Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Bob, You made the statement. I am asking you what you mean about the media 'casting people as victims'. What I see much more of is the media casting people as wrongdoers

ie) publishing pictures of Covidiots using distorted telephoto shots, deliberately choosing to publish the most extreme pictures of youngsters out on the town, representations of travelling community etc

 

I find the tabloid media in UK extremely judgemental as opposed to your suggestion that they overly side with 'victims'

 

 Rather than be rude and ignore you, I am just not going to get into an argument with you that does not really pertain to the original post.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BobD said:

 

 Rather than be rude and ignore you, I am just not going to get into an argument with you that does not really pertain to the original post.

 

 

 

gone

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Downvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Bob, You made the statement. I am asking you what you mean about the media 'casting people as victims'. What I see much more of is the media casting people as wrongdoers

ie) publishing pictures of Covidiots using distorted telephoto shots, deliberately choosing to publish the most extreme pictures of youngsters out on the town, representations of travelling community, asylum seekers ( why are they all wearing Nikes?) etc

 

I find the tabloid media in UK extremely judgemental as opposed to your suggestion that they overly side with 'victims'

 

Canada doesn't have much of a sensationalist tabloid media, certainly nothing like Britain does. Quebec is perhaps the exception. It tends to have a much "livelier" press than the other provinces do.

 

Regarding portraying people as victims, I don't think that this benefits those involved. I know that in my own life when I have seen myself as a victim (rightly or wrongly), I've just ended up feeling sorry for myself. It doesn't really go anywhere.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

only read OP, democracy free press public places editorial use, bombastically woman's face is covered unidentifiable & very few would id, this photo could end up being major major reparations influencer no complaints about that, ethical moral debate all you want, it is always stock photographers who don't supply stock photos of real people doing real things moaning loud when in opinion of some they are afraid to photograph people in public and envy those who do, stay in your studios leave the braver ones alone, whats most disgusting is Caucasians who moan publicly & don't do anything more trying to "raise" lives of others.

Edited by FocusUno
to save r e tutorial fees
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was photographing churches yesterday. At one there was a father, daughter holding baby, standing with their backs to me in front of a grave - presumably the man's deceased wife, the woman's Mum.

 

Including them in the image would have made it a much stronger picture but I deliberately did not include them.  

 

I think it comes down to the old 'do as to others' idea that I was taught in primary school. But I 100% accept that this is a personal decision and that I am glad that others think and act differently. It would just make me feel bad and stock being what it is I can do without whatever money that shot might have brought.

 

Ethnicity was not a factor.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I was photographing churches yesterday. At one there was a father, daughter holding baby, standing with their backs to me in front of a grave - presumably the man's deceased wife, the woman's Mum.

 

Including them in the image would have made it a much stronger picture but I deliberately did not include them.  

I'd hope that we would have all made a similar decision Ian, but you would have been photographing for stock rather than covering an important news event related to an historical scandal. I think there has to be a difference. 

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harry Harrison said:

I'd hope that we would have all made a similar decision Ian, but you would have been photographing for stock rather than covering an important news event related to a historical scandal. I think there has to be a difference. 

 

Absolutely agree with you.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/07/2021 at 17:44, BobD said:

How can you have a private moment in a public space. surrounded by people.

Exactly, you can’t. When a person leaves their home, they lose all right to privacy so how they can expect to ‘have a private moment’ is beyond me. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/07/2021 at 19:09, John Mitchell said:

I think it's a bit of an assumption to say that it was all about money. That could of course have been the case, but we can't see inside the photographer's head -- i.e. we don't really know how he felt or what his true motivations were.

When I’m out photographing, it’s 100% only about the money. Nothing more, nothing less. If I don’t make sales, I don’t eat. I only photograph for money. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All 

 

We feel this thread has gone a little off topic so we will be locking this now.

 

Thanks,

Alamy

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.