Burned out

No, these guys are not unmasked representatives of the Ku klux Klan,

but just skinheads who had their house burned down. Comments and

critiques welcome as always.

I would crop out the lower portion of the window frame.

Interesting one, I like the composition with the frame resembling a cross ("the" cross). I would've preferred that the left guy had not been smiling at you.

Very strange photo - I don't know what to think about...

As it is quite extraordinary it deserves at least 6 for originality.

I agree with Antonio: I prefer if left boy wasn't smiling.

Regards,

Vladimir

I think that it looks much better now.

I like it. Very Good work.

Regards,

 

it's ok, Erin but....it was just for having the idea of how looked the image, wasn't it?

Yes it was Antonio, but the 'smile' is just this guys' conditioning 'to smile at the camera'. The house they own has just been burned down, possibly deliberately. They are obviously shattered. The smile is not genuine and has not reached his eyes as can be seen in the attachment I have posted that involved just turning the corners of his mouth down with the liquify command in Photshop.

 

By the way, how do you know them? I know that it's not very easy to take photos of punks. Anyway I am a little bit "scared" of how many things is possible to do with photoshop; my "fear" comes from the fact that I think that in photos like these (reportage expecially) digital alteration are almost a fraud (of course it's not referred to you).The fact that it's so easy to change the expression of a person makes me think that alteration a of a fact can be a risk that is very easy to run, nowadays.

I was a press photographer Antonio, and in that trade you learn the skills to let you photograph people in almost any situation . Extreme tact and sympathy with the plight of people in unfortunate circumstances helps. Of course with your sensitive and beautifully photographed Yadira series I am not telling you anything new here! I had met these guys in better circumstances on another assignment so that also helped.

 

I agree entirely that there is a risk that an editorial image can be altered to fit the story and that there are a few ratbag press photogs out there that would not hesitate to change an image to meet their needs, as was illustrated by the respected U.S. photojournalist that was recently fired for doing just that (he painted in the background of a pic of firemen at the twin towers debacle in P/S and won an award then he was sprung if I remember right)

 

All of the press photogs I know have a very high ethical code and take pride in getting a good image in camera that will tell the story, and would not act in such an unprofessional manner. The integrity of the press(media) as an impartial observer is regarded as too important to threaten by shoddy practices by the vast majority that work in it

Eryn, sorry for reading so late your answer...

that's very interesting you were a press photographer, why did you changed?

I think anyway it could not be only the photographer to alterate a photo but other people too...for instance, an ingenous one was the alteration of a photo of our "beloved" prime minister Berlusconi: he was taken from the back, and in the magazine add all thee hair missing. The magazine is of course one of his thousand properties in Italy; I know that the chief editor was severely blamed by the journalists' category, but nothing more happened. I know the story about the photo in Iraq (the director of "NY Times gave his dismissions); in Italy, he would have remained at his place. As you said, very few people luckily would act as I fear...unfortunately I think that here in Italy there is a part of journalists who like to be the servant of the Master and information reliability is going boom...anyway is loosing part of its credibility. All the best!

strange image....losing a home, a terrible thing, my reflexive attitude to skin heads and the background of this photo's story makes for a complicated response, which is probably one sign of an excellent photograph

Erin , I know I'm being a little facetious here , but I thought one basic requirement of being a skinhead ( apart from being obnoxious ) was, well,

having a shaved head. At least all the ones I ever saw in newsreels and such conformed to this image. But maybe there are hirsute ones :o)... interesting and original shot.

Skinheads are a subculture, with various subcultures within that Walter. An example would be racist Neo Nazi types and in direct contrst to that, SHARP skinheads, (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, so you see, there is more to it than meets the eye;-)

 

As far as haircuts go a no2 clipguard cut would be the upper limit although of course some do shave their heads