Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 02 Jul 2014 (Wednesday) 21:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Thoughts on people using a cut off animals head in photos?

 
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jul 04, 2014 09:52 |  #16

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17010397 (external link)
If you can't get their attention with talent, shock them instead.

That's the way I see this type of behavior.

People often say "wow" about Madonna and Howard Stern. What geniuses, right?

No. The way I see it is that we were doing the same, immature disgusting things with our friends during middle school (making sexual jokes, walking around in wedgie underwear to make friends laugh, farting in someone's face, etc.). The difference is that some people do it in public when they are adults (again, Howard Stern, Andrew Dice Clay...the list goes on) and crowds eat it up because they miss those immature days during the wild ride of puberty.

Some of us grew up and don't need to shock others to get attention.

I'm not referring to the images here (like I said, I haven't seen them), but I think it's a little bit wrong to completely dismiss the talent of the people that you've mentioned. See, here's the thing: being "shocking" is not hard. It's about the easiest thing a person can do. If it were that easy to become extremely successful just by being shocking, then a hell of a lot more people would be doing it. The ones that people are talking about are the ones who are good at it, and yes that does require talent. Anyone can tell a dirty joke and cuss a lot, but most of them can't hold an audience's attention as well as Andrew Dice Clay.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 04, 2014 10:41 |  #17

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17009298 (external link)
Mmmmm Soused Hogs face. Delicious. Head cheese, Scrapple... yummy stuff.

Farm boy, and we ate every part.

Careful, Jake! After all, you are what you eat.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,811 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4922
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jul 04, 2014 10:48 |  #18

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17009298 (external link)
Mmmmm Soused Hogs face. Delicious. Head cheese, Scrapple... yummy stuff.

Farm boy, and we ate every part.

Scrapple . . . yummmm!

I grew up in Philly, and ate scrapple regularly. I can't even get it out here in the west. Folks out here have never even heard of it. I miss scrapple (and yes, I do know what's in it).


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 289
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jul 04, 2014 11:04 |  #19

Is it really that different to taking a picture of someone with a spare rib, steak or perhaps those heathens who eat cut off chicken legs and cook them in a finger licking good batter?


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jul 04, 2014 11:07 |  #20

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17011268 (external link)
Is it really that different to taking a picture of someone with a spare rib, steak or perhaps those heathens who eat cut off chicken legs and cook them in a finger licking good batter?

Yes, it is really different.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Jul 04, 2014 11:31 |  #21

JeffreyG wrote in post #17011271 (external link)
Yes, it is really different.

How so? Because one you can more easily convince yourself that it doesn't come from a formerly living being that could feel pain, express basic emotions, etc?

I'm well aware of where my bacon comes from, and have eaten more than a few animals that I had helped feed and played with, but I don't lie to myself about what happens to bring tasty food to my plate.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jul 04, 2014 11:48 |  #22

Luckless wrote in post #17011294 (external link)
How so?

In your hypothetical case, the animal was killed to provide food. Whether you agree with this or not, that was why the animal was killed, and its appearance in the photograph is incidental to the subject, which is a person who is eating. The point of the photo isn't "Hey, look at this carcass." It is about the person.

In the second case, whatever reason the animal was killed, the head is being used for sport, for a prop, as a laugh. The photograph is about the carcass. Nobody in the photo is eating the animal and the reason for the animal's death is at the least obscure.

You asked what the difference is, and in my mind that is the difference and it is significant.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,508 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7386
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Jul 04, 2014 11:51 |  #23

I'd react very differently to a photo of someone with bloody animal parts if it were made to educate people who want to learn butchering than if it were made because someone thought it was entertaining. In the second case, I'd choose to stay away from the person. Preoccupation with death, mutilation, dismemberment, and blood is a sign of going too deeply into the darkside.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jul 04, 2014 11:54 |  #24

OhLook wrote in post #17011320 (external link)
I'd react very differently to a photo of someone with bloody animal parts if it were made to educate people who want to learn butchering than if it were made because someone thought it was entertaining. In the second case, I'd choose to stay away from the person. Preoccupation with death, mutilation, dismemberment, and blood is a sign of going too deeply into the darkside.

My point exactly. I would expect a bunch of photographers at the least to understand that the subject and purpose of a photo is more important than just what is in it.

As you noted, there are all kinds of reasons you could have a photo with a dead hog (or parts of a dead hog) in it. One could be a shot of people enjoying a barbecue. Another could be a manual on hog butchering. Or a third could be some kind of macabre death scene.

Just because a dead hog is in all three images doesn't make them similar.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jul 04, 2014 13:24 |  #25

JeffreyG wrote in post #17011324 (external link)
My point exactly. I would expect a bunch of photographers at the least to understand that the subject and purpose of a photo is more important than just what is in it.

As you noted, there are all kinds of reasons you could have a photo with a dead hog (or parts of a dead hog) in it. One could be a shot of people enjoying a barbecue. Another could be a manual on hog butchering. Or a third could be some kind of macabre death scene.

Just because a dead hog is in all three images doesn't make them similar.

What's mindboggling is how a bunch of photographers are discussing the subject and purpose of a photo that hasn't even been shown. Until we see the image, how can anyone know what the image is saying? People here are posting comments expressing that such photographs are tasteless or disrespectful, and that the photographers are being shocking in order to compensate for a lack of talent, but I genuinely want to know how anyone can have a basis for making these claims without seeing the photographs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Apricane
Shooting the breeze
Avatar
1,412 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 1308
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Canada's Federal Capital
     
Jul 04, 2014 14:25 |  #26

Clean Gene wrote in post #17011476 (external link)
What's mindboggling is how a bunch of photographers are discussing the subject and purpose of a photo that hasn't even been shown. Until we see the image, how can anyone know what the image is saying? People here are posting comments expressing that such photographs are tasteless or disrespectful, and that the photographers are being shocking in order to compensate for a lack of talent, but I genuinely want to know how anyone can have a basis for making these claims without seeing the photographs.

Although I'd also like to see the photograph, I don't know how it is necessary to do so in this case, as what is being discussed are principles regarding the acceptable use/representation of dead animals in photographs, in general.

Yes, the specific photo the OP is mentioning may be interesting, but it does not detract from the more general discussion not to see it. It may make it easier, if anything.


Apricane IG Portraits (external link) IG Travel/Street (external link)
Capture One | Affinity Photo | ACDSee | Bridge
a7 III | 35 ƒ1.8 | 55 ƒ1.8 ZA | 85 ƒ1.8 | E 70-350 G
EOS M6 | 22 ƒ2 | 40 ƒ2.8 | 100 ƒ2.8L | 15-85 // EOS RP | ∑24-105 ƒ4A

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,985 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 7802
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 04, 2014 14:55 |  #27

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17011250 (external link)
Scrapple . . . yummmm!

I grew up in Philly, and ate scrapple regularly. I can't even get it out here in the west. Folks out here have never even heard of it. I miss scrapple (and yes, I do know what's in it).

It's still a regular breakfast item for me. I can get it frozen at the grocery store (Jones) but it sure doesn't compare to what my old Mom used to make on the farm from our own hogs.

With two eggs over light, It'd be a toss up between scrapple and really good home made corned beef hash for my perfect breakfast.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,985 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 7802
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 04, 2014 14:56 |  #28

JeffreyG wrote in post #17011313 (external link)
In your hypothetical case, the animal was killed to provide food. Whether you agree with this or not, that was why the animal was killed, and its appearance in the photograph is incidental to the subject, which is a person who is eating. The point of the photo isn't "Hey, look at this carcass." It is about the person.

In the second case, whatever reason the animal was killed, the head is being used for sport, for a prop, as a laugh. The photograph is about the carcass. Nobody in the photo is eating the animal and the reason for the animal's death is at the least obscure.

You asked what the difference is, and in my mind that is the difference and it is significant.

I see your point, but, I think it's about 100% likely the pig in question was eaten.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Jul 04, 2014 17:48 as a reply to  @ CyberDyneSystems's post |  #29

I guess it's almost like a disrpectful thing. We all (well mostly) love eating chicken, and certainly know they are "slaughtered", but how many want to see a picture of one running around after it's head had just been chopped off?

Yeah, we kill animals to eat.. but, do we..or should we..make make complete light of that? When i was a teen, i would have positively said.. "why not"!?!?

Now as i approach 50, i don't see the humor (and i have a pretty good, and pretty dark/raunchy/dirty, etc. sense of humor).

As i said earlier, though.. to each their own. ;) I like horror movies, some don't.

**And BTW.. i'm not a tree-hugger, nor a PETA-type person** :p


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,985 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 7802
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 04, 2014 18:16 |  #30

Well I agree there, I don't see the humor or aesthetic value either. Kind of stupid and kind of sick.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,986 views & 0 likes for this thread
Thoughts on people using a cut off animals head in photos?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dln1001
948 guests, 330 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.