Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


umop 3pi5dn
December 16, 2009 7:28 AM   Subscribe

People hung upside down by their ankles and photographed
posted by h0p3y (63 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
Is it time for the Abu Ghraib Photo Quarterly already?!
posted by stresstwig at 7:30 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


They certainly were.
posted by jquinby at 7:32 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


Many of those people have fantastically greasy hair.
posted by sunshinesky at 7:33 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


They all look very similar. Was this the photographer's family?

That would make sense. Getting strangers to hang by their ankles would presumably be a bit harder.
posted by vacapinta at 7:36 AM on December 16, 2009


It looks like they're all closely related to each other as well.
posted by Shfishp at 7:37 AM on December 16, 2009


If your straw hat stays on when you're hung upside down by your ankles, it might be too tight.
posted by box at 7:37 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


Thanks, Hermitosis. Oh.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:40 AM on December 16, 2009


This brings back traumatic memories of 2nd grade recess.
posted by mmmbacon at 7:42 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


His next series will be a photoset of people's faces as they squeeze out a large turd.

He will then make people guess which photo comes from which photoset.
posted by MuffinMan at 7:42 AM on December 16, 2009


Many of those people have fantastically greasy hair.

That's the pee and sweat that ran down their bodies an hour or two after they heard "OK, just keep that smile on your face a little longer. I swear I'll let you down soon."

A smile is a frown turned upside down.
posted by pracowity at 7:47 AM on December 16, 2009 [3 favorites]


This post is useless without boobs.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:50 AM on December 16, 2009 [2 favorites]


"I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
posted by bondcliff at 7:53 AM on December 16, 2009 [6 favorites]


What the hell does Heather put in her hair?
posted by CaseyB at 7:55 AM on December 16, 2009 [3 favorites]


Mussolini and company. NOTE: links to dead Italian fascists hanging by their ankles.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:57 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


What the hell does Heather put in her hair?

What the hell doesn't Heather put in her hair?
posted by fish tick at 7:58 AM on December 16, 2009 [3 favorites]


All this needs is an overwrought artist's statement to go along with it (and perhaps a poor flash interface), and it's a gorgeous parody.

They all look very similar. Was this the photographer's family?

Click on the "photo booth" tab for more. The crying kid from series 2 is my favorite.

More background on the project. It actually sounds pretty fun.
posted by availablelight at 8:01 AM on December 16, 2009


Why?
posted by bjgeiger at 8:02 AM on December 16, 2009


Why?

Cause obviously taking any old photograph isn't enough to get you noticed? They have a company to run, you know, and it takes all kinds of wacky to get yersen pepsied.
posted by Sova at 8:10 AM on December 16, 2009


This link sounded much more interesting than actual pictures turned out to be.
posted by garlic at 8:11 AM on December 16, 2009


This World Press Photo essay from 2003 is IMO what inspired these tight face portraits of people in distress.

Every year since the different photo contests are full of these images. I'm a big believer of the school of thought that says every image has been made before but I wish people would give this idea a rest.
posted by photoslob at 8:13 AM on December 16, 2009


I liked them.
Terrible site design, though.
posted by chococat at 8:20 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


There's a lot of really bloodshot eyes there. Maybe the subjects needed a little, uh, sedation?
posted by echo target at 8:20 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


James just looks pissed off.
posted by kalessin at 8:22 AM on December 16, 2009


Also, is it HDR photography or just exceedingly well lit?
posted by kalessin at 8:23 AM on December 16, 2009


Why?

What?
posted by ORthey at 8:25 AM on December 16, 2009


Terrible site design, though.

Really, really terrible.
posted by 6550 at 8:26 AM on December 16, 2009


kalessin: it certainly looks like HDR. Whatever the processing is, I don't really care for it.
posted by tippiedog at 8:26 AM on December 16, 2009


˙ǝɯ oʇ lɐɯɹou ʎllɐʇoʇ ʞool ǝldoǝd ǝsoɥʇ ˙ʇnoqɐ sı oolɐqɐllnɥ ǝɥʇ llɐ ʇɐɥʍ ʇǝƃ ʇ,uop ı
posted by heyho at 8:27 AM on December 16, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also, is it HDR photography or just exceedingly well lit?

I thought the same thing and suspect the former; the faces look like clay, they're so evenly lit.
posted by moviehawk at 8:28 AM on December 16, 2009


I know a few of these gentlemen. This was done here in St. Louis. Most of the people in the pictures are part of a particular subculture with its own aesthetic, thus the similar hairstyles, etc.

Not sure how I feel about the project, but its neat to see something from my hood.
posted by Antidisestablishmentarianist at 8:28 AM on December 16, 2009


That collection is just slathered in ugly. And may Flash interfaces die a horrible, painful death.
posted by xmutex at 8:34 AM on December 16, 2009


needs more nudity.
posted by krautland at 8:36 AM on December 16, 2009


I thought of making a site called strangersphotosofmyass.com where I hand various cameras to strangers and have them take pictures of my ass, but then I realized I'd probably be beat up more often. Besides, someone is probably already doing it, and goatse ruined the idea for the rest of us.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:50 AM on December 16, 2009


Paging uosuaq to this thread.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:55 AM on December 16, 2009


My grandmother hung me by my ankles and took my picture, once.

*holds up index finger*

Once.
posted by brundlefly at 9:00 AM on December 16, 2009 [3 favorites]


The bloodshot eyes creeped me out a little, and I agree that the hair looks...funky.

That said, why aren't they full-on shots, from ankle to face, instead of the close-up, which makes it less obvious that they are hanging upside-down?

I don't understand photographers.
posted by misha at 9:01 AM on December 16, 2009


Needs pie.
posted by effluvia at 9:07 AM on December 16, 2009


Clearly hanging upside down drains all the color from your shirt.
posted by chavenet at 9:10 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


pictures of upside down at flickr
posted by garlic at 9:12 AM on December 16, 2009


why aren't they full-on shots, from ankle to face, instead of the close-up, which makes it less obvious that they are hanging upside-down

That's kind of the point.
Taken out of the context of upside down, they're portraits of creepy, bloated red-eyed people.
posted by chococat at 9:27 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


Most of them seem to have been provided with nice new never-worn shirts, which contrasts fetchingly with their stoned eyeballs and unwashed hair. Jeff smirks slyly, hoping you won't notice his lack of pants.
posted by fish tick at 9:28 AM on December 16, 2009


Whatever the (I'd say heavy handed) post-processing he's doing makes them look like dead people.
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 9:31 AM on December 16, 2009


They all look like they're about to sneeze.
posted by gurple at 9:47 AM on December 16, 2009


I'm going to start an art project where I photograph people right when an ice cube is placed against one of their nipples. It's going to be huge.
posted by zzazazz at 9:52 AM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well, I think this is awesome. And Pete is my favorite. He just looks like he's having so much fun! Yay! But Stacy is really creepin me out.
posted by osloheart at 9:55 AM on December 16, 2009


The post-processing looks like some kind of Kodachrome filter, to me.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:11 AM on December 16, 2009


¿ʞɔnɟ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
posted by DreamerFi at 10:52 AM on December 16, 2009


I like the site. My browser, not so much.
posted by not_on_display at 11:06 AM on December 16, 2009


I'm moving to Fatland. Who's coming with me?
posted by rahnefan at 11:31 AM on December 16, 2009


When you're upside down your jowls turn into hamster cheeks.
I noticed that before on photo's of my baby daughter.
posted by joost de vries at 2:09 PM on December 16, 2009


Seriously, what is up with Heather's hair? I'm so grossed out by the hair that I can't form an opionion about the rest.
posted by TooFewShoes at 3:21 PM on December 16, 2009


This might be stating the bleeding obvious, but isn't "what's up with Heather's hair" that she, like most of the others photographed, has had her hair styled with some sort of strong-hold gel and/or hairspray to make it defy gravity while she's upside down? That way, her hair's not floating straight up in the final image - which would of course give the game away. Instead, you end up with a series of portraits in which the subjects look subtly unnatural, but in a way that's difficult to explain unless you already know the unifying conceit.
posted by hot soup girl at 3:47 PM on December 16, 2009


Huh. Bill looks just like my uncle's brother right-side-up. Maybe I'll try to get him to hang off the porch railing next time he comes over and see what happens.
posted by hippugeek at 3:47 PM on December 16, 2009


[transcribed from audio tape] Gross examination: Petechial hemorrhaging—especially in the sclera—indicates the victims all shared the same cause of death: asphyxia due to manual strangulation. Also note the pallor, stiffness, and waxy presentation of the skin, suggesting pooling of bodily fluids and onset of rigor...
posted by spacely_sprocket at 4:09 PM on December 16, 2009


Looks like freeze dried Cindy Sherman. And just as fresh.
posted by effluvia at 4:19 PM on December 16, 2009


Matt S. looks almost normal, except for the bloodshot eyes, which makes him look like he's been on a bender.
posted by bwg at 5:29 PM on December 16, 2009


I think it's funny how "Is it HDR?" has become shorthand for "I don't like the way these photos look!" among people who've never actually made an HDR picture.

Back in the early days of desktop computers, I used to work in a department with a manager who was not technically savvy, but he had once heard a technician diagnose a computer system that had become unresponsive as "looping". Thus, any time his computer would become unresponsive, or lock up, or just get slow, he would immediately declare "It's looping! It's looping!"

That's what's wrong with these photos - they're looping.
posted by kcds at 8:12 PM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


Flash sux.
posted by Doohickie at 8:48 PM on December 16, 2009


Why?

Cause obviously taking any old photograph isn't enough to get you noticed?


Well, yeah, actually, just taking any old photograph won't get you noticed, matter of fact. Why the hell would anyone wanna look at just any old photograph? And, yeah, artists try to get noticed. Imagine that! Why, you'd think they'd prefer to go unnoticed all their lives, wouldn't you? Those attention-whore artists! Always wanting to, like, get money for groceries and stuff!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:10 PM on December 16, 2009


I thought of making a site called strangersphotosofmyass.com...

My idea was peeonitanditsyours.com, inspired by a shot of me having my way with the Colosseum in Rome. User submtted photos of (mostly) men claiming the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, etc.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:32 AM on December 17, 2009


Meatbomb, you peed on the Colosseum? Man, you Eastern Europeans got no respect for the West...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:25 AM on December 17, 2009


Dude, kcds, that is NOT what I said. I actually asked if the photos were HDR because it seemed like they were using a high dynamic range. As in, was the post-processing of the shot getting rid of the little used ends of the bell curve and emphasizing the interesting ranges of contrast, tone and saturation?

Being a technical sort, I actually know what I asked and what I meant.

But hey, if you want to ascribe to me a different meaning for my words, I guess that's your choice.
posted by kalessin at 4:40 AM on December 17, 2009


That said, I've been returning to the shots from time to time and I keep thinking maybe the shots really are just exceedingly well lit, in a very thorough flashy/reflective sort of way. Though I might buy post-processing from the standpoint of evening out all the tones in hair/skin/clothing to try to sploodge out (that's a technical term :) ) the rest of the resulting spectral tones in the overall work.
posted by kalessin at 4:42 AM on December 17, 2009


« Older Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge of the Department o...   |   They're back!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments