Pictures of Failure
November 2, 2005 9:15 PM   Subscribe

Pictures of Failure: Incarcerated Youth. [via happy palace]
posted by mediareport (28 comments total)
 
Please sir, just step away from the lens blur filter...
posted by doctor_negative at 9:40 PM on November 2, 2005


yeah, shame about the blur thing. But pretty powerful images anyway.
posted by marvin at 10:02 PM on November 2, 2005


Only young males, because teenage girls never commit crimes.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:17 PM on November 2, 2005


lens blur filter

Nothing more than "depth-of-field" -- particularly relevant when photographing at larger format -- in this case "8x10" -- surely the photographer's choice.

I have no problem with such, as it is his prerogative. I, personally, find it aesthetically pleasing. Adds a "less-than-clinical" aspect to the expected institutional depiction.
posted by ericb at 10:17 PM on November 2, 2005


Only young males, because teenage girls never commit crimes.

Probably easier for a male photog to take pics in a male lockup, is all. But yeah, I'd love to see more pics of all kinds of young offenders, and more info about the folks in the pics.
posted by mediareport at 10:23 PM on November 2, 2005


Yes, I think we understand depth of field.

Being guilty myself of spending many an hour trying to artificially apply depth of field to small aperture photos, I suspect doctor_negative is feeling just as shifty.
posted by marvin at 10:24 PM on November 2, 2005


just step away from the lens blur filter

In these photographs no filters were used. The photographer employed a wide aperture (aka f-stop) under the lighting conditions. Such resulted in a narrow depth-of-field.
posted by ericb at 10:25 PM on November 2, 2005


marvin -- point taken.
posted by ericb at 10:26 PM on November 2, 2005


(sorry to de-rail this thread- but the guy in the hoodie- It's the way the nearer RH vertical edge of the hood intersects his shoulder in the distance. Getting a different amount of blur in that intersection of the two lines is always difficult- the shouder should have more blur that that nearer vertical edge, so to cheat there's a little radiussed blend in there.

Perhaps what this says is that PhotoShop has totally undermined our faith in the fidelity of the reproduced image)

I'll shut up now.
posted by marvin at 10:37 PM on November 2, 2005


marvin: agreed... Photoshop, Lenscare, and Sakurai anyhow...
That said, I do enjoy the photos. Thanks for the link mediareport.
posted by numlok at 10:45 PM on November 2, 2005


Babies in prison.
posted by mmdei at 10:55 PM on November 2, 2005


"Perhaps what this says is that PhotoShop has totally undermined our faith in the fidelity of the reproduced image"

I'm guessing that's what it is here, because personally, I can't see anyone having the discipline to spend months drag around an enormous 8x10 camera, spend the huge amount of time it takes to set up a single shot with such a thing, and then piss all that effort away by scanning in his prints and trashing them in Photoshop.

The whole point of large format photography is that lucious quality you only get from printing with silver on paper? If you're going to degrade your images by digitally manipulating your work, why wouldn't you make it easier on yourself and start off with a digital camera in the first place?

Very fine work, IMO.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:23 PM on November 2, 2005


And while it's a long time since I last picked up my old 5x4, I've just remembered this:

What are the main drawbacks of the large format camera?

Larger magnification: longer focals are needed for the same angle of view: The equivalent of a 24mm in 35mm is a 75/90 lens in 4x5, a 120mm lens in 5x7. Depth of field is a serious problem. The cameras movements become *necessary* to put everything in focus, and even though some subjects cannot be focussed entirely. Start thinking f32 where you thought f5.6 ! As a result you often get very long exposures, so wind shake (esp. with vegetation) and reciprocity failure begin to take their toll. Work which requires naturally a high degree of magnification, ie macro and tele-photo, is particularly impractical, the former because of the depth of field limitations, the second because lenses would have to be insanely long."


Bear in mind that this guy isn't using a 5x4 -- he's using a 10x8, so the difficulties that this writer is discussing are squared.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/why.html
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:30 PM on November 2, 2005


Not to derail from the talk of 75/90 lenses and radial blur (and neither to diminish it)

but it's worth noting that these are incredibly powerful images and that they have the power of x-rays. Like some malignant something that only shows up with the lens and the light, but you felt it there the whole time.
posted by cloudscratcher at 11:52 PM on November 2, 2005


It's heart breaking, all the wasted lives, sitting in a tiny, empty cell, behind a locked door, waiting for the years to pass -
posted by growabrain at 11:58 PM on November 2, 2005


mostly i find this incredibly heartbreaking, but a small yet nagging part of me identifies in some of those faces the selfsame thugs who made my life miserable at this or that point during my publication education childhood, and is a tiny bit glad. i feel horrible just thinking this, let alone saying it, but it affects my pereception.
posted by ori at 12:07 AM on November 3, 2005


public education, even.
posted by ori at 12:07 AM on November 3, 2005


Wow, mmdei, that's a fucking fantastic site. Please post it to the front page soon!
posted by mediareport at 12:19 AM on November 3, 2005


The first link, the introduction, says:
The Green Hill School’s Intensive Management Unit, for example, demanded my attention as the most inhumane living environment I ever witnessed.

The photographs shown completely fail to support this point. Perhaps this is a reflection of the naivety of the photographer. Perhaps he isn't sharing the shots that do support it.

I've done time as a youth, in four states (Oooo! Hard core!) California was the strangest (Riverside County), Austin, Texas the gentlest (by a very wide margin). Except for Austin, the place in the photos is better than those in my experience.
posted by Goofyy at 12:42 AM on November 3, 2005


My first thought is it looked like the cast to an American "Teen-flick".

And then I thought "They don't look like criminals. We have scallies in Salford that look waay more frightening than those kids".

And then "I wonder what they all did."

And then "maybe it worse that they look like normal kids" (sure with some exceptions)
posted by 13twelve at 1:10 AM on November 3, 2005


Only young males, because teenage girls never commit crimes.
Probably easier for a male photog to take pics in a male lockup, is all. But yeah, I'd love to see more pics of all kinds of young offenders


I hope the teenage girls are allowed some semblance of skin care.
posted by fourstar at 1:34 AM on November 3, 2005


And then I thought "They don't look like criminals. We have scallies in Salford that look waay more frightening than those kids".

Like Goofyy, I also did some time as a kid -- at Buckley Hall, near Rochdale. That place was full of Mancunians, most of whom looked like this guy.

The photographs shown completely fail to support this point.

I'm not sure that they do, Goofyy. From my reading of the photographs, the lack of humanity in the living environment is deeply inscribed on most of the faces of his sitters.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:45 AM on November 3, 2005


"Lack of humanity" has too effects. One is to make things safer. There are not things laying about for an enraged teenager to throw around (and they will). Two, less clutter is actually better. It is more relaxed.

Sure, there are things you can criticize, but I'm serious when I say I experienced worse. I saw natural light! What a luxury.

And the 'worst place' was billed as "intensive management". This is not for the any but the more difficult offenders. Probably the ones already known to be inclined to go off and do damage to themselves and/or others. Of course, we rely on a flawed system to determine who belongs where. In California, by policy, "runaways" were placed in max security! What an experience, and I was emancipated! (except California didn't recognize that fact).

Contrast that to Austin, where even our sleeping rooms weren't locked at night. We were treated very much like human kids. The lack of tension in that place was astounding.
posted by Goofyy at 2:19 AM on November 3, 2005


I guess for me I should remember that ole one about judging books by their covers.

Peter must of been not much fun being from Liverpool going to a joint near Rochdale full of Mancs.
posted by 13twelve at 2:22 AM on November 3, 2005


Upon first reading this kid's tattoo, I thought it said "SUICIADL" and I was going to make a snarky comment about how "I would be too, if my tattoo was mis-spelled". But then I took a closer look. I guess it will be easier to read once it's filled in.

I agree with 13twelve though - the first couple pictures look nothing like the teen thugs that I dealt with growing up... but as you get farther down, they generally start to look more and more thuggish.
posted by antifuse at 3:23 AM on November 3, 2005


> From my reading of the photographs, the lack of humanity in the living environment
> is deeply inscribed on most of the faces of his sitters.

Chicken, or egg?
posted by jfuller at 4:10 AM on November 3, 2005


Chicken, or egg?

Porridge
posted by DrDoberman at 4:50 AM on November 3, 2005


"Nothing but the dripping sink. Empty bottle. Euphoria. Youth fenced in, stabbed and shaved. Taut words propped up to die."
posted by Smedleyman at 3:15 PM on November 3, 2005


« Older HondSweetMission   |   For Advanced Nerds Only Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments