Discuss this Esther Bubley photograph

[Jon King]

Automat, 1948. Much more obviously a photo, even in the web version

 

[copake_ham]

another nice one - 1947

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Despite Tim's attempts to throw us off with the erroneous date - it is clear that this is a picture of a couple of his fellow al-Quedda operatives who are attempting to "blend in" to the local popluace by wearing current fashions.

As anyone in NYC who rides the subways will tell you - the first thing we need to do is check their "backpacks" for explosives.

"Tell a police officer, tell an MTA employee [if you can find one], but don't keep it to yourself." Even if it is Santa bringing you Aunt Selma's fruitcake!

 

[Roger Hicks]

At the risk of appearing cantankerous, this thread irritates the hell out of me. What is the point of it? Essentially, "I know something you don't". Well, yes. No doubt you know lots of things I don't, just as I am very likely to know various things you don't.

All right, a thread that says "Who else knows the work of XYZ?" may not be compelling, but sometimes we learn about a new photographer whose work we like. Turning it into a low-grade quiz seems to me to add nothing.

It's rather like those 'What is it?' pictures, shot from odd angles or very close up, that appear in magazines from time to time (and have for as long as I can remember). My reaction to those has long been, "WHO CARES?" Either tell me something useful, or shut up.

Please don't take this as a personal insult, just as an observation on a particular style of thread -- and I'd be interested if others feel the same way about 'teasers'.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[catem]

At this point I tend to agree with Roger, a small amount of teasing is possibly acceptable (though have to say I'm not quite sure of the point of it) but I think it's gone on long enough....

Also not sure about giving controversial quotes without soures (previous thread - sorry Tim!). If someone disagrees, you can pat them on the head for getting it right. If they agree, what a fool you make of them when the disreputable source is revealed.....

I have to say generally I prefer it when all relevant information is given up-front.
Cate
(So WHO IS IT?? )

 

[Sparky]

Who cares - ? They're boring photos anyway (not to be cantankerous - but get real!). I have to second roger on this stupid game biz. Maybe if you'd labelled the thread "guess the obscure third-rate photographer".

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Hasty research suggests #1 suspect Inge Morath, with #2 suspect Eve Arnold. I could be wrong!!!!!! And like others, I see no particular reason to make a big secret of the photog's ID - neither pic could be described as essential or iconic.

 

[donbga]

Who cares - ? They're boring photos anyway (not to be cantankerous - but get real!). I have to second roger on this stupid game biz. Maybe if you'd labelled the thread "guess the obscure third-rate photographer".

I can assure you the photographer is not third rate. The point of the mystery is that, it's kind of interesting and nice to 'discover' a talent not commonly known now. I was just curious to see how many folks might know of her work.

 

[donbga]

Hasty research suggests #1 suspect Inge Morath, with #2 suspect Eve Arnold. I could be wrong!!!!!! And like others, I see no particular reason to make a big secret of the photog's ID - neither pic could be described as essential or iconic.

It's not Inge Morath or Eve Arnold. If you don't know who the photographer is how can you say that it isn't essential or iconic?

Besides that, the fact that I've managed to irritate Roger Hicks so much makes this thread worth while for me and probably others.

 

[donbga]

At the risk of appearing cantankerous, this thread irritates the hell out of me. What is the point of it? Essentially, "I know something you don't". Well, yes. No doubt you know lots of things I don't, just as I am very likely to know various things you don't.

All right, a thread that says "Who else knows the work of XYZ?" may not be compelling, but sometimes we learn about a new photographer whose work we like. Turning it into a low-grade quiz seems to me to add nothing.

It's rather like those 'What is it?' pictures, shot from odd angles or very close up, that appear in magazines from time to time (and have for as long as I can remember). My reaction to those has long been, "WHO CARES?" Either tell me something useful, or shut up.

Please don't take this as a personal insult, just as an observation on a particular style of thread -- and I'd be interested if others feel the same way about 'teasers'.

Cheers,

Roger

The whole point is to have a little fun, trying to make folks stretch their minds a bit and learn or discover something about American photo history.

Lighten up and quit acting like a bloviated old fart.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The whole point is to have a little fun, trying to make folks stretch their minds a bit and learn or discover something about American photo history.

Lighten up and quit acting like a bloviated old fart.

Don, that was downright bloody rude. Or at least, 'old fart' was; I have not encountered the word 'bloviated' before. I look for your apology.

Three other people immediately agreed with what I said, so clearly I am not alone in being irritated.

One further thought is that using another photographer's picture in this way, without a credit, is almost certainly illegal. Actually it's illegal with a credit, but most people aren't going to be too worried about that. Irritate enough of the wrong people, though, and you could be on the wrong end of a lawsuit. I wouldn't bother, but some publishers and picture libraries would.

R.

 

[catem]

Well, curiosity got the better of me and I did a quick search.

Hope I'm not spoiling the fun, but think it must be Esther Bubley, who I confess I hadn't heard of before. Great name (almost as good as 'bloviated' ). Seems like she has very solid credentials...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Bubley

Cate

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Besides that, the fact that I've managed to irritate Roger Hicks so much makes this thread worth while for me and probably others.

GET A LIFE!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Either tell me something useful, or shut up.

Please don't take this as a personal insult, just as an observation on a particular style of thread -- and I'd be interested if others feel the same way about 'teasers'.

On re-reading my original post, I can only assume that you disregarded the last paragraph above, and were unduly stung by the first line above. If so, I apologize. As I said, apparently not clearly enough, it was not an attack on you, but on a particular style of thread.

It does however seem odd to take pride in irritating a fellow APUG member, and indeed to boast about that pride.

R.

 

[Aggie]

Hey people lighten up. Yeah I was irratated but not because of not listing who it is. I was irratated with myself for not having the time to really research it out and find who it was. It was all meant as fun. Did it hurt anyone? If you didn't want to join in the fun, you can skip the whole thread. We do have the ignore thread feature. As they say, you can please them all.

 

[catem]

Great name (almost as good as 'bloviated' ).
Cate

Realised after I read your last post, Roger, that you might think I was laughing at you with the above, just to make it clear I wasn't - but I do think 'bloviated' is a great word (I had to look it up aswell).

Of course it doesn't in any way, shape or form apply either to you or to me .

Back on topic - it IS good to discover new photographers. And words.( I admit, the latter is easier if it's not directed at you personally...).
lets not forget about Bubley

 

[SuzanneR]

Well, curiosity got the better of me and I did a quick search.

Hope I'm not spoiling the fun, but think it must be Esther Bubley, who I confess I hadn't heard of before. Great name (almost as good as 'bloviated' ). Seems like she has very solid credentials...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Bubley

Cate

Thanks for the link, Cate. I love discovering great photographers I've never heard of!!

 

[donbga]

Well, curiosity got the better of me and I did a quick search.

Hope I'm not spoiling the fun, but think it must be Esther Bubley, who I confess I hadn't heard of before. Great name (almost as good as 'bloviated' ). Seems like she has very solid credentials...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Bubley

Cate

Cate,

You win the rubber cigar. Good work!

 

[Nathan Smith]

Well, assuming that it IS by Esther Bubley (which hasn't yet been confirmed) I'm glad to have been informed/reminded of her.

(Sorry, it HAS been confirmed - I'm too late on the draw today I guess)

Having said that, this would been more:

1.) fun if the poster got around to telling us the answer sooner before things turned into an argument which you should assume will happen if you wait long enough since they almost always do, and

2.) useful if we all discussed the aspects of the photo which made it work so well.

The composition is obviously wonderful, I'd love to see a larger version to better appreciate the painterly effect and better understand how it was acheived. This is one that I think would not have been nearly as effective in B&W, she apparently thought so too.

 

[catem]

Cate,

You win the rubber cigar. Good work!

Thanks Don. If I'd known there was a prize I wouldn't have complained.
(But do it again and it'd better be a real one ).

Cate

 

[tim atherton]

Well, assuming that it IS by Esther Bubley (which hasn't yet been confirmed) I'm glad to have been informed/reminded of her.

.

www.estherbubley.com

http://www.estherbubley.com/nyc_el_frame_set.htm

 

[Artur Zeidler]

One further thought is that using another photographer's picture in this way, without a credit, is almost certainly illegal. Actually it's illegal with a credit, but most people aren't going to be too worried about that.
R.

In most jurisdictions this falls clearly under Fair Dealing (or Fair Use depending on where you are.)

As much as some people dislike them, hotlinks would also be more preferable than saving a file to APUG, as you are then not even posting the photograph on this site, merely giving a visul link to its original loaction.

(Not that it would prevent someone choosing to pursue a lawsuit nor does it excuse any real infringements, but jurisdiction in such cases is interesting. The copyright law which applies is always that where the infringement took place - which is where?)

Other than that, if such threads bug you, it probably has more to do with you than the content of the thread. Climbing onto an imaginary high horse usually does not help much with that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Artur,

No, I don't think it would be fair dealing, because that's normally for the purpose of review or discussion of a photographer's (or writer's) work, and concealing the photographer's name rather removes it from this realm. As I said, no one is likely to bother but if you annoy enough people...

Nor do I see an 'imaginary high horse'. I see a statement about a particular kind of thread, with an express rider that it was the type of thread that annoyed me, not a personal attack. Perhaps I could have expressed it better, but at least I tried.

The response was then a personal insult in one post, and glee at annoying me in another. .

Would someone be that rude face-to-face? Probably not. Not unless they really enjoy the occasional punch in the mouth. Saying 'Ah, but it's the internet' is no excuse.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

Moderator's note:

I've updated the title of the thread with the photographers name.

Now will you please all be nice to each other, and stop using expressions like "bloviated old fart"?

 

[pentaxuser]

I can be as polite as can be on this one because all I can see in the space for the attached thumbnails is empty space. I notice that the latest gallery photo is missing again.

Anyone else having this problem? There was no problem this afternoon. Looks like I need to get my insults in quick in future before the phoots disappear and I am left wondering what it is that's exercising the community to have a go at each other.

pentaxuser

 

[Bob F.]

I can be as polite as can be on this one because all I can see in the space for the attached thumbnails is empty space. I notice that the latest gallery photo is missing again.

Anyone else having this problem? There was no problem this afternoon. Looks like I need to get my insults in quick in future before the phoots disappear and I am left wondering what it is that's exercising the community to have a go at each other.

pentaxuser

All looking fine to me - everything where it should be. Try refreshing the browser window - you may have a cached version that needs clearing.


As for the rest, I see we are in cat-herding mode again...

I for one am grateful for the original thread as it has introduced me to a class act of whom I was not previously aware.

Cheers, Bob.