On 7/21/2011 14:05, William Robb wrote:
On 21/07/2011 11:36 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote:
On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken
advantage of. He earned some money.
That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though
it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps
some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken
with permission, how is one more cruel than the other?
If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for
modelling?
For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not
commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the
images in the first place)?
Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-)
I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change "Cruel" to "sneaky"
if you wish.
But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did.
ann
Sorry, not meaning to jump on anyone, but I am finding this to be an
interesting discussion.
Paul, if you want me to stop using your image as an example, I surely
can search the web for another that will do as well.
I realize that a lot of people see the type of image that Shel created
as exploitative and cruel. I think often we see the photograph as a
power thing, with the photographer taking unfair advantage of the
underprivileged person.
When I was travelling in the USA a number of years ago, I came across a
young man on a pier in Oregon. Just him, his dog and a backpack. He was
obviously down on his luck, and I paid him a few dollars to allow me to
take some pictures of him and his dog.
He freely admitted that he was going to spend the money on booze and
tobacco, so I went and bought a bag of dog food for his Rottie as well.
In this instance, the act of paying the subject wasn't going to help him
out at all, and would more than likely just add to his plight.
My point here is that paying the subject isn't necessarily a good thing,
even if you get a warm feeling from doing it.
Was Shel "sneaky" because he waited for the decisive moment to get the
picture that would tell the story that he wanted to tell?
Was Paul "sneaky" because he waited for the decisive moment to get the
background just the way he wanted?
How about any street image that shows the subject in less than stellar
light?
How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts
of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day?
It's a bit of a conundrum... I stand by "sneaky" but that isn't always
bad... I do sneaky whenever I take photos of people... using the fake
"I'm through taking pictures now" technique, or the apparent aiming
past the subject. And I dont say no one should shoot the downside of
the human condition... and if someone besides Shel had taken the photo
maybe I'd feel differently about it ;-)
ann
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
