face in the crowd

ryan7783 · Jul 12, 2008

***Edit: It's a sad day when one must tip toe on egg shells to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.

Tyjax · Jul 12, 2008

It's just basic respect man. But you are showing a notable lack of the ability to show basic respect so I guess you are just following form. Cheers. And have a good life with that. Welcome to my ignore list.

ryan7783 · Jul 12, 2008

What is your perspective on photography, automaton? I ask because after checking out 1 of your other threads, I feel you seek out less than perfect people to photograph. Is it a shock factor you're going for or is it just one of those towns? Maybe it's to show the everyday people of the world? Maybe I'm completely off and it's just coincidence.

O'Rork · Jul 12, 2008

They're very well exposed. Crisp even. In accordance with the title they are faces. Well done.

Senor Hound · Jul 13, 2008

Local_Skater said:
This isn't a preschool where you have to be conscious of others feelings.

Being conscious of other's feelings is not something which should only be practiced in preschool. They teach you courtesy at a young age not because the children are capable of empathizing with others, but because when they don't keep a check on young children, some of them become VERY messed up...for life.

The ability to be conscious of other's feelings is very difficult, and requires great emotional intelligence, something even mentally intelligent people are many times incapable of. Commonly, they pass off the ability to empathize with others as being childish or irrelevant, or something they feel they, "shouldn't have to," do (which is untrue). Just like someone of a low IQ would pass of something which requires a lot of mental intelligence as irrelevant, or boring.

Although this thread has already derailed, this will be my last post in here concerning this subject. But to say that empathy is something for children shows a level of immaturity on your part, IMO. But I could be wrong.

Mitica100 · Jul 13, 2008

Local_Skater said:
I can't believe the people that are saying that "they are beautiful on the inside", its ridiculous. Do you know these people? When the people are the main focus of a shot, they should be appealing to the eye. Are they doing anything to take your attention away from that? If there were action in the shots or anything else, it wouldn't matter, but there isn't. This isn't a preschool where you have to be conscious of others feelings. And just b/c something provokes controversy doesn't make it art...Michael Jackson dangling his baby over the railing was controversial, so was that art? I'm not shallow by any means, but we live in a world where looks matter, like it or not. The one of the black girl is actually decent. Her pose and the composition actually create a sense of curiosity. The others are basically just snapshots with a nice camera.

Hey, how about this shot (not mine, I wish):

Not quite appealing to the eye, he's not your typical good lookin' dude but I'll tell you, it says quite a story.

I don't mind various degrees of beauty in pictures. Richard Avedon (the author of the above picture) would agree with me, were he alive today. Yes he shot fashion photography but he shot plain American faces as well, like the one above.

Someone said above 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'...

Local_Skater · Jul 13, 2008

Do you not realize that the difference there is this is a portrait? The way he is dressed and the expression on his face are what tell the story. That picture is moving in the fact that it is so raw. Its a gateway to another time period. The pics posted by the op don't tell me anything except that there's a bunch of people out for no apparent reason to do something that no one knows.

LaFoto · Jul 13, 2008

Well, with only one step towards further interpretation, I myself felt able to see context in Automaton's photos, and expressed what I feel I can see here. Whether I am right in my interpretation I don't know, Automaton has not returned to his thread, but it's not that the photos don't say anything at all.

As to passing judgement on the outward appearance of the subjects when everything should only be about the photography as such is mean and low on the part of those who had nothing else to say BUT that they personally don't like the faces, looks and smiles of the persons photographed. What is THAT to you?

And who has the right to say "These people are beautiful enough to get their photo taken, but those are NOT beautiful enough to get their photo taken"??? Who's the judge here? What kind of THINKING is behind such statements? To me, such kind of judgement is arrogance in its purest form.

K8-90 · Jul 13, 2008

Mitica100 said:
Hey, how about this shot (not mine, I wish):

Not quite appealing to the eye, he's not your typical good lookin' dude but I'll tell you, it says quite a story ...

Bingo.
As I said before (I don't think people read my post, though...) It is not about "ugly" people vs. "pretty" people. It's about photography. Photography hs a purpose, even if it just conveying beauty, or more significantly, a story, as in above.

Please read my post from before, and tell me what you think...

LaFoto · Jul 13, 2008

K8-90, I am sure no one bothers to read my posts ever, too... :roll:
For some odd reason, this thread has taken a certain drift ("ugly people"), and everyone seems to only have jumped onto that wagon ... makes me wonder how a thing of the kind can happen!?!?! (In general, I mean).

K8-90 · Jul 13, 2008

I read your posts! They are always most constructive, tactful and useful

And I agree - it often surprises me that things that I take as commen sense and curtesy, is not neccesarily common :S

abraxas · Jul 13, 2008

Congrats on a successfully thought provoking series!

AF44 · Jul 13, 2008

i think #11 is my favorite... all i can say is try to capture an interesting expression that relates to the environment they are in...

ryan7783 · Jul 13, 2008

K8-90 said:
Bingo.
As I said before (I don't think people read my post, though...) It is not about "ugly" people vs. "pretty" people. It's about photography. Photography hs a purpose, even if it just conveying beauty, or more significantly, a story, as in above.

Please read my post from before, and tell me what you think...

It's not about ugly vs. pretty, it's about conveying a story - you're absolutely right. So what story are these photos telling? Because I can't seem to decipher any story line from 98% of those photos. All I see is a bunch of random people at an event that we still don't know was about. I appreciate the human body and the differences among us that make everyone unique but as far as I can tell there is no story line here. If the photos were good, it would be one thing, but I don't feel they are anything more than snapshots of random "unique" people on the street. They don't do it for me.
And you can call me cynical and immature and rude and disrespectful but every one of those people, save maybe 1 or 2, are ugly. That's life - and so is the fact that people are going to say so. If you've never once in your life said that someone was ugly, then you deserve a pat on the back and a high five.

K8-90 · Jul 13, 2008

ryan7783 said:
It's not about ugly vs. pretty, it's about conveying a story - you're absolutely right. So what story are these photos telling? Because I can't seem to decipher any story line from 98% of those photos. All I see is a bunch of random people at an event that we still don't know was about...

Than we agree...
What I said earlier was that these photos lack a certain appeal due to the photographic method in which they were created. Through photography, a photographer is usually trying to convey something - whether it be a story, a message, beauty, etc. I think that (this is only my opinion) this is what is "wrong" with these images. For the most part, they do not provide the viewer with anything. They are cropped so close that there is little story or context. While this could work if the emotions were right, it didn't.

For instance, image 5 (could you number them please?) Has the person completely off-guard, cropped in closely in a manner that is unflattering to that person. You can even see crumbs on their face! So it's not that you must post images only of "hot" people, but you have to be considerate as a photographer. You could take a well exposed image of a beautiful model, but if it is while they are blinking and talking, or chewing, or something of the sorts, it will not be a correct representation of the person.

Basically, I think that these shots - while techinically correct - are unflattering, and do not offer the viewer any interest. This highlights any "flaws", as that is all there is to see.