How to closely examine a photograph

Rapscallion Many thanks for your consideration of the photo. I think I understand you to mean (sorry I am very uninformed about technical issues of photography) the bottom figure of the boys is more out of focus than the figures further up in the photo. this wouldn't happen in real life - ie the nearer the figure the clearer it is in real life. So this discrepancy makes me think the photo is faked.
Yes I get what you mean. It is a good argument.

sorry (dog with a bone comes to mind here!) What would you think about this argument: there is a zone of personal space we are all aware of. If people move into our zone of space it feels threatening. Likewise we don't move easily into someone else's personal space. The people in this image seem to be flouting that principle. It comes from a sort of soft science? (feel free to correct me on this) called Proxemics. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/understanding-personal-space-proxemics/
The photo shows people flouting this principle which may be another reason why I react to the photo in the way I do.

thank you everyone for giving me a space to think about these things and to get and incorporate other people's opinions.
I would be grateful for any opinions on this while not wishing to impose on anyone's time.
 
Thanks Ed
Thanks for the reference photo. It illustrates your point about foreground and focus. It's a really interesting image for what it implies about real life visual experience compared to what you can do with a camera. I don't think that in real life one could ever be equally aware of the two areas of focus at the same time in the way one can in your reference photo.
This plot seems to be thickening - at least to my mind.
Thankyou for the reference to Tom Wood that has led me on to Padraig Timoney.
Someone should write a book called "Down rabbit-holes with a camera".
 
Last edited:
Ealteacher said:
Rapscallion Many thanks for your consideration of the photo. I think I understand you to mean (sorry I am very uninformed about technical issues of photography) the bottom figure of the boys is more out of focus than the figures further up in the photo. this wouldn't happen in real life - ie the nearer the figure the clearer it is in real life. So this discrepancy makes me think the photo is faked.
Yes I get what you mean. It is a good argument.

sorry (dog with a bone comes to mind here!) What would you think about this argument: there is a zone of personal space we are all aware of. If people move into our zone of space it feels threatening. Likewise we don't move easily into someone else's personal space. The people in this image seem to be flouting that principle. It comes from a sort of soft science? (feel free to correct me on this) called Proxemics. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/understanding-personal-space-proxemics/
The photo shows people flouting this principle which may be another reason why I react to the photo in the way I do.

thank you everyone for giving me a space to think about these things and to get and incorporate other people's opinions.
I would be grateful for any opinions on this while not wishing to impose on anyone's time.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how accurately you can measure the personal distance given the perspective. Using a very long lens at a low angle people could appear very close but in reality be many metres apart.
Regarding proxemics, think of how you act in a lift. If you there are two people you will touch stand side by side equally spaced. As more people join space is typically equally shared (and people arranged like dots on a side). Once it is full you give up any personal space and put up with it until you leave. Similarly in sports or music crowds. The same probably happened on the beach. Once it became busy personal space could no longer be infringed in the same way if you are in an empty beach.
 
Ealteacher said:
Thanks Ed
Thanks for the reference photo. It illustrates your point about foreground and focus. It's a really interesting image for what it implies about real life visual experience compared to what you can do with a camera. I don't think that in real life one could ever be equally aware of the two areas of focus at the same time in the way one can in your reference photo.
This plot seems to be thickening - at least to my mind.
Thankyou for the reference to Tom Wood that has led me on to Padraig Timoney.
Someone should write a book called "Down rabbit-holes with a camera".
Click to expand...
Photographs and photographic seeing are fascinating to study. (y)
 
Thanks Rapscallion and Ed
as a matter of interest only and in tune with the ‘reality compared to representation‘ vibe going on here;) film scenes that show people in lifts show them standing one behind another in rows facing the door. In the real life lifts I have been in, people arrange themselves along the sides of the lift facing in - your ‘dots on a side’.
I think that
‘Once it became busy personal space could no longer be infringed in the same way if you are in an empty beach.’ might explain the closeness of some of these people to each other in that the personal space rule no longer applied.
so much to think about, so little head-space!
 
Last edited:
Ealteacher said:
So this discrepancy makes me think the photo is faked.
Click to expand...

Please stop. Now.

You've been told at least once that the photograph is genuine. Any more and you are likely to make me a little bit annoyed.
 
Steelo said:
That's fair enough, I could have worded my initial post better. However, if someone is surprised at the news agencies giving false impressions or "fake news", then I think that says more about them than the agencies. It's what they've done for years, because good news doesn't sell nothing.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I've understood what you've posted.

I think it's wrong if news agencies either deliberately or through lack of checking (and realising what's going on) mislead the public and I'm the problem?

Are you serious? If you are all I can say is you're on another planet to me Martin unless your hobby is defending the indefensible.

Of course news agencies shouldn't deliberately or through inaction (not checking) mislead the public. That seems bleedin obvious to me. They might well have been lying for years but that's no excuse. A pox on all their lying backsides and also on those who defend disgraceful practices.

I'm against media lies and manipulation and I'm the problem? :D Some peoples view just amaze me :D
 
Last edited:
I'd missed this little jem:

Steelo said:
... It's what they've done for years, because good news doesn't sell nothing.
Click to expand...

That rather displays your ignorance regarding media agencies I'm afraid.

There's at least one that deveopled their business stratergy around selling local newspaper 'good news' stories to the nationals. And they are very successful at it.
 
woof woof said:
Let me make sure I've understood what you've posted.

I think it's wrong if news agencies either deliberately or through lack of checking (and realising what's going on) mislead the public and I'm the problem?

Are you serious? If you are all I can say is you're on another planet to me Martin unless your hobby is defending the indefensible.

Of course news agencies shouldn't deliberately or through inaction (not checking) mislead the public. That seems bleedin obvious to me. They might well have been lying for years but that's no excuse. A pox on all their lying backsides and also on those who defend disgraceful practices.

I'm against media lies and manipulation and I'm the problem? :D Some peoples view just amaze me :D
Click to expand...



Bournemouth had to declare an official 'Major Incident' as a result of the number of people on the beach - and that is a photograph of it.

The beach was overcrowded. The town's resources and facilities were overwhelmed.

In what way does the photograph misrepresent that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top