This must be "Let's-dump-on-Shel week." He does not need a defense from
me, but I am amused at the tenor of some of the comments in this thread.
So I will add a couple of my reactions to the reactions.
1) Is the series of photos he pointed to OT? Yes, I suppose it is in the
narrowest sense, since it does not deal with Pentax equipment. If that
criteria were accepted by all we sure could cut down on the number of
messages that pass through here daily. But in the past when I and others
have complained about the amount of off-topic nonsense that appears on
the list, we have been outshouted by those who feel that list members
should not be constrained to discussing only Pentax equipment-related
matters, but should be permitted to discuss or raise questions about
general photography topics, discussions of technique, non-Pentax tools
needed to use our Pentax gear to best advantage, etc., (while perhaps
eliminating politics, religion, the weather, and other completely
non-photographic stuff.)
And we have many threads dealing with non-Pentax matters, but dealing
with photographic things of possible interest to many Pentax users.
There are frequent discussions on lighting, characteristics of different
films and developers, film latitude, how best to deal with extremely
contrasty scenes, how best to scan images, enlargers, tripods, tripod
heads, how neat it is to do photography of various nighttime sky scenes
and how best to do it and when, and more. Lots of those topics are
interesting, although not to all of us all of the time, and as often as
not they are not labeled OT without generating much in the way of
complaint.
So what is the big deal about this series of photos? Lots of
interesting work has been done using a similar technique -- the same
subject photographed at widely varying times. I have seen interesting
series' of shots of the same tree in different seasons, of the same
geographic features over time -- a while back someone did a project
rephotographing many of the early (19th century) scenes of the American
West, placing cameras in the same position, etc., to show what has
happened to the spots over a long time period.
I wonder if Shel would have gotten the same reaction had he said, "Here
is an interesting example of showing intertemporal changes with
photography." That could, I think, properly be considered a sort of
photo technique topic.
I note that The 19th century Russian photos that Shel pointed us to a
week or so ago was equally OT. It showed some interesting technique and
the photos were good, but it did not relate directly to Pentax
equipment, and it did not get any complaints. Seems to be the reference
to prostitution and drugs that bothers people.
2) Interpreting this series as showing how photos can lie because the
cops labeled the series, "The Effects of Drugs and Prostitution" strikes
me as making a strong assertion without proof. (Perhaps based in part on
anti-police bias?) True, the cops have not presented evidence that the
physical changes visible in the photos are caused by drugs and
prostitution, but neither has any evidence been presented that it was
not so caused, that it was caused by something else. Where is the
evidence to support the claim that those changes are caused instead by
life on the street and poverty? What has been the woman's income over
this period, her living conditions, etc.? Those things are not stated
anywhere. So both assertions of causation are just that -- assertions,
without proof. (I do not consider a reference to Dorothea Lange's
depression work as proof of anything, and I do not see much of a
parallel anyway.)
In fact, it is likely that the physical changes were caused by all of
those factors -- drugs, prostitution, life on the street and poverty
often go together and long-time heavy drug users who are poor and live
on the street do tend to deteriorate physically pretty fast. It also is
possible that the poverty and living on the street were caused by heavy
drug use (which I assume is what the cops believe), although that cannot
be stated with certainty since poverty and lousy conditions of life also
can lead to drug use.
So, to flatly state that "These pictures are a propaganda scam designed
to pull your heartstrings, not convince your head" may be true but it
also may not be true. That statement is not something that should be
taken as fact without evidence. The cops may be right.
And I also note, in my role as Shel's defender, that he did not hang the
possibly inaccurate label on the series, the cops did. Nor did he refer
to the series using that label. He simply said: "This is a link to a
series of arrest photographs of the same individual over the course of
10 years. She was about 31~32 years old at the time of the first photo.
It's not a pleasant series of photos." I believe that is absolutely
correct on all points.
Bob Harris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
