so perhaps the space isn't so necessary. You could argue that the confined surroundings of a foundry require closer-in framing, to emphasize the claustrophobia that these places engender.

The whole impact is of strength - in man and machine. But you get the feeling that the man, massive as he is, is still puny compared to the plant and equipment that surrounds him. It's a sort of exercise in futility for him. When I look into his face I see a kind of impotentcy. I feel a tension, worrying that someday his strength will fail him again, and this time it will be permanent. It could be an industrial accident, or just old age.

While I've never worked in a foundry, I used to hang around them with my Dad when I was a boy. I've seen this face and figure a lot - glasses and all. I've seen the defiant stare that masks their doubts as to how they ended up here, and what will be their final destination. I wish this man well, but I'm not optimistic.

As I said, Ian seems to have been walkin' the dog here, doing effortlessly what he does so well. But that's in no way damning with faint praise. For the rest of us, we can only hope one day we'll get another chance to see the way he does and, most importantly, to do something about it photographically.

What do you mean exactly by "original" ? But what else is it exactly ? Even on photo.net, the originality criteria is also called "cleverness".

Nobody is asking anyone here if the SUBJECT is new ? Please. We leave in one and unique world in which you'll find factory workers, lovers in love, lovers separating, children playing, gardeners gardening, baloons balooning, seas, beaches, palm trees, flowers, bees on the flowers and what not. It so happens that the entire world is not new, you know ! :-)

In that sense, only a couple of shots on PN have really something absolutely new and different as a subject matter. Now does it make all the other shots inferior ? I hope not !

A picture like this POW belongs to a category of work where subtlety and "a-propos" are the essence of the task. What determines such an image's "originality" - what a punk concept, really ! :-) - is the cleverness of the approach towards the subject, and NOT the subject alone.

Imagine for a minute that this is most probably an assignment and it becomes fairly obvious that the photographer doesn't perhaps even get to choose his subject. Yet he gets the non-negligeable task to make something out of virtually nothing. Here's a worker in uniform, go for it, photographer: you've got 2 minutes because after that, the ## is going to ## and you can't be there anymore. Oh, and watch your feet, this piece of metal would melt your shoe in no time.

And now what does the photographer do ? THAT is the real question. Does he include the entire machine which is on the left ? How to compose ? Flash ? No flash ? Damn, the light is low in here ! There's a guy in the background - good or bad ? There is.......... And the bell rings - it's lunch time for the worker or the conveyor belt needs to restart moving or ####... Fill the blancks.

In a couple of minutes at most, Ian managed not just to show us where this guy works but to give some soul to the image - see my first comment. What else would you expect from this kind of picture ? It's not a Photoshop creation, it's not a landscape where you can return 5 times a day to get a better light, it's not a studio shot - though the light is about just as good -, and it's not the right time and place to be fancy. To get a result which would be just half as rich in content as this picture is, you need to have a brain, and one that works quick, and a heart helps.

Originality of subject matter is a nonsensical criteria to judge an image like this. And certainly, those who can't see the skill and cleverness behind this POW would just need to go to a factory and to show us how to be an original artist in such places. Every detail counts and the sum total of all details added up will either tell a complete story about the man or his work, or will just be the simple an empty addition of pieces that won't let us understand much beyond what's visible. The photographer's cleverness is to use all the details he needs in order to enhance a specific content, which he chose to highlight. (Yep. All this in 2 minutes. Good luck !)

Now if you want to talk about "cleverness of the approach" and "ways to identify and enhance a content", then go ahead, but just take it as a fact that the subject matter CAN'T be new in a case like this.

I'm with you, Tony, to say that it probably wasn't a fashion statement. Besides that, though I'm not exactly well versed with foundries, I have seen quite a number of factories and shooting circumstances in factories, whereby there is this possibility to move a few meters away to a place where the glasses could be taken off.

So, what I'm trying to say is just this: perhaps it was simply Ian's decision to keep the glasses on, in order to add drama by hiding the eyes, and in order to present this man exactly the way he works on daily basis. I'd be curious to know whether the glasses were the photographer's decision or a necessity about the place. Does it really matter ? Well, it's certainly not the main dish, but to see or not to see eyes is never a totally unimportant decision imo.

I'm not sure about whether I would have considered it my decision about the glasses if I were the photographer on this occasion. No doubt that Cartier Bresson wouldn't dream of asking for the glasses to be lifted (and would blend invisibly to the scenery so as not to cause effect), but it's interesting that the worker chose to leave them on. And, even if it is obvious to the whole world (which I am sure is not the case) that the glasses are compulsory for protection 100% of the time, it does not necessarily mean the photo can only be captured with them on. Most people wearing sunglasses for example, automatically tip them down, take them off, or stick them on top of their head when interacting with others. Not that this should have been the case here, but it's a legitimate consideration.

The way I see it, is that the worker made the decision not to reveal his gaze, and that's what I find curious.

Great folders. 'Splash' and 'Bar Car, via Rail' are among my favorites.

Tony your comments were very insightful. I have never worked in a foundry either but I have spent a lot of time on construction jobs with at least a few of the same perils including arc-welders, cutting torches, saws, drills and flesh eating heavy equipment. Besides those hazards, there were lots of other things too numerous to mention that appeared to be specifically designed to cut, puncture and crush human flesh. In those days our war cry was, First blood of the day.

I used to worry about simple things like twisting my ankle playing softball on the weekend and not being able to work on Monday and that was when I could afford to have the weekend off. Not being able to work all week meant not being able to eat the next week. I started out with a lot of enthusiasm for physical work because at first it seemed to be much more exciting than sitting in a classroom all day. After I had performed most of the dirty, hot and nasty jobs hundreds of times over, my enthusiasm waned and I did indeed wonder what would become of me when I could no longer force my protesting body out of bed to do it all over again the next day. Feelings of impotence and futility are dead on target because you cannot see far enough into the future to believe that things will ever change. I survived the experience with eyes, ears, toes and fingers injured but intact, though the body, heart and mind did take a beating along the way. I used to marvel at the way the brain could command the body to do nearly anything it was ordered to do. These days the body is having its revenge on the young man that took no thought about putting it in harms way. It was the only resource I had to work with at the time but I did not know it was an expendable one.

The defiant stare from behind the dark glasses is telling me this, You have taken away all that I have and all that I have dreamed of, now you want to take my privacy and dignity as well.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, the definition of "original" from dictionary.com - "Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual". I agree that on photo.net originality is often taken to mean cleverness, otherwise the vast majority of photos would have lower scores.

Do you really believe that there are no new subjects? Do you really think that everything that has been done is all that there is to do? No, we don't all live in one unique world. My world is different from your world and our photographs should differ according to this.

Yes, the number of photos on photo.net that have something new and different is quite small. Actually, yes, I do think these photos are better than ones that aren't as original. Should this image be judged on its originality? I don't see why not. Certainly, the image is not trying to be particularly original - but I think thats because the bar has been set too low.

It is much safer to do what others before you have done. You see a photo that has received high praise, so you take one like it in order to receive that praise. It might not even be external praise, but internal reassurance. The same thing goes for the judging of photographs. It is best not to step out of line so we agree with the general consensus. I really don't care how many sonnets you can write about the act of taking a particular photograph - all I see is the photograph and that is what I'm going to judge. In fact, I'd be more impressed if less was done to get a good image - anything beyond that is waste.

Originality is a goal you work towards, not something you achieve and put in your pocket. Are difficult goals not worth the trouble?

Very nice.

Not too keen on the chopped off arm to the right though.

Well said, Tony.

 

The photo is great, I would not change one bit. Once again Ian has been able to do that "classic PJ style" some much better than many others and produced something original. I have nothing more to say - let the picture speak for itself.

Respectfully disagreeing in return, and this is why...

You wrote: "Should this image be judged on its originality? I don't see why not."

As I explained above, simply because the photographer might not even have chosen his subject. Some people take pictures for a living, even if they do like what they do. They are often asked to do this or that. It's not fine arts and the photographer is not necessarily in control of half of the parameters that make an image - especially not in control of the subject.

You wrote: "Certainly, the image is not trying to be particularly original - but I think thats because the bar has been set too low."

No. It's the nature of the job. If this is, as I believe, an assignment, you don't set the bar - the client does. What YOU set, is the way you want to go about it.

"It is much safer to do what others before you have done. You see a photo that has received high praise, so you take one like it in order to receive that praise."

Now this doesn't really sound right. Do you think Ian took this picture for "praise" ?!? What would you say if he took it for money instead ? Praise from whom and what for ? I doubt Ian took this shot to please photonetters, and the net, besides photo.club competitions, is the only paradise I know where praise is something to aim for...:-)

"It is best not to step out of line so we agree with the general consensus."

You can't be serious. Have you perhaps found some originality somewhere in Ian's folders ? I shall hope so ! So why would you suspect that anyone would do something conventional in order to agree with a consensus ? At times professionals do conventional things because it pays the rent, and it pays the rent because that's what people want: so yes, there is indeed a consensus - between client and photographer. But I don't see what's wrong with that since none of these 2 partis is going to submit results to a photo competition, and it just isn't fine arts in the first place. Are POWs supposed to ALWAYS be fine art works...?

Did this man pause for a moment,

to observe

the photographer at work,

and in that shared glance ,

open and empathic,

did this image came into being, a reflex, a snapshot,

of a human connection....?

Unique, and therefore original,

in no way posed.

Just a quickie: I weighed in earlier, liked the photo a lot, etc. But did I think it was "original" in any way? Not at all. Did I care that it wasn't "original"? Not at all.

 

Fer crissakes, Photo.net isn't the ICP in Manhattan. None of us are Walker Evans or Margaret Bourke-White or Robert Frank. Get over yourselves. An amateur can learn a lot from mimicry. It's the most proven teaching method for virtually any subject. But few amateurs transcend mimicry into true artistry. Maybe Ian is on that path. I don't think hammering him for not being a true artist, in this one picture, is going to help him or anyone. It just brings everyone down.

Is this image politically correct? (compulsory " :o) " here)

 

To answer the elves' questions: I do find so; it does; it does too, even more; nope, it's more the industrial environment with some human element than the person as main subject so no special need for "eye contact"...

 

grtz

the shot is posed, in my opinion.

 

If you can show me a factory, or production plant, foundry, whatever, that will allow people with cameras to walk in off the street, snap away at their heart's content and then walk out to use the images in whatever way they want, I'll show you a company about to get sued.

 

For reasons of physical saftey, and to protect trade secrets, the above is nearly impossible. Show up at any production facility with a camera and you will meet the security personnel in a hurry. I speak from experience here. The only instances I can think of which would allow this photograph to be taken without it being posed, i.e., directed, would be 1) if Ian were the owner of the foundry and could do what he wanted (in which case the workers would be smiling and happy), 2) if Ian were the son or extremely close friend of the person in number one, or 3), if Ian were a ninja photographer and somersaulted out of the skylight to freedom after this exposure.

 

You just can't walk up and make a photograph like this without someone granting you access, and without precautions and special arrangements. Also, it would be unsafe to be making this shot without the operator, the man facing the camera, being fully aware of you and your intentions. Surprising him with a camera in his face might cost him his arm. The fact that the worker's body language is natural is a testament to Ian's people skills, timing and general photographic skill. It also offers a small glimpse into the personality of the worker.

 

The purpose of this photograph is most important to understanding anything about it. Newspaper story? (About what? The machine killed someone yesterday? The operator won $3 million in the lottery?) An annual report maybe? (We have the best workers in the industry.) A magazine article? (Union workers subjected to dangerous working conditions.) The photo could fit either of these scenarios to one degree or another, but in every case the photographer was most likely not free to roam the factory, but had an escort. The chances of anything other than this are small, I think.

Even if permission was arranged,

for whatever reason, as it of course

would have been, the act of taking

this picture could have been as instinctive as

any photo taking should be,

hence the slightly imperfect framing

(the arm cut off), and most of all I rather

think this is a `mirror`

rather than simple documentary shot,

and as happens,

by revealing the subject,

the photographer has also revealed himself

( at least to me ).

It also makes me wonder what the man thought

of the photographer`s workday,

just as we are wondering about his life and work.