Resident Evil (Click for larger view ....if you dare)

Morbid Curiosity.......It's like one of those movies, the terrifying ghoul lies in wait in the dark tomb and you talk to the young heroine on the screen "No No! Don't go in there" but they always do : - ) 

Many Thanks for being brave enough Wolfgang! 

Best Regards 

Alf 

ROSS

Many Thanks for your thoughts and positive feedback. 

Interesting to read your memories of being a power plant engineer in the coal fired boiler days. I have similar memories of working down coal mines, the coal dust was so thick in the air that when I eat a sandwich, the only part of the white bread that remained white for any length of time, was the part that was covered by my fingers. 

Have a good week Ross! 

Best Regards 

Alf 

MARJOLEIN

I would imagine that the "uttered words" would mostly contain four letters and be unprintable : - ) 

I am glad you didn't read the other comments, I then get a straight uninfluenced appraisal of the image, for which I am very grateful.

Many Thanks & Best Regards 

Alf 

That's an exquisite shot my friend!  Superb!  I thought it was a frame of a 30's scary movie.  You were lucky enough to take this shot which brings up memories of old movies and theatrical shows.  Hard to believe that this is a natural pose and that makes it even better!  Congrats!

Sincere Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.

I must admit that I didn't associate the image with anything spooky until I was pondering on which image to enter for the Halloween competition, it then dawned on me that with a bit of selective darkening this would fit the bill nicely...........of course it was already a bit scary looking : - )

All the very best my friend! 

Alf 

You got a lot of comments for this shot, and deservedly so. Excellent B&W work, detail retained in the dark areas and the face set just right to standout but blend at the same time. Very good work Alf.

All my best,   Bill

Many Thanks! 

I can't help feel I cheated a bit here, because I selectively darkened the image after taking it. Then it sat on my hard drive for over 12 months before I decided to do something with it. I was most surprised at how popular it was too! 

Best Regards 

Alf 

I think being able to empathize with someone who has a disability and carries a crutch doesn't have to lead to or yield pity and I would suggest most of the time that's not what most people would be looking for. Instead, I'd suggest considering help where needed, respect as deserved, and understanding to the extent it can be extended. 

Since, to me, the photo comes across as dramatic and powerful, I think of the man as if he were standing on your photographic stage. This lighting is nothing if not theatrical, and very effectively so. This slice of life has all the potential of a full movie scene, not as scary to me as it is sublime and magical.

I think the perspective in itself pays homage to the man and provides a sense of respect. I look up at him and am influenced by the height of the windows behind him. There's a grand and gestural sense to the photographing here, as if you've held out your photographic hand to introduce him to us, darkly and mysteriously lit so we'd be a little unsure of ourselves and of him, which is honest and provocative.

Understanding and compassion are admirable qualities and practical help when required goes without saying. But what is the photographers role, is it to just record what he or she see's? I think that could be a thin veil that some of us hide behind. In some circumstances (though not necessarily this one)  the role of the photographer must end and the duty as a human being must take over. I sometimes watch wildlife programmes and I am aghast that the film crew will watch an animal dying of thirst in some kind of misguided duty to report the state of drought. But I diverse

Yes I agree, the image does come across as dramatic and I have taken that to it's furthest extent by giving him centre stage and creating the selective "theatrical" lighting by darkening parts of the image.  Here enters the villain (Thunderous piano music)  whilst the damsel remains at this point out of sight.

The perspective again with his elevated position gives the illusion of the grand stage, and he is "making an entrance" that will make the crowd hush.

My Sincere Thanks for your thoughtful and analytical critique, it was a pleasure to read and consider.

Best Regards 

Alf 

I like the photo and the dark moody tone. However I fail to see anything evil in this image of a disabled fellow leaning on a railing. Down on his luck, maybe. Not classically handsome, perhaps. The title of this photo is asking me to attach moral attributes simply based on someones appearance. The man could be a saint for all we know.

I agree, the title could be considered in a court of law as slandering that man. Making a moral judgment on a 1/500 of a second of a person's life is just wrong. I have no problem with the taking or display of the photo, its the title that he is "Evil" thats wrong to me.

The title, IMO, could only be construed as "wrong" if we insist on taking all photos literally. Alf was likely thinking more theatrically. At least that's the message I get from the lighting and the post processing done and from what I see as a very stage-like approach to this photo. I think Alf was creating something he had in mind from the raw materials provided by the subject and scene he saw, something intentionally nefarious. I don't think he was claiming to know this man. I think he was using this man as a director would use an actor. One thing I think is very important about this shot is the upward trajectory. I am looking up at this man and the tall window behind him further elevates my view. In that sense, it's got an iconic feel. This is larger than life as opposed to real life.

I recall seeing this photo last fall, when it received many comments. My response is the same: it's a good photo on its own and doesn't need the title, which is potentially problematic and verges on pejorative. While I'm a fan of creative titles and captions there's always a risk of crossing that fuzzy line from humorous to tasteless (my editor told me I tended to cross that line as a newspaper writer). This one is right there in that murky gray zone.
Regarding the photo itself, the melodramatic editing tone works well. I'm curious to see how it looks "straight", but not enough to fuss over it. It might be interesting to see you pursue a visually coherent theme in this style - from looking at Alf's portfolio this appears to be a one-off.

Political correctness has an important place in making us aware of minority communities and how we talk about, portray, and treat them. It can also run amok and force us to overcompensate, thereby treating communities with kid gloves instead of as equals, patronizing these communities instead of understanding and accepting them. If one can't make a Halloween-style photo from a scene with a guy who carries a cane and intend it as fiction, then we may have taken it a bit too far. I know for a while we were in a stage where all gay folks in movies had to be presented as either heroes or as martyrs or as tragic figures (consider Tom Hanks in Philadelphia). Now, we've finally arrived to where gay people can be used and portrayed in multi-dimensional ways just as everyone else. We've even had some bad gay guys and some evil gay guys, who weren't stereotypes, just characters. It's OK. We can take it.

In the original discussion on this photo, HERE, someone said they felt pity for the guy when they noticed his cane. I responded that I didn't think he warranted our pity. And I don't think he warrants the kind of special treatment that seems to be coming at him here. I happen to agree with Lex that the title is unnecessary. I generally don't like titles that lead me to an interpretation or emotional response (though sometimes they are effective). But the title is no more "pejorative" than the lighting and toning and overall treatment of this, which is dark and, to my eye, theatrically foreboding.

My dad was in a wheelchair most of his life. He had some very funny friends. Once, when a friend was wheeling him into a restaurant and they were getting familiar stares from the diners, his friend said in a loud voice "Too much sex!" I think my father would have appreciated this photo and would never even have considered it pejorative. He was not that frail or sensitive despite the fact that he couldn't walk.

Well, I'm not thinking so much in terms of kid gloves and P.C. tsk-tsking -- as I said, it's a gray zone -- as in the title being a bit too on-the-nose. A bit too Milton Berle, a comedian who was never funny or clever because he felt the need to bash the audience over the noggin with the punchline: "Get it, you dopes, or are you too dense? See, it's funny."

It would be akin to the play or movie Crimes of the Heart actually containing a line with Lenny saying "Wowsers, Meg and Babe... our lives are just like... like... crimes of the heart!" Thankfully that line never appears in the script.

As I said before, I enjoy clever, colorful or enigmatic titles and captions. But there's a risk when they're just a mite too clever for their own good. Or try to bash the viewer over the head with a "message" in air quotes and real quotes.

Good photo, though. Just needs less salt.

Lex, you went further than saying the title was too obvious or too leading. And I agreed I don't like obvious or leading titles. You said it borders on "tasteless" and verges on "pejorative." That's a different story from Milton Berle hitting his audience over the head with the punchline. I doubt you were thinking about kid gloves or P.C. tsk-tsking. We do a lot of this stuff unconsciously. That's why I pointed it out.

Yeah, good points. Probably just simpler to say I'm not comfortable with the title and not try to clarify why, since - even months after first seeing the photo - I'm still not really sure myself why it makes me uncomfortable.

Thanks, Lex. Back to the photo. The way I see it is as an intentionally fictionalized kind of "evil." I don't see it as actually attempting to be menacing. In other words, I don't think Alf is trying to convince us that there was something menacing going on "in real life" at the time. And that sort of exaggeration/fictionalization is often difficult to accomplish. To me, it's more like a Halloween costume, an artifice, with a kind of wink and nod that we all know it's not "really" evil but rather playing at evil. The "click for larger view . . . if you dare" kind of telegraphs that (again, maybe too obviously). But it's all done in a rather tongue-in-cheek way. Maybe the reason I respond well to this is that I also like playing with that sort of artificially created stage-like drama that dances between feeling authentic but also being very staged. My own discomfort, if I were to call it that, is that I'm not sure this photo quite makes it since, to me, the stagecraft may outweigh the authenticity. But it's a tough balance to work with and I admire the experimentation and effort. I think the result is a good way there, but may be lacking whatever intangible is necessary to give me a bit more of a connection to the fellow.

When I commented on this image after Alf initially posted it for critique, I didn't really pay attention to the title and thus didn't address it. Now, I think that may be warranted. Fred's take on it led me to realize that Alf may have used it in a metaphorical way, rather than a literal one. I see the subject's environment as possibly being cruel and unkind - as an evil that doesn't afflict him only, but perhaps others facing his circumstances.

Alf doesn't do much street work or, if he does, we don't get the chance to see much of it. To me, the POTW screams a clear message that we'd like to see more.

I think Fred's assessment of theatricality (in post, and in description) is correct. I've seen plenty of photos of myself that would, handled creatively, come across as truly sinister looking - and I'd think calling them such would be entertaining indeed, if they were a (theatrical) success in that context. Knowing nothing about the fellow in the photo means he's a blank canvas for theater, hand-wringing, gabbing about the light and the vignette as if he's not even there, or someone putting another notch in their "I capture homelessness" camera strap. Gotta take it as it's encountered, and I felt it as a bit of theater or poetry inspired by the scene and what it offered, visually. I like it, regardless of what it's called.

Michael, Thank you for letting me know that this image was being discussed. I don't get as much time as I would like to participate in PN discussions, however I would like to say that Fred G pretty much nailed it for me when he writes. " If one can't make a Halloween-style photo from a scene with a guy who carries a cane and intend it as fiction, then we may have taken it a bit too far"
The facial expression and dark looks of the person gave me a lasting impression, and in my minds eye I could visualise this person as the "Villain" of the show. I should emphasise at this point that I don't consider the guy to be "Evil" or Bad" or in any way a lesser person because he carries a cane. It is my "impression" and further window dressing that accentuates the characterisation and builds a story. I couldn't possibly know the person and if I did, the photo wouldn't be as authentic or gripping. However my not knowing the person is surely a good indication that there is no intention of a personal attack or character assassination of him.

As for the title, well I sometimes use cliché's, song titles, film titles and even phrases and proverbs when considering a title, and as such there is no intentional malign of the guys personal character. This title (Actually a film title) was used to shock, grab attention, and provoke thought and it has to be said that even before the image was chosen for discussion it succeeded on all counts. Ok a bit controversial, but certainly not intentionally vindictive or personal in any way. A different interpretation might have been taken, and quite rightly, if I was a journalist and the image was splashed across the font pages of the local paper.
To add some reference to comparative material I staged a shot recently of "The Grim Reaper" I used the title "Grim Reality" and the person in the costume was none other than yours truly...yes me. Does that make me a bringer of death, or evil, a collector of souls? No, the truth is that it was staged, the only difference was I used myself in that image whilst a I used a total stranger in this one. I hope this brings some kind of clarity of my intentions and I sincerely thank all contributors to the discussion.

Sorry, not quite....

I think Alf has made a very good image here, an important part of which (according to the photographer) seems to have been in image editing. It is a good example of creativity that doesn't end with the exposure.

I don't like the title at all and consider it unfortunate that it appears on a photographic site, in view of the circumstances in which it was made.

Sometimes a photographer slaps a title on his work without much thought and once it is there - it is there. I have done that as well, although just as an ill thought title with no offensive effect.

Making photographs and diffusing them in public is not without a certain responsibility. We all know that a two dimensional image is not reality and only an approximation of it. However, I wonder if Alf, in his personal desire to make a striking photo at Halloween, thought much about the possible repercussion of this title on the subject. I may be wrong, but the subject has not given his permission for the photo, let alone the title.

Whatever the statistics of probability that the subject or one of his acquaintances would see the photo, and that may be very small, such statistics are beside the point. The subject has been given a "profile" by the title and the angle (and created atmosphere) that he obviously has not requested. If he was a willing subject for this theme, no problem. If he was a paid model and this was a part of his work, no problem.

But that was not the case here. I am glad this photo has appeared as perhaps it will incite other reflections on the responsibility and accountability of a photographer. Photographing others is a privilege, not a right.

Thanks for your comments, Alf. Like others, I got your idea but your title makes reference to something I wasn't seeing in the picture. Others in the thread have sited the theatrical or cinematic elements of your idea. Fair enough, and I agree. I like the pictures mood and gritty realism.

However, pictorially speaking, there is nothing in this scene, other than the gruff appearance of the subject, that furthers your idea of evil, resident or otherwise. Your dark, moody treatment is a step in the right direction but neither the "set", "costume/props" nor the subject's "action", to continue the cinematic idea, speaks of anything evil. The communication of "resident evil" did not happen for me no matter how closely I looked.

While the "actor's" crooked pose and dour expression might be construed as villainy, we have all seen movies and read stories where the ugly duckling or the the beast, or the rough character is actually the hero or saintly one. Without supporting elements, I think your title Grim Reality would have rung truer here.

It's interesting how this image generated so many comments about its title. Perhaps this is an argument for not posting titles at all. But that is another story.

Michael, since the discussions here have diminished incredibly over the last months, I'd say this title may be an argument FOR titling our work. It's given us the opportunity not only to discuss the title, but to discuss the photo relative to that title and relative to what Alf was thinking at the time. We've gained insight from Alf into why he made certain choices and from others in different ways a photo can be understood and looked at. To my mind, it's been one of the more worthwhile discussions in quite a while. Sometimes, a very simple photographic gesture can make all the difference in the world and can impact a viewer much more than the photographer would have thought. Sometimes, a caption, title, or accompanying text will do that. A title, even though I don't often like one being used other than for identification purposes (i.e., House on Green St., Joe Adams at the Office) especially in a critique or learning situation, can help us know what the photographer may be thinking he's expressing and that can be of benefit in figuring out if he's expressed himself well.

I made this comment in another recent POW:

It didn't generate any discussion, presumably because there was no moral issue tied to it, but I'm no closer to determining if creative titles are a good thing or bad thing than I was then.

I like this shot and do indeed think the subject looks a bit sinister, but I'm surprised to find it is not a staged shot, which does make the title feel a little bit problematic given there is some chance this individual would come across this photo and be hurt by it.

But in regards to how the title affects my perception of the shot, had Alf called it 'Bad Break' or 'Anger,' I think I might have seen completely different emotions in the subject.

So I think if a photographer is trying to get a specific feel across, then a title that does other than simply identify the subject can help do that, but if the photographer wants to leave the viewer's perception more open-ended, then it's best to use generic titles or even a filename.

I, too, rather assumed this was a picture of Fagin, or Shylock or another theatrical villain ("modern" Richard III?) taken on a set, so I'm surprised to find this is some poor individual labeled as evil. He certainly looks in a bad state complete with crutch, so if anything he needs to be titled neutrally, or even with some sympathy. The treatment is good and interesting, but knowing it is not a theatrical set somehow makes me wonder what the photo's purpose is - something that should not matter as it should be self evident.