First, I'll start by saying that I am Christian and I'm not personally offended by the pictures. The poster is entitled to his beliefs just as much as I am to mine.
Second, I think the group here did not apply an equal standard to what iss OK and isn't OK to post in this thread. The narrative in the original post contained both an explanation of the theme for the images as well as an expression of the photographer's personal beliefs. That was deemed acceptable (and I agree) so it should also be acceptable for others to critique not only the photographs and the theme but also back up their critique based on their point of view and beliefs.
Third, I disagree that it took guts to post these pictures. These days it seems it takes more guts for people to defend their Christian faith than those who attack it.
Fourth, I think the photographs do a decent job addressing the intended theme. There are certainly various elements applied to get the message across. However, I think the pictures look too staged and this takes away from their authenticity which I think undermines their message. In the end they look overdone and they have been given more weight simply because the theme is so "controversial".
Finally, I hope my message is clear here and not mistaken for a flame or a personal attack on anyone. I'm simply providing my views on both the photographs and their theme and pointing out that we may have unfairly applied our standards of "right" and "wrong" to posters in this thread.
easy on the text embellishment
folks, can I make one request? can we stop the use of underlining and asterisks and italics? In my time as a mod here, I can say one thing for sure - this type of accentuation does not help. it typically heats things up more than necessary. as photographers, you should all realize what a big impact visual stimuli have on your perception.
it's about the photos here, always has been, so keep the post-processing and enhancements to the photos as well!
edit: please understand, this isn't directed at any one person, I just read the whole thread in its entirety and saw lots of it.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some of you to figure out that I have NO objection to the photographs nor do I give a rat's ass for Mr. Weber's beliefs. Rather, what I object to is using this forum to express a belief system in ADDITION to his photographs. How hard is that to understand???
Bob
The photos are very well excuted....and will make you stop and think......
Did anyone think that just maybe he was just writing fiction....maybe he wasn't, I don't know as I do not know Cody personally......he was givng insight into his photos for those that would ask "WHY"...in the first place before actually viewing the photos.....do all take for absolute TRUTH the writings of Steinbeck, Hemingway or any other author (not Arthur) for that matter..........
Edit: okay posted before making it thru whole thread.....so Cody did infact state it was factual not fiction...but still even at that.....no one knew that prior to he stating it 3 pages later......I still looked upon it as a guide to the viewer......
Third, I disagree that it took guts to post these pictures. These days it seems it takes more guts for people to defend their Christian faith than those who attack it.
Erich
scratchscratchscratch
Riiiiight...because the current regime in this country has been so aggressive in persecuting you. Give me a break. Along with the war on terror your belief system has had more of an effect on public policy than anything else for the last 6 years. If I were a Muslim I'd slap you silly. Maybe it's time for chistianity to feel what they've been dishing out for the past 2000 years. I truly weep for your struggle.
...We all know how incendiary a topic is religion....
I thought your choice of words was interesting given the content of some of the photos :-)
==========
"...People kill in the name of their religion more than on any other premise...."
Just a response to the above... I think that passion is actually responsible for more deaths than religion, politics or greed. It's just that passion kills one at a time.
I take lots of pictures--sometimes I make a photograph.
I agree about having more discussion involving the photos...This might be the wrong place to suggest this, but it seems that some walls are being battered and knocked down without any appreciation as to what might be behind either side of them.
Kind of a thought for a photo challenge.
Yeah, I know, wrong place...
But still...
I like images that feel like I am the Walrus sounds.
folks, can I make one request? can we stop the use of underlining and asterisks and italics? In my time as a mod here, I can say one thing for sure - this type of accentuation does not help. it typically heats things up more than necessary. as photographers, you should all realize what a big impact visual stimuli have on your perception.
it's about the photos here, always has been, so keep the post-processing and enhancements to the photos as well!
edit: please understand, this isn't directed at any one person, I just read the whole thread in its entirety and saw lots of it.
Erik,
My intent was not to inflame. I was just trying to highlight the key points of my message since it was a bit long and I wanted to make sure the key points came through clearly.
I provided a balanced response to what the original poster presented. I discussed his photographs, theme, and motivation, and I offered my viewpoint on those. I don't believe I was offensive in doing so nor do I believe I made any personal attacks.
Now, to your comments specifically, I again take no personal offense. I can have a rational, logical, and unemotional discussion on this topic but I fear many can't which is why I think the moderators are so concerned for this thread to get out of hand.
I'm not sure what the right approach is here...there is certainly enough people who would like to discuss this. I don't think PM's back and forth are worthwhile since others won't be able to share in the discussion. Should we start a new thread in the "Big picture" forum or something?
I provided a balanced response to what the original poster presented. I discussed his photographs, theme, and motivation, and I offered my viewpoint on those. I don't believe I was offensive in doing so nor do I believe I made any personal attacks.
Now, to your comments specifically, I again take no personal offense. I can have a rational, logical, and unemotional discussion on this topic but I fear many can't which is why I think the moderators are so concerned for this thread to get out of hand.
I'm not sure what the right approach is here...there is certainly enough people who would like to discuss this. I don't think PM's back and forth are worthwhile since others won't be able to share in the discussion. Should we start a new one in the "Big picture" forum or something?
Erich
Noooooo. :nah As a card carrying heathen I would love to have a discussion on this whole topic but I just don't think Dgrin is the place for it.
In my best Monday morning quarterback mode I think we made a mistake here when we allowed some of Cody's text that accompanied his pictures. I also know that its unfair to the other side not to allow them to respond. However Dgrin is a photography forum and we should keep the discussions to the photography.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I know, but thanks for reading my suggestion and agreeing with it. Like I said, it wasn't just you, it was many... it adds up and makes for an unfriendly atmosphere.
I have a photo comment: I don't know if it was on purpose, but in all the photos that Cody posted, the text isn't really clear enough to read (I'm sure if you try hard enough, you could). Does this help or hurt the photos? Personally, I really want to read it, but I think maybe that's what makes it so interesting.
Offensive?
Hi all, I'm fairly new around here and mostly just lurk. But had to put my 2 cents in here. Cory great job on the images lighting, compositions and color cast really work. The only things that don't work for me are in the second shot the over exposed part of his shirt is a little distracting IMO. The preacher seems a little to hip with the goatee and bleached hair? Actually if I felt he was truly an evangelical preacher that would disturb me, but the images are not disturbing or offensive enough for me. I think because I see them as staged I feel skeptical of their reality maybe it's the media overload thing that makes everything seem normal after watching TV. Anyway they work for me in a theatrical way but I'm not feeling much emotional reaction? But thats just me. Have you thought about getting images of actual evangelicals... in the right context that could be very disturbing and offensive? and possibly convey what you want even more so? "Truth is stranger then fiction" just a thought. Again great job love the dialog this has opened up, and in that respect you have done a masterful job!
Cheers Bill the atheist
"going to hell in a bucket but at least I'm enjoying the ride" Grateful Dead
I have a photo comment: I don't know if it was on purpose, but in all the photos that Cody posted, the text isn't really clear enough to read (I'm sure if you try hard enough, you could). Does this help or hurt the photos? Personally, I really want to read it, but I think maybe that's what makes it so interesting.
Erik,
What text are you referring to? His logo, the MySpace URL, the description of the content?
Erik,
What text are you referring to? His logo, the MySpace URL, the description of the content?
- Mike
I'm talking about the photos - the text of the burning books. (go back a page or so, there's one that's pretty closeup, but still somewhat illegible due to the style)
I'm talking about the photos - the text of the burning books. (go back a page or so, there's one that's pretty closeup, but still somewhat illegible due to the style)
Yup, I see what you are talking about. I don't think making the text legible would be necessary to convey his message - I assume the book is the prodestant Bible and this first series is not referring to any particular belief expressed in it - in fact I believe it would be a distraction if a passage was viewable in the photos.
Next time just post "WARNING: Probably Offensive" in the title, and then hit us with the images. I know you didn't mean to, but that first post was 5-course troll-bait.
Anywho - Great images, very energetic. I prefer the ones where the preacher is higher in the composition then the secondary object. I would like to see some of these with a shallower depth of feild to invite a little more speculation - I think it would be a nice touch.
Noooooo. :nah As a card carrying heathen I would love to have a discussion on this whole topic but I just don't think Dgrin is the place for it.
In my best Monday morning quarterback mode I think we made a mistake here when we allowed some of Cody's text that accompanied his pictures. I also know that its unfair to the other side not to allow them to respond. However Dgrin is a photography forum and we should keep the discussions to the photography.
Thanks Harry. I respect that and so I withdraw my suggestion. Also, I appreciate your fair assessment of the situation.
The only things that don't work for me are in the second shot the over exposed part of his shirt is a little distracting IMO. The preacher seems a little to hip with the goatee and bleached hair? Actually if I felt he was truly an evangelical preacher that would disturb me, but the images are not disturbing or offensive enough for me. I think because I see them as staged I feel skeptical of their reality maybe it's the media overload thing that makes everything seem normal after watching TV. Anyway they work for me in a theatrical way but I'm not feeling much emotional reaction? But thats just me. Have you thought about getting images of actual evangelicals... in the right context that could be very disturbing and offensive? and possibly convey what you want even more so?
That's what I thought as well. A journalistic set of photographs like these taken from real event would convey a stronger message.
Cody, it's difficult to interpret the pictures without getting into what one believes or doesn't believe. The reason for all of the response it the subject - not the pictures.
So....let me be the oddball here. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I don't even think the pictures are very good.
You have posted these pictures on more than one forum and all of the responses are running about the same. However, there has to be a better way to get attention and/or discuss religion.
I'm sorry that you have been badgered with religion. Faith, or lack thereof, is something that everyone has to figure out for themselves. It won't happen here! Good luck in your journey.
Although I'd say that technically the photos are well done with regards to exposure, lighting, DOF, and focus -I like the fire in #2!-, they really look amateurish in composition. It sorta seems to me like you caught a rehearsal of a highschool play. The two models are way too "hip" looking to appear as preacher and believer. Their expressions are perhaps a little too comical and therefore don't bring as much force to the image. Obviously there is strong artistic intent, way better than most of the "stock" photography we see here, and better than anything I'll do any time soon, but I don't think it was carried off well.
Good go! Looking forward to more. Seen any other photos lately that have generated artistic discussions vice technical ones?
VI
Ahhh...what is art?
dgrin.com - making my best shots even better since 2006.
I dig it. Cool shoot Cody. Don;t ever be afraid to make a statement, regardless of whether you believe in it or not. Stirring the pot is always a good thing, especially with photography.
Absolutely! I think you'll find photographers about the most open minded people in the world. I'm no Ronald Reagan fan, but one his quotes I love:
"I like photographers. You don't ask questions."
Remember that "controversial" book of sexy Madonna photos? Guess who shot that? Steven Meisel. Guess where Steven works these days? Yup, as one of the top shooters for Vogue. Always pursue your vision-- always!
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I don't really care as much as I don't understand. Heh.
Cody Weber Photography.
Gallery -- Journal
Second, I think the group here did not apply an equal standard to what iss OK and isn't OK to post in this thread. The narrative in the original post contained both an explanation of the theme for the images as well as an expression of the photographer's personal beliefs. That was deemed acceptable (and I agree) so it should also be acceptable for others to critique not only the photographs and the theme but also back up their critique based on their point of view and beliefs.
Third, I disagree that it took guts to post these pictures. These days it seems it takes more guts for people to defend their Christian faith than those who attack it.
Fourth, I think the photographs do a decent job addressing the intended theme. There are certainly various elements applied to get the message across. However, I think the pictures look too staged and this takes away from their authenticity which I think undermines their message. In the end they look overdone and they have been given more weight simply because the theme is so "controversial".
Finally, I hope my message is clear here and not mistaken for a flame or a personal attack on anyone. I'm simply providing my views on both the photographs and their theme and pointing out that we may have unfairly applied our standards of "right" and "wrong" to posters in this thread.
Erich
folks, can I make one request? can we stop the use of underlining and asterisks and italics? In my time as a mod here, I can say one thing for sure - this type of accentuation does not help. it typically heats things up more than necessary. as photographers, you should all realize what a big impact visual stimuli have on your perception.
it's about the photos here, always has been, so keep the post-processing and enhancements to the photos as well!
edit: please understand, this isn't directed at any one person, I just read the whole thread in its entirety and saw lots of it.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Did anyone think that just maybe he was just writing fiction....maybe he wasn't, I don't know as I do not know Cody personally......he was givng insight into his photos for those that would ask "WHY"...in the first place before actually viewing the photos.....do all take for absolute TRUTH the writings of Steinbeck, Hemingway or any other author (not Arthur) for that matter..........
Edit: okay posted before making it thru whole thread.....so Cody did infact state it was factual not fiction...but still even at that.....no one knew that prior to he stating it 3 pages later......I still looked upon it as a guide to the viewer......
Riiiiight...because the current regime in this country has been so aggressive in persecuting you. Give me a break. Along with the war on terror your belief system has had more of an effect on public policy than anything else for the last 6 years. If I were a Muslim I'd slap you silly. Maybe it's time for chistianity to feel what they've been dishing out for the past 2000 years. I truly weep for your struggle.
I thought your choice of words was interesting given the content of some of the photos :-)
==========
"...People kill in the name of their religion more than on any other premise...."
Just a response to the above... I think that passion is actually responsible for more deaths than religion, politics or greed. It's just that passion kills one at a time.
http://leeper.smugmug.com/
and I thought we agreed we'd talk more about art and less about religion
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Kind of a thought for a photo challenge.
Yeah, I know, wrong place...
But still...
That's the ever popular finger mustache emoticon. Sheesh!
Maaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuum...erich6 started it.
Erik,
My intent was not to inflame. I was just trying to highlight the key points of my message since it was a bit long and I wanted to make sure the key points came through clearly.
I've taken the undelines and italics off.
Erich
Truth,
I provided a balanced response to what the original poster presented. I discussed his photographs, theme, and motivation, and I offered my viewpoint on those. I don't believe I was offensive in doing so nor do I believe I made any personal attacks.
Now, to your comments specifically, I again take no personal offense. I can have a rational, logical, and unemotional discussion on this topic but I fear many can't which is why I think the moderators are so concerned for this thread to get out of hand.
I'm not sure what the right approach is here...there is certainly enough people who would like to discuss this. I don't think PM's back and forth are worthwhile since others won't be able to share in the discussion. Should we start a new thread in the "Big picture" forum or something?
Erich
Noooooo. :nah As a card carrying heathen I would love to have a discussion on this whole topic but I just don't think Dgrin is the place for it.
In my best Monday morning quarterback mode I think we made a mistake here when we allowed some of Cody's text that accompanied his pictures. I also know that its unfair to the other side not to allow them to respond. However Dgrin is a photography forum and we should keep the discussions to the photography.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
What Harry said. good form
I have a photo comment: I don't know if it was on purpose, but in all the photos that Cody posted, the text isn't really clear enough to read (I'm sure if you try hard enough, you could). Does this help or hurt the photos? Personally, I really want to read it, but I think maybe that's what makes it so interesting.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Hi all, I'm fairly new around here and mostly just lurk. But had to put my 2 cents in here. Cory great job on the images lighting, compositions and color cast really work. The only things that don't work for me are in the second shot the over exposed part of his shirt is a little distracting IMO. The preacher seems a little to hip with the goatee and bleached hair?
Cheers Bill the atheist
"going to hell in a bucket but at least I'm enjoying the ride"
Grateful Dead
Erik,
What text are you referring to? His logo, the MySpace URL, the description of the content?
- Mike
IR Modified Sony F717
http://2H2OPhoto.smugmug.com
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Yup, I see what you are talking about. I don't think making the text legible would be necessary to convey his message - I assume the book is the prodestant Bible and this first series is not referring to any particular belief expressed in it - in fact I believe it would be a distraction if a passage was viewable in the photos.
- Mike
IR Modified Sony F717
http://2H2OPhoto.smugmug.com
Next time just post "WARNING: Probably Offensive" in the title, and then hit us with the images. I know you didn't mean to, but that first post was 5-course troll-bait.
Anywho - Great images, very energetic. I prefer the ones where the preacher is higher in the composition then the secondary object. I would like to see some of these with a shallower depth of feild to invite a little more speculation - I think it would be a nice touch.
Thanks Harry. I respect that and so I withdraw my suggestion. Also, I appreciate your fair assessment of the situation.
Regards,
Erich
Erich
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
i really like your style!
Canon Rebel XT
Sorry, waxie.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
So....let me be the oddball here. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I don't even think the pictures are very good.
You have posted these pictures on more than one forum and all of the responses are running about the same. However, there has to be a better way to get attention and/or discuss religion.
I'm sorry that you have been badgered with religion. Faith, or lack thereof, is something that everyone has to figure out for themselves. It won't happen here! Good luck in your journey.
Peace.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Good go! Looking forward to more. Seen any other photos lately that have generated artistic discussions vice technical ones?
VI
Ahhh...what is art?
Absolutely! I think you'll find photographers about the most open minded people in the world. I'm no Ronald Reagan fan, but one his quotes I love:
"I like photographers. You don't ask questions."
Remember that "controversial" book of sexy Madonna photos? Guess who shot that? Steven Meisel. Guess where Steven works these days? Yup, as one of the top shooters for Vogue. Always pursue your vision-- always!
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+