Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

Paulw

RCNPhotos wrote: »

Actually it's fairly true. There was a big discussion on the radio about this recently. Without their permission you can't upload them to say flickr etc. You can however sell em to a newspaper to be splashed everywhere. It's mad but it's the law.

Actually, if they are artistic, then you can upload them to FlickR. It's another exemption clause.

Anouilh

"Artistic" does not, for documentary purposes, allow for much post-processing.

The ethics are very important, as many newspaper photos now look eerily like works of art and have a lot of photoshopping.

http://www.digitalcustom.com/howto/mediaguidelines.asp

I went to a class years ago where the question of how to get people on camera without their knowledge was much discussed. Somehow the glassy stare of recognition when a person knows they are being scrutinized by a stranger in a public place can be humourous, but not particularly aesthetic.

One thing I have noticed is the number of people who instantly cover their face with their hand when they see a camera on the street. It is such a quick reflex that it is faster than the photographer's ability to capture an image.

I like photographing buildings and it's worth noting that some are protected:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Street-photography

This might be a good thread for discussing the genre of street photography?

Is the style of using black and white still the norm?

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

"Artistic" does not, for documentary purposes, allow for much post-processing.

As someone who would occasionally refer to themselves as an "Artist" I'd disagree - Art is up to the artist - If the artist is recording a documentary, and feels it needs a certain level of post processing, whether that be extremely high or basic touch ups, that's up to the artist to decide - I guess that's one of the beauties of being an artist

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

As someone who would occasionally refer to themselves as an "Artist" I'd disagree - Art is up to the artist - If the artist is recording a documentary, and feels it needs a certain level of post processing, whether that be extremely high or basic touch ups, that's up to the artist to decide - I guess that's one of the beauties of being an artist

Your post is really interesting.

I was thinking more about newspaper photos, where artistry can be used to mislead the viewer, as is increasingly the case.

The joy of true art is that it is imaginative and much freer.

Documentary can be artistic. This is not in doubt.
The ethics of cropping and post-processing an image to give a false impression is another matter.

Some of the photos of politicians, designed to sway the viewers opinion at a subconcious level, are probably the most obvious examples of this.

democrates

Anouilh wrote: »

I was thinking more about newspaper photos, where artistry can be used to mislead the viewer, as is increasingly the case.

The joy of true art is that it is imaginative and much freer.

Documentary can be artistic. This is not in doubt.
The ethics of cropping and post-processing an image to give a false impression is another matter.

Some of the photos of politicians, designed to sway the viewers opinion at a subconcious level, are probably the most obvious examples of this.

Exactly, using a file photo of a politician laughing at some quip rather than one taken when discussing a serious current issue for example. Pp artifice is not even necessary to represent them as uncaring.

Be it partisan propaganda, sensationalism for profit, or simply shoddy journalism, when the free press take leave of accuracy and objectivity society risks paying the price of making mis-informed decisions.

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

Your post is really interesting.

I was thinking more about newspaper photos, where artistry can be used to mislead the viewer, as is increasingly the case.

The joy of true art is that it is imaginative and much freer.

Documentary can be artistic. This is not in doubt.
The ethics of cropping and post-processing an image to give a false impression is another matter.

Some of the photos of politicians, designed to sway the viewers opinion at a subconcious level, are probably the most obvious examples of this.

I think post processing and cropping are no more giving a false impression than taking the photograph in the first place - It's all selectively taken - Moreso with a goal/bias in mind. Taking and displaying the image in the first place is no less sending out propaganda than cropping or post processing the same image, imo.

I guess it can depend on what stable one is coming from - Whether it be someone coming from a background like me, ie, fine art degree, writing essay's and thesis' and other conceptual bullsh*t, or a photojournalist working for the Star (And even so, a
pho-jo working for the Indo would work completely different, as would a Magnum 'tog.)

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

I think post processing and cropping are no more giving a false impression than taking the photograph in the first place - It's all selectively taken - Moreso with a goal/bias in mind. Taking and displaying the image in the first place is no less sending out propaganda than cropping or post processing the same image, imo.

I guess it can depend on what stable one is coming from - Whether it be someone coming from a background like me, ie, fine art degree, writing essay's and thesis' and other conceptual bullsh*t, or a photojournalist working for the Star (And even so, a
pho-jo working for the Indo would work completely different, as would a Magnum 'tog.)

Somehow I think all the types you mention have quite a lot in common. Everybody wants their work to be validated, especially now that society is so under surveillance by amateurs as well as by professional photo journalists and academics.

I met a photographer years ago who was displeased by the pecking order in Irish journalistic circles. He felt he was not taken seriously because he worked for a tabloid.

In fact, I was not thinking of the tabloids in particular when I wrote my thoughts down this morning.
When it comes to objectivity, any publication, as you point out, can make propaganda.

The most interesting thing, I find, is how to be able to tell the difference.

I'm intrigued that you think that photos are propagandist by nature.

It is not a view I share, but I'll certainly think about it.

Are you a Platonist?

Phototoxin

Exactly, using a file photo of a politician laughing at some quip rather than one taken when discussing a serious current issue for example. Pp artifice is not even necessary to represent them as uncaring.

Be it partisan propaganda, sensationalism for profit, or simply shoddy journalism, when the free press take leave of accuracy and objectivity society risks paying the price of making mis-informed decisions.

Well the context in which the photo is displayed can be just as misleading. For example Private Eye often satirically uses this parodying tabloids by inappropriate photos of politicians. Eg; Along the lines of a picture of Gordon Brown laughing and then beside it 'Gordon Brown has heard about the crisis in Zimbabwe' Separately they are perfectly fine but together they imply something. [of course PI & its readers would know that he's not laughing at it but are taking the urine out of those less-ethical papers that do!]

However in 'normal' papers I think its bad form to use misleading photos. Papers should inform not have a slant which is something I hate about most mass media.

I think post processing and cropping are no more giving a false impression than taking the photograph in the first place - It's all selectively taken - Moreso with a goal/bias in mind. Taking and displaying the image in the first place is no less sending out propaganda than cropping or post processing the same image, imo.

What about crime scene photography? Would that be selective too? Its supposed to be as impartial as humanly possible. Their goal would be to show knife covered in blood. No 'this expresses human desire to hurt ach other and the triangular shape of the blade represents pain' type stuff is entered into. ITs a knife, with a rule and a label saying 'item 3/a - knife'

[warning - gets a bit ranty at end]

"That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people's art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public's right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion."

If I get this job I'm going for in the UK I would possibly print it out and keep it in my bag.. the 2nd link had a poster with the cameras and 'terrorism'. A total fear mongering exercise IMHO. I was reading an article yesterday in the paper about how everyone is afraid. It was mostly to do with why there are few male teachers/teaching assistants in primary schools - basically fear of being called a pœdo if they show care for a child. Its slightly tangential (sp?) but can be mapped to photography. Remember the topic before about photographing kids? And how the dad taking the picture of his own 2 year old in a pram was deemed 'pœdophilic' by some woman reporting it to the rozzers? Eventually the UK will ban photography, and RFID people out of some pseudo-threat of terrorism. Reality is you're going to die in a road accident rather than some suicide bomber or a plane crash but fear is profitable I guess :mad: [/rant]

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

In fact, I was not thinking of the tabloids in particular when I wrote my thoughts down this morning.
When it comes to objectivity, any publication, as you point out, can make propaganda.

The most interesting thing, I find, is how to be able to tell the difference.

I'm intrigued that you think that photos are propagandist by nature.

It is not a view I share, but I'll certainly think about it.

Are you a Platonist?

Well, I think for a photograph to be successful, there has to be something in it - I quite enjoy studying an image, and I probably do think too much about imagery, but then again it's something I'm interested in. Reading through Roland Barthes' "Camera Lucia", he goes into the studium and punctum - before I go any further, I'll have to state I'm not a fan of Barthes whatsoever, but I do understand and quite like some of his theories - but yes, I think the studium and punctum are very important and an imposing theory on photography (Even if you haven't studied it, I think a lot of people - especially those not interested in photography aim along those lines).


Anyways, propaganda, yes, I think any photograph taken with the intent to be shown in public has some form of agenda - The word propaganda is a dirty word though, it's not always a bad thing. It could be as simple as "buy this photo" or "look at all the poor people in Ireland" to the "vote for me" photos and "here's this filthy criminal" photos.

Phototoxin wrote: »

However in 'normal' papers I think its bad form to use misleading photos. Papers should inform not have a slant which is something I hate about most mass media.

They all do though. And each step of the slant is money money money, sell sell sell... They know the photos that sell - You're aware of what the photographs are trying to do, so you can make an informed decision about them.

What about crime scene photography? Would that be selective too? Its supposed to be as impartial as humanly possible. Their goal would be to show knife covered in blood. No 'this expresses human desire to hurt ach other and the triangular shape of the blade represents pain' type stuff is entered into. ITs a knife, with a rule and a label saying 'item 3/a - knife'

Until they start using a robot to take the photograph, yes, it will be selective - Human's are selective - They'll take more interest in one thing, try to show off more of something.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, I think for a photograph to be successful, there has to be something in it - I quite enjoy studying an image, and I probably do think too much about imagery, but then again it's something I'm interested in. ...

...The word propaganda is a dirty word though, it's not always a bad thing. It could be as simple as "buy this photo" or "look at all the poor people in Ireland" to the "vote for me" photos and "here's this filthy criminal" photos.



They all do though. And each step of the slant is money money money, sell sell sell... They know the photos that sell - You're aware of what the photographs are trying to do, so you can make an informed decision about them.

While thinking about this I found a useful paper on naturalism and photojournalism:

sjmc.cla.umn.edu/faculty/schwartz/contents/to tell the truth/to tell the truth.html

(the direct link was becoming complicated. Just add http:// before the link here).

Phototoxin

Until they start using a robot to take the photograph, yes, it will be selective - Human's are selective - They'll take more interest in one thing, try to show off more of something.

you can actually get robots that are on tripods and take photos in 360 then stitch them together automatically! Still need humans to set it up tho

Thirdfox

The robot programmers will be subjective humans too... nothing is objective really - it can only be a personal value call (this picture is objective to me)

Case in point:
Olympics demonstration in Dublin some time ago (I was there to write up a report for the paper):

Is this an objective picture?

(certainly there were a few thousand of the local Chinese community there - or around a thousand... I can't remember exactly)
and is this an objective picture?

certainly, that one Tibet protestor did turn up to make his statement too...

Now when the Irish Times covers the event and use picture no.2 instead of 1 are they being objective? Factually yes (he was there after all)...morally - I'm not so sure, since that one person's view was just a tiny portion of what the demonstration was about.

It's always important to know what a news report leaves out as well as what they keep in

edit: found the link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0414/1208115797340.html - photo seems to have disappeared though.

Paulw

As they say, there are two sides to every story. A paper normally takes just one side.

Thirdfox

I agree - but the line between opinion and news often get blurred (I won't mention Fox "news" on some of the more controversial issues ) - we go to the editorials for opinion...

So choosing which "objective" photo to use is a subjective task in itself. Happy Brian Cowan, grumpy Brian Cowan, serious Brian Cowan? Maybe he was rubbing his eyes - the photo could look like he's sighing into his hands... even if it is a "real" photo it could be conveying the subjective feelings of the editor.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

As they say, there are two sides to every story. ...

Or so the wretched dialectic that directs Western thought would have us believe. There are so many sides to everything, it's astonishing we manage to make any statements at all, as a species.

Anouilh

Phototoxin wrote: »

you can actually get robots that are on tripods and take photos in 360 then stitch them together automatically! Still need humans to set it up tho

Also, the frequencies would probably be interesting to study. Humans are so limited in what they see.

democrates

Thirdfox wrote: »

I agree - but the line between opinion and news often get blurred (I won't mention Fox "news" on some of the more controversial issues ) - we go to the editorials for opinion...

So choosing which "objective" photo to use is a subjective task in itself. Happy Brian Cowan, grumpy Brian Cowan, serious Brian Cowan? Maybe he was rubbing his eyes - the photo could look like he's sighing into his hands... even if it is a "real" photo it could be conveying the subjective feelings of the editor.

Yes, even reported facts can be disputed, how many protesters, who said what etc.

I'm not trying to load photojournalists with the job of perfect mass communication when I accept that subjective perception and attention besets content producers, editors, and consumers alike, it's deliberate mis-representation that irks. Besides that, opinion often offers light when the facts are mostly about heat.

Getting back to the OP's point, the limitations of the msm only support the case for allowing the general public to take photos and blog away, yes there's more information than anyone could consume, but when it comes to issues of interest an alternative perspective can be decisive.

Anouilh

democrates wrote: »

Yes, even reported facts can be disputed...

Besides that, opinion often offers light when the facts are mostly about heat.

Facts are easily checked in many subjects, especially in property pieces, which I wrote for some time.

Opinion is the staple of Irish life.
I am always amazed at the passion that some people bring to a passing idea that may not even be remembered in a few weeks time.

What is very debateable at the moment is the sort of society we are creating, where some people seem to think that paranoia is general.

This is not my experience, even when I walk round with a camera. One lady was so intent in getting into the frame when I was taking a photo that I had not the heart to discourage her as she was smiling so happily. Since I was trying to take a general street scene, I made a shallow depth of field and caused her to fade into an agreeable blur.

Perhaps these are the experiences that have made me totally hooked on photography?

littlebug

RCNPhotos wrote: »

Actually it's fairly true. There was a big discussion on the radio about this recently. Without their permission you can't upload them to say flickr etc. You can however sell em to a newspaper to be splashed everywhere. It's mad but it's the law.

Is this true if there are children in the pictures?

democrates

Anouilh wrote: »

I am always amazed at the passion that some people bring to a passing idea that may not even be remembered in a few weeks time.

I suppose it takes all sorts to make up a world, besides, who knows what will be remembered or how views may be shaped even if the sum of influence is not recalled in detail.

Anouilh wrote: »

What is very debateable at the moment is the sort of society we are creating, where some people seem to think that paranoia is general.

The supreme irony .

I agree though, when fear spreads self-censorship begins, and I've fallen for it myself. It's like the fashionable response "I find that offensive", where no offence was intended but the speaker of the alleged offence is expected to apologise and self-censor in the future, the kind of suppression of free speech we would associate with totalitarian regimes we now inflict upon each other.

Fajitas!

littlebug wrote: »

Is this true if there are children in the pictures?

What you've quoted isn't true in the first place. You can upload what you want. Kids or adults, there are other T&C associated with it - public places and whatnot - but otherwise go for it. If someone pulls you up over your flickr, explain to them it's your art. Which tbh, it is.

Edit: Didn't mean for the start of that to come off so stand-offish btw

Anouilh

democrates wrote: »

I suppose it takes all sorts to make up a world, besides, who knows what will be remembered or how views may be shaped even if the sum of influence is not recalled in detail.

The supreme irony .

I agree though, when fear spreads self-censorship begins, and I've fallen for it myself. It's like the fashionable response "I find that offensive", where no offence was intended but the speaker of the alleged offence is expected to apologise and self-censor in the future, the kind of suppression of free speech we would associate with totalitarian regimes we now inflict upon each other.

Britain is up to high-doh about civil liberties and the degree of surveillance in society.

Each person reacts differently, as you point out.

Self censorship is not always a total evil, as it keeps one out of trouble in matters that are inconsequential.

There is a lot of academic work being done at the moment on storage systems and what is considered valuable and worth keeping. The methods used to attribute importance interest me very much, as power is in the hands of those who do the selecting.

I also wonder how long the political correctness that has distorted many people's sense of reality for some time is going to last.

"Honi soit qui mal y pense" is a useful way of dealing with paranoia, BTW.

littlebug

Fajitas! wrote: »

What you've quoted isn't true in the first place. You can upload what you want. Kids or adults, there are other T&C associated with it - public places and whatnot - but otherwise go for it. If someone pulls you up over your flickr, explain to them it's your art. Which tbh, it is.

lol at the idea of me with a flickr:D I just wandered in here to see if I could find advice on how to take a photgraph without cutting peoples heads off and I found this topic. I'm actually coming at this from the other angle. we spend a lot of time in a particular tourist hotspot and my children, especially my daughter, seem to be camera magnets. i know they're very cute and very Oirish looking and I can see why people want to take their pics. However my daughter absolutely hates it, she's a shy reserved girl and she really doesn't like that kind of attention. If it's so inobtrusive that we don't even notice that's fine. The irony is that if the more mannerly people ask for permission I politely say "sorry no" so the rude people who shove cameras in her face get the pic while the nice people don't. I do feel bad about that but really my daughter hates it and it's my job to protect her from something that makes her feel bad. If i found a picture online of either of my kids I would nicely ask for it to be removed. I do respect that it is someone's art but it's my child and I would hope that would be respected too.
Sorry now if this offends any of you:o

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

What you've quoted isn't true in the first place. You can upload what you want. Kids or adults, there are other T&C associated with it - public places and whatnot - but otherwise go for it. If someone pulls you up over your flickr, explain to them it's your art. Which tbh, it is.

I had some really entertaing discussions on another chat room on this subject in the past.

I like photographing buildings and I guarantee that it is virtually impossible to take a photo in Dublin in daytime without having some pesky kid somewhere in the frame.

Some even have the audiacity to wave and smile...

Fajitas!

littlebug wrote: »

lol at the idea of me with a flickr:D I just wandered in here to see if I could find advice on how to take a photgraph without cutting peoples heads off and I found this topic. I'm actually coming at this from the other angle. we spend a lot of time in a particular tourist hotspot and my children, especially my daughter, seem to be camera magnets. i know they're very cute and very Oirish looking and I can see why people want to take their pics. However my daughter absolutely hates it, she's a shy reserved girl and she really doesn't like that kind of attention. If it's so inobtrusive that we don't even notice that's fine. The irony is that if the more mannerly people ask for permission I politely say "sorry no" so the rude people who shove cameras in her face get the pic while the nice people don't. I do feel bad about that but really my daughter hates it and it's my job to protect her from something that makes her feel bad. If i found a picture online of either of my kids I would nicely ask for it to be removed. I do respect that it is someone's art but it's my child and I would hope that would be respected too.
Sorry now if this offends any of you:o

No offence at all

Tbh, tell them (The rude ones) you'd rather they don't take your daughters photo - She dosn't like having her photo taken - While they can still take your daughters photo, they'll be less likely to.

Again, sorry if my post came off stand-offish - I didn't get much sleep last night

Anouilh wrote: »

I had some really entertaing discussions on another chat room on this subject in the past.

I like photographing buildings and I guarantee that it is virtually impossible to take a photo in Dublin in daytime without having some pesky kid somewhere in the frame.

Some even have the audiacity to wave and smile...

At least they're not mooning you - Then you'll definitely be hung out to dry as a paedophile! :pac:

littlebug

Fajitas! wrote: »

Again, sorry if my post came off stand-offish - I didn't get much sleep last night QUOTE]

Gosh Fajitas you weren't standoffish at all. I see there are two sides to this. I also realise that the people taking photographs of my kids are generally click happy tourists and not "proper" photographers who would maybe put a little more thought into it before they click.

Anouilh

There is an explanation for why so many people like photographing children that is not at all sinister.

When my children were small bus loads of tourist used photograph them with enthusiasm and the children didn't mind. Invariably the photographers were middle aged people from the European mainland and it was explained that they did not have grandchildren and that this was a very natural way of expressing a very human feeling... the desire to make contact with young people.

The recent press coverage of children and photography is, in the main, I think, very unhealthy and gives a false impression of how most people think and react.

For most of my life, photos of children have been the most beautiful and heart warming images in our cultural iconography. It is sad that I would think twice now before uploading any image of a child, not because I have any personal qualms, but because of the odd way society views children in photography and art.

I hope this does not continue.

littlebug

Anouilh wrote: »

There is an explanation for why so many people like photographing children that is not at all sinister.

When my children were small bus loads of tourist used photograph them with enthusiasm and the children didn't mind. Invariably the photographers were middle aged people from the European mainland and it was explained that they did not have grandchildren and that this was a very natural way of expressing a very human feeling... the desire to make contact with young people.

The recent press coverage of children and photography is, in the main, I think, very unhealthy and gives a false impression of how most people think and react.

For most of my life, photos of children have been the most beautiful and heart warming images in our cultural iconography. It is sad that I would think twice now before uploading any image of a child, not because I have any personal qualms, but because of the odd way society views children in photography and art.

I hope this does not continue.

Hi Anouilh, believe it or not I agree with you. I can absolutely understand why people want to take pictures of the kids.
I wasn't thinking of the more sinister side of it at all (much). Given the access the more dubious characters to less savoury images it's highly unlikely that they'd get their jollies from one innocent picture of my child. It's fine if the child (most important) is happy to be photographed but it should also be considered that sometimes they're not.

A beautiful tender family moment was spoilt this summer by the rustling of bags and the sudden clicking of about 20 cameras. Yes it probably made a nice picture but the image in our memory was somewhat tainted by the clicks. My children felt very uncomfortable when they realised everyone was looking at them and asked to back inside Sometimes a tender moment is just that, not a photo opportunity.

Anouilh

littlebug wrote: »

Hi Anouilh, believe it or not I agree with you. ...

A beautiful tender family moment was spoilt this summer by the rustling of bags and the sudden clicking of about 20 cameras. Yes it probably made a nice picture but the image in our memory was somewhat tainted by the clicks. My children felt very uncomfortable when they realised everyone was looking at them and asked to back inside Sometimes a tender moment is just that, not a photo opportunity.

In fact, we have come back to the beginning of this thread, the issue of privacy in public spaces.

I can sympathise with your children and with your efforts to take a composed family shot. Even without an audience, my idea of a true nightmare is trying to get a group photo that looks as if even one tenth of the participants are awake, never mind looking well.

There are now so many photographers everywhere, some with impressive shoulder-high tripods, that walking down the street is the equivalent of a red-carpet event.

Perhaps sharing strategies for shielding people from public scrutiny and making private spaces in the midst of all this would be useful.

I carry an umbrella, which apart from acting as a sort of sun shield when taking sunsets, can also give a space within which I feel alone and free.

littlebug

Thanks Anoilh,

I feel awful now for being horrible to photographers in their own home that I've just barged into!
.
I know it was a public place but you know... it was a lovely tender moment between father and his children who were not looking for attention. Maybe if it was just you Anouilh (or any of you here for that matter) with your experience and artistic eye you could have taken a photograph discretely (or is that discreetly?) without being obtrusive but all of them standing up at once was too much and the moment and feeling was gone.