[automaton2]

[Don Schaeffer]

Some of these are frightening!

[Keith Alan]

Taking pictures of other human beings implies a sort of trust agreement that you won't make them look worse than they already do. People have rights and expectations.
Why is your focus always on using post-production techniques to distort and magnify their flaws?
Do you hate other people so much?

If you just want to get a reaction, I think you have already done it on the other forums you've posted the same photos to.

[automaton2]

Taking pictures of other human beings implies a sort of trust agreement that you won't make them look worse than they already do. People have rights and expectations.
Why is your focus always on using post-production techniques to distort and magnify their flaws?
Do you hate other people so much?

If you just want to get a reaction, I think you have already done it on the other forums you've posted the same photos to.

your dictum of trust implies your belief
I dont concur
does everyone expect beautification
not
given the people who I photograph are aware I intend to alter them
its not some usurpment of rights or expectations
its not aimed at next top or bottom model
its simply a morph

they laugh and love their mutations
even my geriatric subjects


thanks 4 reply

[matthew]

Most people who post pictures on the internet are simply looking for an "ooh, pretty picture!" response.
Obviously, you're not.
Even your user name is dehumanizing.
What are you looking for?

Portraits are supposed to reveal something about the subject.
Art is supposed to reveal something of the artist.
I don't see your subjects:
I hope I don't see you.

I look for aesthetic intelligence behind images.
Sontag argues that even when people photograph something ugly,
what they really say is that they find this ugly thing beautiful.
Rust, decay, disarray.
Do you think this would impress Arbus?

It feels like nothing more than "ooh, ugly picture!"

[Zig]

I really hope I don't offend any of my ST colleagues who have "known" me for some years now but these images, if submitted in order to challenge or purposefully evoke a response, have "worked": the viewer may dislike, or even be repelled by, the images...but the fact that we are "biting" at the most obvious things to(quite appropriately) bite at, would suggest that the author has been successful.
My personal and immediate "gut" response to the images is, I admit, somewhere between sadness and "ugh"; my second question is of myself: what is in my conditioning that upon my eyes seeing these, I feel sad, angry, shocked..even somewhat brutalised? I'm then thinking: am I being deliberately provoked by the author just so that I'll give him/her the response (s)he expects? I then consider the possibility that this gamut of emotions may well be what the author wishes because a) (s)he himself(her, etc does genuinely get off on being cruel, abusive, dehumanising, etc;...
...Mind you, I can't help but throw this into the mix: how many of us really question exactly why we take photographs? "Should" they be beautiful...indeed, what exactly is beauty? OK, these above are not ...yet there are many folks in the forums who use their own images for a multitude of purposes, for beating their own drum about themselves, about what they consider others should feel about the environment, people, etc;. We all shoot photographs to "say something"...and as long as we keep "safe" in our material, say the same "safe" encouraging things to each other, we have the choice to remain safely unchallenged and unchanged in our output, submissions and comments. OK, many of us use this freedom of choice to harness ourselves and our talents to improve, build..even to build and encourage others. But what happens when something comes along and challenges? Do we anathematise it? Place it beyond our boundaries with the speed, taboo and decency of casting out a leper? I'd also ask perhaps, how firm and unshaken is our own self-concept that we immediately turn upon that which is alien and different, with the immediacy of white blood cells on a virus? And if this sort of visual stuff is damaging, to whom is it so? Even...well, we laud the freedom of speech and expression in our nations, forums and churches...yet doesn't that same freedom spawn everyone with the same "rights"?
I'm not writing a defence here, nor a polemic, nor a tirade...but we could consider, for example, how come photographs by cosmetic companies of amputees are considered "art"? Or we may deplore images from a theatre of war, yet these are considered "comments on humanity".
Also, to what extent do we judge the photographer's persona to be a true reflection of what (s)he is or thinks or feels? In days of old it was considered clever and artful to explore a point of view by means of adopting literary or artistic devices..it never for one moment meant that the person writing/creating was the "same" as the persona (s)he was projecting. It is a sad comment that no-one does this any more because we've all dumbed ourselves down to "being literal".
And, let us even consider that the person behind the avatar/handle does hate: would the hate be of himself? Of people..and if so, of people known to them...or of humanity? Many of us can use photographs to be so, so subtle: to denigrate humanity by, say, repeatedly snapping scenes of everyday tedium, or by posting many a shot that deplores man's treatment of the environment. These images are pretty "full-on": just because there's no apparent subtlety, are these pics less than "honest"? Or is it a volume thing that we don't like? In other words, I'm suggesting that there is a brash, "shouting" quality to these...one that could more than border on the offensive. The subjects are all "in our faces": is it this suggestion of invading our personal space that shocks us here? And if so, again I'd float past you that the person taking the photos has at least succeeded.
My thoughts are not defences or arguments. If it were down to just my feelings, I'd bin and ban. Mind you, if we did that to everything we cannot stomach, as a society we'd drive the stuff that threatens us underground...or at least sweep it under the carpet. Thing is, history does show that if we sweep stuff under the carpet, it has a habit of tripping us up when the pile has got too big.
My final thought is oddly one of encouragement: perhaps when we're faced with material like the above, we might just walk around our own boundaries and assess our own justifications and drives for taking the pics we do; and if this sorta stuff gives us the chance to do this, we might be wiser as a result.
As I say, I hope upon hope that my approach has not alienated any of you who have been such an encouragement to me over the past few years and that you'll see my response as being by way of exploration and evaluation.

[NT73]

I have seen these or some of them before, and apart from the hairlines on a few and a nose job or two, they are sort of OK. On closer inspection there seems to be beards ears and all sorts of added bits.
Now if the intention is to show good morphing/cloning/pasteing, then I am disappointed with the final result.
If it is just to show a taste of what can be done then fine. Just not my style at the moment.:/

[Irma]

Always too difficult to critique pictures without any commment from the author along with the pictures... Your reply to Keith comment cleared to me what was your intention with this pictures.

If your idea was to manipulate this images and work some kind of morphing, I would say that from the techincal point of view they lack quality and consistency. The fact that one has a program able to change and edit an image it doesn't mean that just working two, three tricks will do the job...

Photomanipulation is something more than that, it requires good technique and style. I am certainly not against people using surreal, fantasy or even dark mood in photomanipulations, I even admire them, but when they are properly done...

And not because I have decided to express my self from the "safe" side, through (flowers, kitties and beautiful landscapes), I am not able to see art and admire good techniques in post edition in other forms of expression and tendencies, that I don't practice and I am not fond of.

About the presentation of your work... I personally find it intrusive, these people are shouting at me, invading my place, forcing me to see them because there is no other place to go but just their distorted faces, and I personally don't like this. As I don't like in real life, people comming my home shouting at me and ivading my place.

[automaton2]

I really hope I don't offend any of my ST colleagues who have "known" me for some years now but these images, if submitted in order to challenge or purposefully evoke a response, have "worked": the viewer may dislike, or even be repelled by, the images...but the fact that we are "biting" at the most obvious things to(quite appropriately) bite at, would suggest that the author has been successful.
My personal and immediate "gut" response to the images is, I admit, somewhere between sadness and "ugh"; my second question is of myself: what is in my conditioning that upon my eyes seeing these, I feel sad, angry, shocked..even somewhat brutalised? I'm then thinking: am I being deliberately provoked by the author just so that I'll give him/her the response (s)he expects? I then consider the possibility that this gamut of emotions may well be what the author wishes because a) (s)he himself(her, etc does genuinely get off on being cruel, abusive, dehumanising, etc;...
...Mind you, I can't help but throw this into the mix: how many of us really question exactly why we take photographs? "Should" they be beautiful...indeed, what exactly is beauty? OK, these above are not ...yet there are many folks in the forums who use their own images for a multitude of purposes, for beating their own drum about themselves, about what they consider others should feel about the environment, people, etc;. We all shoot photographs to "say something"...and as long as we keep "safe" in our material, say the same "safe" encouraging things to each other, we have the choice to remain safely unchallenged and unchanged in our output, submissions and comments. OK, many of us use this freedom of choice to harness ourselves and our talents to improve, build..even to build and encourage others. But what happens when something comes along and challenges? Do we anathematise it? Place it beyond our boundaries with the speed, taboo and decency of casting out a leper? I'd also ask perhaps, how firm and unshaken is our own self-concept that we immediately turn upon that which is alien and different, with the immediacy of white blood cells on a virus? And if this sort of visual stuff is damaging, to whom is it so? Even...well, we laud the freedom of speech and expression in our nations, forums and churches...yet doesn't that same freedom spawn everyone with the same "rights"?
I'm not writing a defence here, nor a polemic, nor a tirade...but we could consider, for example, how come photographs by cosmetic companies of amputees are considered "art"? Or we may deplore images from a theatre of war, yet these are considered "comments on humanity".
Also, to what extent do we judge the photographer's persona to be a true reflection of what (s)he is or thinks or feels? In days of old it was considered clever and artful to explore a point of view by means of adopting literary or artistic devices..it never for one moment meant that the person writing/creating was the "same" as the persona (s)he was projecting. It is a sad comment that no-one does this any more because we've all dumbed ourselves down to "being literal".
And, let us even consider that the person behind the avatar/handle does hate: would the hate be of himself? Of people..and if so, of people known to them...or of humanity? Many of us can use photographs to be so, so subtle: to denigrate humanity by, say, repeatedly snapping scenes of everyday tedium, or by posting many a shot that deplores man's treatment of the environment. These images are pretty "full-on": just because there's no apparent subtlety, are these pics less than "honest"? Or is it a volume thing that we don't like? In other words, I'm suggesting that there is a brash, "shouting" quality to these...one that could more than border on the offensive. The subjects are all "in our faces": is it this suggestion of invading our personal space that shocks us here? And if so, again I'd float past you that the person taking the photos has at least succeeded.
My thoughts are not defences or arguments. If it were down to just my feelings, I'd bin and ban. Mind you, if we did that to everything we cannot stomach, as a society we'd drive the stuff that threatens us underground...or at least sweep it under the carpet. Thing is, history does show that if we sweep stuff under the carpet, it has a habit of tripping us up when the pile has got too big.
My final thought is oddly one of encouragement: perhaps when we're faced with material like the above, we might just walk around our own boundaries and assess our own justifications and drives for taking the pics we do; and if this sorta stuff gives us the chance to do this, we might be wiser as a result.
As I say, I hope upon hope that my approach has not alienated any of you who have been such an encouragement to me over the past few years and that you'll see my response as being by way of exploration and evaluation.

OMG
theres a reply
soory you need to closely inspect

thanks for allllll your time

[automaton2]

Lighten up [fellow] photofiles

yikes:o

[matthew]

...Mind you, I can't help but throw this into the mix: how many of us really question exactly why we take photographs? "Should" they be beautiful...indeed, what exactly is beauty? OK, these above are not ...yet there are many folks in the forums who use their own images for a multitude of purposes, for beating their own drum about themselves, about what they consider others should feel about the environment, people, etc;. We all shoot photographs to "say something"...and as long as we keep "safe" in our material, say the same "safe" encouraging things to each other, we have the choice to remain safely unchallenged and unchanged in our output, submissions and comments. OK, many of us use this freedom of choice to harness ourselves and our talents to improve, build..even to build and encourage others. But what happens when something comes along and challenges?

Zig, would you mind starting a thread to explore this? I like where you're going with it, and think you raise excellent points. A discussion around why we photograph what we do, how we see, and the role of reaction, popularity and the grotesque in art could be interesting and valuable. I also think it's necessary to remove these particular photos from the discussion for it to have broader reach -- and I can't stand having to scroll past them to read the comments in the thread.

[Keith Alan]

Taking pictures of other human beings implies a sort of trust agreement that you won't make them look worse than they already do. People have rights and expectations.
Why is your focus always on using post-production techniques to distort and magnify their flaws?
Do you hate other people so much?

If you just want to get a reaction, I think you have already done it on the other forums you've posted the same photos to.

your dictum of trust implies your belief
I dont concur
does everyone expect beautification
not
given the people who I photograph are aware I intend to alter them
its not some usurpment of rights or expectations
its not aimed at next top or bottom model
its simply a morph

they laugh and love their mutations
even my geriatric subjects


thanks 4 reply

If this is indeed the case, why didn't you explain it to us beforehand?
Presented 'cold' with zero background info, how the heck am I supposed to gauge your intentions or your subject's reactions???
You say your subjects love their treatments--fine. I believe you. Should have said as much in the original post, right???
But when you present us with ONLY the photos and ask for our interpretations and we DON'T like them?
Isn't that just as valid?

Apparently not.

I'm glad your subjects love their morphs.
They are welcome to their opinions just as much as I am welcome to decide for myself what I like.

Why hasn't it occurred to you that critiques go both ways?
You ask us to expose ourselves by explaining what we don't like about your work, yet we don't receive the same consideration.
When was the last time that automaton2 made a carefully considered and composed critique of someone else's work?

[essaljay]

I’m sorry but I have to take exception to KeithAlanK’s last comments (02.00). You ask has it not occurred to automaton2 that critiques go both ways. I can’t see anywhere where he is objecting to any of the comments. I agree with him when he says lighten up. Once again people are confusing photographs with images. If these were presented as paintings they would be regarded as art (whether you liked them or not) so what does it matter what medium is used to put his view across?
You do say “how the heck am I supposed to gauge your intentions or your subjects reactions???” Well, quite frankly who the heck asked you to?
As far as not critiquing other member’s work maybe he feels like me that to critique is to imply that I know more than the photographer concerned.
As a final point before I leave this site for good. When it comes to ugly photos of hideous subjects I can’t think of a worse one than a firearm bearing the proud title “locked and loaded”. But there you go. That’s art for you.

[Toad]

I am very surprised and dismayed about this thread. Admittedly, Automaton2's photos are not to everyone's taste - they are highly unusual treatments of unglamorous models. I doubt that Automaton2 expects across the board praise of his/her work. Clearly, these images are intended to work at a much more visceral level.

However, I am very concerned about the reaction of this forum (reputed to be the "friendliest place on the web") to images that fall outside of the ordinary mold. Some of the critiques in this thread seem like very personal attacks to me and I sincerely hope that we not become a community that only applauds conventional ideas of beauty, composition, and art.

I am one of the longest standing members of this forum - and I have to say that this is causing me to re-evaluate my participation.

[automaton2]

I am very surprised and dismayed about this thread. Admittedly, Automaton2's photos are not to everyone's taste - they are highly unusual treatments of unglamorous models. I doubt that Automaton2 expects across the board praise of his/her work. Clearly, these images are intended to work at a much more visceral level.

However, I am very concerned about the reaction of this forum (reputed to be the "friendliest place on the web") to images that fall outside of the ordinary mold. Some of the critiques in this thread seem like very personal attacks to me and I sincerely hope that we not become a community that only applauds conventional ideas of beauty, composition, and art.

I am one of the longest standing members of this forum - and I have to say that this is causing me to re-evaluate my participation.

Sincerely
thank you
thank you for standing up for posting freedom
thanks for seeing so acutely on many levels

[matthew]

Toad, you know I respect your opinions and photographs very much. I stand by my earlier comments, questions, and reactions; lacking an artists' statement these appear to me as nothing more than an extensive use of multiple deformation filters and photoshop plug-ins. If I'm wrong, then Sontag's opinions and Arbus's pioneering images are probably well within the OP's experience and I'd like to know her answers. They could be fascinating and very educational. Unfortunately all they are is absent.

But you also raise the broader questions of the comments being personal and not suited to the community. So, are my comments personal?

Absolutely. If these images were posted by someone with broader participation in the community, or were posted by a new member who had taken the time to introduce him/her self and provide a bit of background about their efforts, I would have had a lot more to base my comments on. Instead this thread is typical of Auto's posting history; a series of photos and no further input. What is highly unusual is that she's actually returned to the thread and replied to some of the comments. I have neither the time or interest to go through them all, but it seems to be unique to this thread.

So, how about the community?

I think it's to the credit of Shuttertalk as a whole that this set of photos has gotten the responses that it has. The exact same set of images, the exact same copy-and-paste message, has also been posted on thephotoforum.com, thephotographyforum.co.uk, biorust.com, and thecreativeforum.com. Elsewhere they may get the occasional comment, nowhere else has it provoked discussion.

[Keith Alan]

As Matthew stated, these photos are posted in many places elsewhere on the web with the usual lack of background info typical of automaton2's method.

Here, we now have an actual discussion happening with the artist, and that's good.

My comments weren't about denigrating the images themselves (despite my dislike for them) but was aimed at bringing about a discussion where automaton2 actually participates instead of sitting on the sidelines watching strangers discuss her work without the background data we regularly provide each other.

To automaton2: If you truly want to belong to a group, try to meet them half-way.
Dropping some photos into a forum and then disappearing for a few months is no way to make real friends and supporters.
I'm sure I could learn a thing or three from you, but the way you post a batch of pictures and then vanish for months without leaving any background info or technical procedures will never encourage any kind of relationship-building.

[Irma]

If these pictures were not posted in this forum "Critique forum" probably I wouldn't have commented on them. I gave my comment because I believe people posting here wants to know what others think about their pictures. We all know that we are not Art critics, but we try to do our best and express our opinion to point out what we think it could be improved if there is any. Too much of the improvement in my photography nowadays has been because of this great forum, and the truthful and honest comments all of you have given to my pictures.

Toad, I have read my first comment many times and I can't see anything that could be taken to critique or attack you or your work. At the contrary, you have been one of few members if not the only one who has posted really great work in this field of digital art and photomanipulation, and I have always expressed it like this in my comments to your work. However, if there is something that it could be taken as a personal attack to you, please accept my apologies. In any case, it was not my intention.

I don't really know what to think when you place in one plate of the balance all this years we all have been together in good times and bad times, enjoying our successes and encouraging in our learning process, and in the other plate the posts in this thread....

[Toad]

Toad, I have read my first comment many times and I can't see anything that could be taken to critique or attack you or your work. At the contrary, you have been one of few members if not the only one who has posted really great work in this field of digital art and photomanipulation, and I have always expressed it like this in my comments to your work. However, if there is something that it could be taken as a personal attack to you, please accept my apologies. In any case, it was not my intention.

Sorry Irma - but I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I did not feel that anyone was commenting on my work in this thread - I was referring to comments on Autonamaton2's work - that I felt were overly personal. Since I posted that, there has been some clarifications posted. Sorry for the confusion.

Personally, I agree with Keith's post that there should be an open discussion with the artist, rather than a "hit and run" approach to forum posting. When I get a minute, I am planning to post a proper critique of these images. Once again - sorry for any confusion - my last comment in that post about reconsidering participation was inappropriate - I was having a bad day.

[Keith Alan]

I look forward to your critique of these photos, Toad.

Take your time and get it right.

[smarti77]

I love images that create an emotional response.

These images have clearly created a response so it is unusual that I do not appreciate them. I can't help but feel that these images are mocking the subjects and I find it hard to believe that they could love looking at them. I would be interesting in seeing some of the original images as I think the sixth image could be a really great portrait.

I think its great to see strong responses from different points of view. I look forward to seeing a new thread about why each of us takes photographs.

[Toad]

Autonamaton2:

I promised a proper critique of your photos in this thread - so here we go.

First of all, I have a really difficult time critiquing large groups of photos. When I critique one photo, I can analyze it for style, composition, and the subtleties that either make it a gem, or where I can see avenues for improvement. When a large group of photos like this are presented for critique, I find that I can only analyze the *style* of the artist, as there is simply too much content to do justice to the individual photos. In this critique, therefore, I am going to speak to the general style of this group - and hopefully illustrate my points with examples.

At first glance, this style is over the top. It would be simple to dismiss it as gimmicky and flamboyant and leave it there. The first time I saw your stuff a couple of years ago, my first thought was - here is someone that just learned to use PhotoShop filters and is having fun warping photos for shock effect (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with shock effect). I saw that your style remained essentially unchanged over a couple of years, and I was forced to re-evaluate, and consider that you might be working from a genuine artistic sensibility rather than merely from a position of messing around with technology. So in the spirit of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have been looking at your images a little more closely.

The first thing that strikes me about your stuff is the eyes. However extreme the modifications to the image, the eyes stand out clearly and sharply - always the central focus of the images. The eyes are said to be the windows of the soul, so it seems to me that you are attempting to have the viewer look closely into the souls of your models. At the same time, you apply filters that exaggerate any imperfections of the model such as wrinkles, blemishes and liver spots. These are very "warts and all" photos that are saying "here I am with all my perfections, but inside I am still a human". Two of my favorites images in this regard are #3 and #7 - the older women.

John Prine has a song where he says:

"If you're walking down the street some time, and you see a pair of hollow ancient eyes
Don't just pass them by and stare - as if they wasn't there
Say "hello in there..."

I think these photos work a bit like that. By accentuating the grotesque, the viewer is forced to either turn away in contempt or to recognize the inner humanity of the models - not pretty but still keenly alive.

When you do this well, you do it very well as in the 2 examples that I mentioned. I also rather like #8 where the young man looks awkwardly out at a world that he didn't create and that doesn't accept him.

My least favorite photo is #4. I don't understand what you are going for in the skin modification, and by having his eyes not only facing away from the viewer - but substantially modified, his humanity is stripped from the image - only the ugliness remains. This is unfortunate as he does not look like an ugly person. Nevertheless - this photo seems to me to be effect without substance. I feel the same way (to a lesser degree) about #1.

#6 is your most conventional portrait, and it is really quite good. The subtle distortions in many ways say more than the most overt ones, and his gaze speaks volumes. I wonder if you should consider doing more portraits like this that utilize a more subtle approach. It would be easy to apply the learnings from your more over the top stuff in a more tightly controlled environment. I suspect your friend really likes this shot. It is stylish and artistic but preserves his dignity and personal style.

I leave #2 for last as this is the photo that makes me the most uncomfortable, and for that reason is probably the most *important* photo in the group. This man does not look healthy to me. His gaze is unfocused and the exaggeration of his liver spots and roseacia speak to me of an undiagnosed problem - possibly liver disease or alcoholism. It is a very disturbing image and quite unique in the group because of the lack of spark in the model's eyes. It is not a pretty shot - it is very worrisome.

Anyway - that's my 2 bits...

[Zig]

I like the comment above about "meeting halfway"; it's not the guy's initial images that have swung me towards an opinion but his/her subsequent ill-grace: self-obsessive and attention-seeking, so:
me no playing enny more

Rob: fair point; I understand what you mean there. Don't go off anywhere, I'd miss ya buddy!
matthew: I reckon I'd have to be in just the right mood at the right time for even me to start off a thread about our raisons d'etre for snapping.(maybe after the wedding?!

[matthew]

Zig, I know what you mean about needing to be in the right mood. (When is the wedding?) I've considered starting the thread a couple of times myself; Rob's artist's statement got me thinking about it but I haven't quite gotten it together. It's just so big but at the same time it's irrelevant -- I photograph because I have a camera and enjoy using it, the deeper motivations aside. Combine that with RP's suggestion of a place to talk about photographers we like and their influences, and I'm on the verge of composing a min-essay... but where do I start?

But back to the heart of the matter: I'm active on several other boards, two of which are larger and one is smaller. This is the only forum that gets me in a spin creatively like this, and the only place where I would have a discussion about the non-technical. Eventually.

[Keith Alan]

Thanks, Toad.
That was a very thoughtful and well written critique that would be worth a few dollars if this weren't the internet.