Working girls overtime

torags

Vegas 6:30am

bdcolen

And we know that's what this is...how?

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

And we know that's what this is...how?

Well, we could draw a conclusion that it is Vegas @ 6:30am and the streets were empty (as the image shows).

or it could be because I approached them to ask which way does the sun rise, (her john was put off to say the least) . She was very nice & told me north which allowed me to get to a free east shot, and I drew my own conclusion.

Ahhh... the beat goes on...

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

Well, we could draw a conclusion that it is Vegas @ 6:30am and the streets were empty (as the image shows).

or it could be because I approached them to ask which way does the sun rise, (her john was put off to say the least) . She was very nice & told me north which allowed me to get to a free east shot, and I drew my own conclusion.

Ahhh... the beat goes on...

Yup. The question was how you know she was a prostitute, which your caption states. We have a photo, taken from a distance, from behind, of a man and woman walking down the street. But...

torags

That's a fair comment. Point well taken.

I guess I'm just supporting stereotypes

I gotta work on the question. Next time I have to ask,"Are you a prostitute? Can I take your picture?"

It's going to be tough for me but.....

Thanks for looking ... really... (you keep me on my toes.. )

richardman

Torags, if I may jump in. Forget about the title, a picture needs to be strong regardless the title. If I may also, the image is not strong, even with the title. This is photo of 2 people walking down the street at night. There is nothing that says, "ask me about this photo" with this photo. Sorry to be blunt.

torags

No problem Richard.

I'll have to disagree. A caption can frame an image. PJ work has words associated with images to fulfill the viewers mental curiosity; to include but not limited to information about the subject, environment, etc.

Case in point: Oakland Demonstration. Without the caption the uproar could be happening in New York.

I see a lot of caption-less street pix of pedestrian traffic, that are no more than boring snapshots.

IMO

richardman

Torags, in your opinions, how are your photos rising above the tide?

We can disagree on the caption, but your example just shows that the caption tells you something about the location, which is fine, but it does not add to the impact of the images, which is exactly the point.

torags wrote: »

No problem Richard.

I'll have to disagree. A caption can frame an image. PJ work has words associated with images to fulfill the viewers mental curiosity; to include but not limited to information about the subject, environment, etc.

Case in point: Oakland Demonstration. Without the caption the uproar could be happening in New York.

I see a lot of caption-less street pix of pedestrian traffic, that are no more than boring snapshots.

IMO

torags

The caption issue had me think. It occurred to me that the viewers had never been to Las Vegas.

Las Vegas gets about 40 million tourists per year. Tourists take pictures, say 10 per tourist. Arguably they take 400 million photos. Most are of friends , many from hotel rooms of the city's lights. During the day the streets are packed with tourists, 10 wide; with never ending car traffic.

Images of empty Las Vegas streets are unique and very rare. That's why the empty streets takes so much image real estate in the pictures; they are as much a part of the subject as the people (who are a small part)

My failure was a poor caption. It should have been "Vegas Empty Streets:Working Girls Overtime"

That said, some will like my work, some won't - it is what it is...

jonh68

torags wrote: »

No problem Richard.

I'll have to disagree. A caption can frame an image. PJ work has words associated with images to fulfill the viewers mental curiosity; to include but not limited to information about the subject, environment, etc.

Case in point: Oakland Demonstration. Without the caption the uproar could be happening in New York.

I see a lot of caption-less street pix of pedestrian traffic, that are no more than boring snapshots.

IMO

But your caption fails in pj captioning. Unless you actually interviewed her about why she was on the streets at 6:30 am, or saw her in "action", you are making an implication with your title that isn't true. The most you could caption is couple walks Las Vegas streets at 6:30 am.

Lets turn the tables and someone gets a photo of you taking pictures of women early in the morning. They title it "Early Morning Pervert".

If you do not know for certain, pj captioning doesn't make implications, it states the facts.

torags

jonh68 wrote: »

But your caption fails in pj captioning. Unless you actually interviewed her about why she was on the streets at 6:30 am, or saw her in "action", you are making an implication with your title that isn't true. The most you could caption is couple walks Las Vegas streets at 6:30 am.

Lets turn the tables and someone gets a photo of you taking pictures of women early in the morning. They title it "Early Morning Pervert".

If you do not know for certain, pj captioning doesn't make implications, it states the facts.

I've been around a long time and in my lifetime that is not necessary.

The media (pj & tv) may have a certain point of view the reporter advocates. Many times they avoid the facts or misuse them to come to a conclusion the is not the results of facts. You see examples of this daily on political tv.

I'll never forget Pres Dwight Eisenhower (on tv) sitting next to a Polaris missile head saying the US launched the projectile into space. It was a lie, an absolute lie (discovered after his death). He did it because the US was falling behind the Russians, in the space race.

This is a picture of a women on the same street a few minutes away. Without an interview, I would call her a jogger and not a working girl.

M38A1

How do you know the jogger isn't a pro-triathlete and running is her job, therefore working? (couldn't resist.... sorry)

This pj title thing is new to me, and honestly up until a post or two above never made the connection between the image and fact based reporting. Maybe we need a separate thread for us rookies as I apparently see dead people too.

.

jonh68

torags wrote: »

I've been around a long time and in my lifetime that is not necessary.

The media (pj & tv) may have a certain point of view the reporter advocates. Many times they avoid the facts or misuse them to come to a conclusion the is not the results of facts. You see examples of this daily on political tv.

I'll never forget Pres Dwight Eisenhower (on tv) sitting next to a Polaris missile head saying the US launched the projectile into space. It was a lie, an absolute lie (discovered after his death). He did it because the US was falling behind the Russians, in the space race.

This is a picture of a women on the same street a few minutes away. Without an interview, I would call her a jogger and not a working girl.

Why not say she is a working girl running to her next trick?

Being accurate with your captioning isn't necessary with pj work?


Being IN the media business, I know how pj work goes. When you caption/title your picture the way you have without knowing the facts, it isn't pj work anymore. With your original title and picture, you are putting into context what is happening in the scene that may or may not be true. That ISN'T photojournalism and belongs in another genre.