Another photo for school. Seeing as how the last set I did I was told to put in it's own topic due to the nature of the photo, this one gets one too. Thanks for looking.
Not Safe For All Ages Photo
(20 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Too set uplooking. Find the real thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Framer- Of course it's set up. The whole point was to combine ambient light with flash and to possibly tell a story. You find me a junkie that will let me set up my flash off camera while they shoot up and I'll photograph them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Skid: Not the easiest thing to do, I'll grant you. But a photographer in the early to mid-90's (the name escapes me at the moment) made her name getting photos in shooting galleries, crack houses, et cetera. So it's not as though it can't be done.
That's not to say the only way to do it is by getting up close and personal with a junkie; going with something a bit more lo-fi (ie. with less perfect lighting, composition and staging) could've gotten the same effect without looking so stagey. You have a photo that's technically good, but in a way, that works against you in this instance.
Just my $.02 worth.
Posted 2 years ago # -
There is a difference between "set up" and "set up looking".
But I agree almost 100% with what is said above.Not to mention you drink when you can't find H. When using H alcohol is not desired. ;)
PS
Also, who wants to nod off in the full glare of the sun? Who wants to nod off in public? As decrepit as they may be, people shoot in galleries or other indoor places because even the most destitute and deranged (not that all addicts are either) know that people interrupting your nod is a waste.As nitpicky as that might sound, I actually think it goes with aslightdelay's point. When you don't shoot what you know it is hard to make it look real - it is hard to present an effective emotional impact.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Interesting photo actually. I think I'd rather see the real thing as well though. You said this is for school so you have to have the flash set up off camera? Or are you allowed to just fire away ala Leica rangefinder street photography style? If so there are numerous East Vancouver streets packed with some 7,000 intravenous addicts daily if you are looking for the real deal. In no way, is my post meant to bash, and I find the topic actually intriguing. It figures its something a school subject would cover you are lucky I hated my major...
Posted 2 years ago # -
The professor wants it off the camera, and I'm not sure I have the funds to travel to Vancouver right now. :0)I'll keep working on the assignment. As long as it's my post and I have a few ears...let me ask you all this...When is it artistic motion blur and not some crappy photo?
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
looks too set up, mostly because of the Jack Daniels bottle, it's very rarely that You will see one in such circumstances in such a clean condition with label facing exactly towards the camera
Posted 2 years ago # -
Skid said:
When is it artistic motion blur and not some crappy photo?I'll second what Drab said, and add a little something. There's a quote from Shakespeare that actually fits this really well: "The art is to conceal the art." Just my on take on this, but a shot that's artistic -- or done with artistic intent, let's say -- should never call attention to the fact that you're doing something artistic, unless you're cranking it up to 11 as a commentary on the fact that you're doing art, but even that gets tired after a while. People who like your work are going to be drawn to its honesty (real or perceived) versus its artifice, generally speaking. So, like Drab said (in far fewer words, come to think of it), if what you're doing fits the context of the scene and the purpose of the photo, go for it.
And it doesn't have to be something like motion blur. Sometimes, again, it's just finding the right imperfection... a bit of graininess, the lighting being just a little off, what have you. Sebastiao Salgado's a great example of this (there're others, but I mention him because I love his work). His shots don't lose anything of their power because they've got some grain to them sometimes; if anything, given the context (say, a guy coming out of a copper mine covered in grime or dust) it enhances it, or almost complements it in a very subtle way.
At the other extreme, you have someone like Terry Richardson (here, too, there are others, but I particularly dislike his work). Instantly recognizable style, but it's like a Fabrege egg. All surface, but totally empty if you try to look any deeper. You want heroin addicts? He makes EVERYBODY look like one. To me, he's a great example of what happens when you draw attention to the act of photography, because every shot he takes is in some way more about him than the subject.
Probably a much longer response than you wanted, but hopefully there's something useful buried in there.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@ alightdelay.. : Gem of a post!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just one question:
Was there a particular theme required, ex. the junkie?
If not why don't you shoot something more interesting? Obviously, with off camera lights you can do whatever your imagination desires, why shoot a bland photo of a junkie where you can't even see the need or even desire for off camera flash?
If you are interested in more journalistic type of photography, you are taking the wrong class. You should be out there, doing street photography or photojournalism.
Posted 2 years ago # -
No set requirement other than to combine flash with ambient light. I also did a motion blur that met this requirement. That photo can be seen in the "Normal" P.A.D. section.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I agree with the others, it looks way too set up. The subject would need a lot more grime ... I'm sure that there are also neat looking people shooting up but in order for it to work, you need to feed the stereotypes ... e.g. dirt and scratches (carpet burn on her knees .. hints at a way of "earning" the next hit), worn clothing (not just torn up and grimed new garments), tangled and dirty hair, lose the JD ... too expensive, replace it with a glass/plastic flask of unidentified brownish liquid or a bottle wrapped in one of those paper bags (or is that just the movies?).
At first sight it looks like you didn't think this through and just did something to fit the criteria of the assignment. If you can't make the junkie look authentic then (like others have suggested) change the subject. Also, if you are aiming to get the assignment done, then that is what you will achieve ... rather aim at getting a good shot.
If you are short of subjects, then start writing down things that you can shoot like this and soon you will have difficulties choosing between them. Consider using a warm light filter or reflector for the flash.
Posted 2 years ago # -
monty11 said:
...lose the JD ... too expensive, replace it with a glass/plastic flask of unidentified brownish liquid or a bottle wrapped in one of those paper bags (or is that just the movies?).The paper bag would probably work better than the flask or an unlabeled bottle (the latter might also look like you're trying too hard). It's not just the movies... you can go either with a bottle in the bag or a can, and stick a straw in it for good measure. Took me a bit to figure out why they kept giving me straws whenever I'd pop in the liquor shop for a beer. :)
If you wanted to get extra nitpicky, I'd also have gotten rid of the little plastic safety thingy from the needle (lots of people reuse them even though they shouldn't), maybe also switch out a couple of loosies for the pack of cigarettes, and leave a burnt spoon somewhere visible. Maybe that also depends on how long/close you think someone's going to look at the photo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well if this is a school project, then it will get a lot of attention. I'm pretty sure that the teacher will also point out the same things that we have collectively :)
I have never gotten the point of drinking out of a paper bag ... is the law really so flawed that it says that it should not look like you are drinking alcohol. Here it is forbidden to drink alcohol in public places (except certain events) no matter what container or form it comes in.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am going to agree with the long list above, though it could be set up to look far more realistic.
I would have had an empty bottle lying askew somewhere in the picture, not leaning against the body. Like the idea of moving this inside some abandoned building with day light through a window and then the flash. If you have the option, B&W would really give the picture much more authenticity.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Looks more like some weird fashion shoot than anything else, drop the needle and tourn and it would actually look better, she looks nothing like a junkie.
Posted 2 years ago # -
monty11 said:
I have never gotten the point of drinking out of a paper bag ... is the law really so flawed that it says that it should not look like you are drinking alcohol. Here it is forbidden to drink alcohol in public places (except certain events) no matter what container or form it comes in.It was known in many towns as "The gentleman's agreement". You keep it in a bag, don't act the fool, and the police look the other way.
The police don't want to waste their time on such petty crimes. Many consider open container a criminalization of poverty. When you're poor and can't afford AC in the summer, much less the mark-up of a bar, where is one supposed to legally drink?More on-topic, I'll repeat: Junkies don't typically drink when they have junk to shoot. Lose the bottle entirely (though the points about brand / bag are very valid in general.)
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
