Hey, there! Log in / Register
Expressive sad people on the T
By adamg on Thu, 04/30/2015 - 8:02am
B.D. Colen posts 58 photos of people being completely alone despite being crammed into MBTA subway cars. Most seem sad, one does a good imitation of Uncle Fester from the Addams Family.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Not to mention
There's a decent Cousin Itt in there too
One nitpick: it's BD Colen
One nitpick: it's BD Colen (not Cohen).
Not a nitpick, and thanks
Fixed.
How are some of these people
How are some of these people "alone" while being photographed sucking face or cuddling?
Not all the same theme
It's more like a montage of what you'll see riding the T over the course of a few months. Some really great photos in there!
Missing a few
Like people shaving and picking their toenails, not to mention nobody with a snake around their neck.
A very neat collection overall and a few stars in there.
RE: How are some of these people "alone?"
From the photographer's Statement (there is a link on the bottom left side of the page):
"Perhaps the answer to this chicken and egg conundrum may be found in the behavior of couples, who though they have connectedness, are in that connectedness as isolated as any individual, seemingly oblivious to those around them who can watch what they are doing, hear what they are saying, and marvel at the egocentricity of it all."
or...
...that girl should be with me and not that guy.
Is the photograher projecting his own feelings?
How does he/she know what's going on in those people's head? Maybe they have a toothache, are tired, their dog just died. And why wouldn't people be grumpy on crowded trains?
Also, did the photographer secretly photograph these people? Am I the only person who has an issue with someone secretly photographing other people on a crowded train, or even doing it in plain view?
T passengers are in public.
T passengers are in public. No expectation of privacy.
I assume then you have an issue with all the surveillance cameras on the trains, buses and platforms?
alternate point of view
There's no expectation of privacy while on the T, however I would hope we can still expect some modicum of common courtesy. Some people may not appreciate having their face photographed and posted to the internet without their consent... while exhausted and riding the T after a long day at work, for instance. Or, perhaps they were deep in thought and just do not wish to have that kind of invasion of privacy. This person is taking people's pictures for entertainment value while the T is recording passengers for security reasons.
Perhaps it's fine for you to be secretly photographed by strangers for anyone's online consumption and/or judgement. I've had people stick a camera in my face when out in public having a private conversation... it's plain rude. Ask first. I've seen old men take pictures of little kids at public parks despite the mother's objections -- that's twisted. Okay, it's legal, but would you want people taking pictures of your little kids after you told them to stop? Please try to think of it from the point of view of the person who is secretly being photographed and having their image reproduced online without their consent.
Agreed entirely
It's obnoxious, and the artistic point is inane. Of course you can find people on the T who look tired or just have a kind of blank look. I really don't think this says much about the human condition other than, "sometimes people are tired after work."
Saul,
Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. And legal or not, if I discovered someone secretly photographing me, especially on a train, they would have some serious explaining to do, I would absolutely 'make a scene', if not worse.
Well, then, thank goodness
Well, then, thank goodness all those surveillance cameras would likely catch you assaulting your fellow passenger.
It's sure easy to be a tough guy as an Internet anon.
Almost as easy...
...as it is to be a know-it-all internet lawyer.
I abhor my picture taken and
I abhor my picture taken and will do anything to get out of it. If I noticed someone taking my picture on a train, I'd ask them what it is for and then ask them to stop and delete the photo. I'd try at least to ask reasonably. I am aware what is actually legal and not, but I would find it an invasion of my privacy. I'd ask the photographer if I saw my image in this album to remove it. If he is a decent and professional photographer, he would most likely oblige.
Surveillance cameras and such are not focusing on me personally, they capture areas. Of course if I did something to garner the attention, I would expect a camera focused on me. But going about my day, I do not wish to be a part of someones photo album and would request they not use my image.
I guess that's all I could do.
Sadness vs. being alone
The photographer doesn't say anything about sadness in his photographer's statement - he's all about observing how alone people look when surrounded by other people.
I wrote "sad" because it seemed like that was the emotion on the faces of so many (but certainly not all) of the people whose photos he put in the display.
jerk photographers
he admits he's taking people's photos and publishing them, without their permission. he just wraps it in some artisty-sounding b.s.
No permission is needed to
No permission is needed to record your image when you're in a public space.
just because something is legal doesn't mean it's nice or decent
every time someone complains about a 'street photographer' or similar being rude or invasive, someone jumps in to say it's LEGALLY permitted in that jurisdiction.
Legal and right are not the same
He is breaking no laws with his photos. (Well, if he is selling them he's violating the T's photo policy.) But just because something is legal doesn't make it right. In the case of these photos, some of which are somewhat close and detailed, it would have been better for him to ask permission even if he has no obligation to do so.
If the images are sold as art
If the images are sold as art, that's not commercial use and is not violating any policy.
Did any of the great street photographers of the past ask permission of their subjects?
If the images are sold
Then the photographer is going into the realm of likeness rights.
I'm no IP lawyer (or any lawyer, for that matter) but if the subjects got wind that photos of them were being sold without their permission, there might be a case.
This is a moot discussion, as
This is a moot discussion, as the images in question are not for sale on the site in question.
Not a moot discussion
The question is whether one has the right to photograph someone without their permission. I merely noted a point where a photographer could get into trouble.
You are taking this way too personal. The photos are good, but are you really going to say that if you were on the Green Line and someone a little bit away took out their Nikon and pointed it at you, you wouldn't be a bit chagrined?
Nope
There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on the T.
There's no endorsement of a product in these photos, so there's no right of publicity concerns.
There's nothing defamatory about these pictures, so there's no case of defamation.
If this artist wanted to sell these photos commercially, the people in them would have no recourse to stop him or her.
citation please
citation please
Did he get a permit?
According to the T's photo policy if he wishes to sell the photos he needs a permit or he needs to be documented news media.
Commercial work is anything which is sold, "art" photos or not.
Commercial work is anything
Not all courts would agree with you on that one. Look up Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/arts/17iht-lorca.html
"Commercial" is typically interpreted to mean as endorsing or selling a product or service, not simply whether money is involved.
If the question were whether money were involved, then any photo printed in a newspaper would constitute "commercial", since surely said photo is contributing to the newspaper's value to advertisers who are paying to advertise and readers who are paying to read.
Re: legal but not right, couldn't agree more
I understand that public places are public places, but there is a huge difference between capturing somebody by surveillance camera -- in a sea of images that will probably never be available to most viewers -- and prominently displaying an intimate photo in a public forum for anybody who wants to see it. I love photography, too, but taking photos without permission has always seemed like an egregious personal violation to me. It might be different if people are captured in the background of something, or in a group shot, or if they are engaging in some kind of public performance. Some of these images, though beautiful and interesting, are quite intrusive.
I agree
I think these images are incredibly intrusive. I know no laws are being broken, but I think these are slimey. Even more so, since T passengers are held captive and can't really go anywhere to escape being filmed. It's really a violation of personal space.
Up-skirting was legal too, until recently. Legal doesn't make it right. Show some respect.
There is a difference
If you can't tell the difference between photography and upskirting, maybe you should avoid leaving your house.
In public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, except inside ones clothing.
There is also a difference in our interpretations of "in public"
If you can't tell the difference between being a face in the crowd, in public and moving in real time, vs. having your face reproduced and widely disseminated, in extreme close-up, for anybody to access at any time, then I certainly hope you don't travel with a camera.
You're right.
You're right.
I propose that the T immediately enact a policy forbidding use of any lens over 50mm and any subject-to-camera distance less than 10 feet.
I also propose legislation limiting newspaper print runs to 20, because anything larger constitutes potential wide dissemination of permission-less images taken in public.
Wear a hijab then
These "rules" are ridiculous. If you don't want it seen, cover it and don't take it out.
Sorry, but that is actually the law, and it is actually reasonable. You are not entitled to what you think you are.
LOL
Yeah, I'm pretty sure those "rules" were actually saracasm pointed in my general direction.
The problem with all you internet legal experts..
...is that you're responding to comments that don't say, "That isn't legal". Instead, they say, "Wow, what a jerk." And your only response to the observation that someone is acting like a jerk is to say, over and over again like a broken record, "It's legal, it's legal, it's leeeegal." How many people are going to have to say to you, "Yes, I know it's legal, I didn't say it wasn't" before it sinks in?
As a woman, if I see a man
As a woman, if I see a man secretly taking my photograph while I'm on the T, I will consider that intrusive and an invasion of my privacy. You, swrrlygrrl, do not have the right to dictate what I personally feel is intrusive and inappropriate.
And you do not have the right
And you do not have the right to dictate what is legal.
Wrong. I do have the right to
Wrong. I do have the right to dictate what is right for me.
What a weird comment.
What a weird comment. Dictate, no, but citizens have every right to draft bills, attempt to enlist legislators, organize referenda, etc, to shape the laws of the Commonwealth. And the first step in that is often talking up the issue with a bunch of people and saying, "There oughta be a law." If citizens feel that this sort of photography is an invasion of privacy and should be criminalized, they are perfectly welcome to proceed with attempting to criminalize it, and see if anybody else agrees with them.
Just because it is legal
Doesn't mean people can't feel that it is intrusive, which is what people are saying. However, in my experience, photographers are sensitive to this and will not continue taking pictures if the person is uncomfortable. I've asked people to stop and no one had a problem with it.
Not secretly
While most of these people were oblivious to their photos being taken, they were not taken secretively. If they were, by means of a hidden camera for example, you might have an invasion of privacy (although in this case, you actually still wouldn't even with a hidden camera as nothing was done in these photos to invade privacy).
Maybe the problem here is that people think that they should be able to go about their daily business in a bubble, unaffected and unaffecting the world around them. We use headphones, phones, sunglasses, books, and lots of other means to wrap ourselves up even when we go out in public. We have *our* thing to do and you have *your* thing to do and never the twain shall meet. But that is just not the case and something like these photos makes us have to examine this unreasonable expectation we've cocooned ourselves into thinking should be the way we act and interact in public.
Maybe that's exactly what causes this sense of loneliness in most of these pictures. People isolate themselves even though they're surrounded by others because that's what we've grown accustomed to doing and we don't even realize what it's putting on our faces as a result.
Hi Miki
Back for more?
The right to be left alone does matter.
And probably trumps the right to be an art school photo pest with artists statements.
There is so much great material out there without bothering the monkeys and we are awash in style over substance monkey dreck from selfies to fat photo albums of monkey conclaves across our busy and important urban calendar.
I'm having a great time sharing the simple divinity of a living planet and the traces monkeys leave, sans monkeys, without complicating content craft with sneakiness. Monkey appearances are incidental and random.
A good large sensor is killer and processing is largely a minor afterthought. I'm trying to give friends afar a sense of what it looks like here. The non profits I try and support clutter their sites with monkey shots while I cover the places they presumably are protecting.
They must assume they can attract more donors and volunteers with happy monkey groups. The data I get suggests this is a dim conceit. My stuff has hit more than 4.7 million views in the system I use so I guess it's appealing to someone and no one has asked me to do more monkey stuff.
You might be morally right, but you're legally wrong
Public spaces are public spaces and photography is legal there. You may recall the upskirter guy who got his case dismissed because the state law on objectionable photos only addressed private areas such as bathrooms and bedrooms, not trolleys - and how the legislature dealt with that by quickly passing a law that narrowly defines what can still be considered private in public - basically the same things the old law barred in private spaces, such as genitals and breasts, but not faces.
Then there's New York State, where courts have ruled a photographer can aim a telephoto lens into people's apartments under the First Amendment.
Right, but the use of the person's likeness is what matters
It's not that cut-and-dry. A subject does not have an expectation of privacy in public, but that doesn't mean the photographer doesn't need permission to use the subject's likeness. Permission is required to use a subject's likeness when the use will be to promote a product, service, or idea. Although the photos are being used to promote 1) an idea ("Alone. Together") and 2) the photographer's work, it is more likely that the photographer is protected by the First Amendment for creating an artistic expression.
Permission
No permission needed to catcall a woman or use racial slurs against a person of color, either. And as long as there's no contact or injury, it's not illegal, either. So it's all super great and acceptable, right?
Are you serious?
Taking a photo doesn't threaten violence.
Catcalling is a threat.
Try again.
Wrong
Catcalling is a compliment. What's wrong with you? Take a compliment! Are you PMSing or something?
And would it kill you to
And would it kill you to smile?
Permission is required
to maintain propriety. It would be rude to not ask permission.
Street photography has been
Street photography has been around as long as photography itself. He's not doing anything wrong.
A reflection of photoshop, not the subjects
Normally I like these sorts of documentaries but in this case it appears that he is taking photo manipulation too far. His statement is poetic about people feeling alone but the content photos do not reflect this.
If you think about these photos as taken from the camera -- in color, not exaggerated contrast, etc then it looks like normal people riding the T to work. They don't look sad or alone, they look like they are taking the T and would just as well not have their picture be taken. (The photographer makes a point of not asking them, according to his statement.)
It's important as a documentary photographer to let the subjects tell a story. In the case of this work the story seems to be forced by photo manipulation.
I can only see the first photo....
... but see no sign there of undue photoshopping.
All photography is
All photography is manipulated, whether by conscious decision or not.
If I put a 300mm lens on I'm going to get a perspective not visible from the naked eye. If I shoot at f/1.7 I'm going to get a much shallower depth-of-field than what I'd see with my naked eye.
Back before digital, my choice of film and developing and printing technique would affect the contrast, saturation and color (or lack thereof, for b/w film) and change the image drastically from what I saw with my naked eye.
Of course
You can't have photography without manipulation. But do you use manipulation to enhance the subjects, their views, etc or do you use the manipulation to reinforce your own bias and ideas. Obviously there is going to be a mixing of the two. This is much like written reporting where you have reporters who are pushing a specific agenda (fox news) vs those who try not to let their bias get in the way of their reporting (Uhub).
A good photojournalist manipulates the photo to tell the news. A bad photojournalist tries to make the news.
What's the news here? Random
What's the news here? Random passengers ride the T, in their own little world?
(Disclaimer: I know BD.)
His statement
He's trying to show the isolation within the crowd. I don't disagree with him that there is some isolation but I don't think his subjects appear to be isolated or lonely. (And he hasn't asked them if they feel that way.) The only way they seem isolated or lonely is due to the high contrast added in software manipulation. His work fails to match his statement. Either he is taking the wrong photos or his statement is incorrect.
Street photography's
Street photography's traditionally done in black and white, and none of these photos look like they have any modifications that couldn't be done in a darkroom.
People who cry "Photoshop" usually don't know too much about digital photography. When you take a photo, it's not a perfect representation of what was there - all you get is some photons striking a sensor. When your camera saves the image, it runs that raw data through it's own "photoshop" where it sets the contrast, sharpens the edges, and guesses what the colors should be based on what made it through the filter on the sensor.
A lot of beginners think that letting your camera do the work is the only "pure" way to take a photo since Photoshop is a dirty word, but nearly every professional does that data to photograph conversion themselves, using tools that may include Photoshop.
No different from the old days of picking the film, filters, and development technique. Picking a high contrast film isn't "excessive manipulation," is it?
Ansel Adams would spend a whole day editing a photo in a darkroom to get the contrast just right. It's a real shame, if he had just let the subjects tell the story, he might have made a name for himself.
Anyway, don't mean to rude, but this is one of my minor annoyances. For all we know, he shot on film and scanned it. Or used a Leica Monochrom.
What he said
n/t
"Everlasting Moments" - A Movie For Photographers
This discussion reminded me of "Everlasting Moments", a photography-themed movie I watched a while back. To quote one of the better Amazon reviewers:
If you enjoy photography, you'll love this movie! It's probably available elsewhere, but here's the link to watch it on Amazon Prime:
http://www.vivianmaier.com/
http://www.vivianmaier.com/
Expectation of Politeness
Wonderful, now if you’re tired, or having a bad day, you might have to deal with your face being secretly photographed and put online so strangers can have a ponder over what you might have been thinking or how lonely you must be.
In American culture it is rude to photograph people without their permission. Legal or not, it’s rude and not socially acceptable.
Well thank goodness UHub anon
Well thank goodness UHub anon is the arbiter of social acceptibility for 300 Americans.
Not for 300 or even 300 Million
Just raised with a basic appreciation of etiquette and social grace.
And thank goodness...
...you're not, because you're a boor.
Speaking of "58 sad peps"...
We're comin' close to 58 comments.
He seems to have missed a lot
He seems to have missed a lot of the bullies that push people around in order to get a seat - like the woman who aims her butt at people sitting on the bench and then charges backward into them to open up a seat for herself.
You mean when people are
You mean when people are taking up two seats? Sounds like a reasonable plan.
Oh, those damned women!
With their big butts. Taking up space, and everything.
Speaking for myself
I like big butts, and I cannot lie.
Now if the incident mentioned above didn't involve an empty seat, I'd still be okay with it. Sometimes you gotta double up, even with a stranger.
Awww cmon guys, we blew it!
"58 sad dudes"
"72 comments on this article"
Why couldn't we just get 58? One for every sad person?
That makes me a little sad...change article name to "59 sad dudes".
Photographing on the T
Just a couple of responses to some of the saner comments here:
First, I make no claim to know what people are thinking;
Second, I have no interest in photographing anyone who, seeing me with a camera, turns away, attempts to cover their face, or otherwise reacts to my photographing them;
Third, I rarely use a lens longer than 50, often use a 35 or 28, and usually am within less than 12 feet of my subject. Also, I make no attempt to hide what I am doing.
Finally, if you want privacy, don't ride the T. In fact, stay home. Because in this day and age you have no privacy anywhere outside your home. If you don't think you are in the background of Selfies taken by countless strangers, you've been living on another planet for at least the past decade. But all that aside, there is no legal expectation of privacy in a public place, such as the T.