# This photographer sucks..



## frommrstomommy (Jun 14, 2013)

Seriously! 

The photo that broke a mother?s heart


----------



## tirediron (Jun 14, 2013)

Sorry, but to me that's something blown grossly out of proportion.  Look at the composition; the children are exactly centred on the bench, the teacher is on the [image] left side at the back, everyone's hands are crossed; this has been the bog-standard forumula for elementary school class photos since there have been elementary school class photos.  Could the photographer have done a better job at composing and "included" Miles better?  Certainly.  Should he have done that?  Absolutely!  To say, "_the photo is discrimination and a reflection of a society that still attaches stigma to disability.  &#8220;Kids can be cruel but this comes from adults, which is even worse,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Adults should know better_.&#8221;  to me seems almost slanderous.  

This may well have been the first time the photographer was faced with a situation such as this, and given that it`s Life Touch, he may not have been an experienced photographer, just trained by them  in the `Light one here, light two there, snap, snap, next please`routine.  Coming across a situation that may not have been mentioned in the training, he didn`t know what to do, and did what he thought best at the time.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 14, 2013)

The kid's posture looks perfectly consistent with a wheelchair bound person, not "straining to be part of the group" and the wheelchair was placed as close as physically possible to the stands. The kid also looks happy as a lark, in this admittedly tiny pictures.

To make this better, you really have to break the stock setup apart and rethink it, and reposition everything.

LifeTouch doesn't really use "photographers" do they? They're lightly trained technicians.


----------



## Designer (Jun 14, 2013)

I don't get why the parents were so upset.  Is it because of the 12 inches of empty bench?   Ah, well, some people just gotta take offense.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 14, 2013)

That is very sad but may be down to lack of knowledge or experience as opposed to intention.  I thankfully think I dont know anyone who would do this on purpose and I imagine they are few and far between


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 14, 2013)

I also think this was slightly exaggerated. I do think the photographer was on the wrong, but  the parents' comments are on the level of those parents whose kid was put into a coma by bullies at school. It's a photo. Most of the kids are too young to know any better, and I'm sure the faculty  was  trusting the photographer to know what he was doing. 

How is the mom qualified to comment on the mentality of society when she doesn't have the full story of what happened? Or maybe she does and the reporter of the story just didn't explain it.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jun 14, 2013)

I can understand people saying it would require a whole different setup.. which may have been a production. I think they could have easily had his chair on the left, teacher standing in the "empty" space to fill it in and it would have probably been worlds better with just that small change that wouldn't have altered the whole setup to accomplish. 

If you click the photo, a 2nd photo will appear below of the boy and I'm assuming his mother... his positioning is not just his normal posture based on that photo I believe.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jun 14, 2013)

The teacher could have helped him out of the chair and put him on the end of the bench while kneeling down to support him from a fall and removing the chair from the picture.I would have never stuck him in the back and off to the side.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 14, 2013)

DarkShadow said:


> The teacher could have helped him out of the chair and put him on the end of the bench while kneeling down to support him from a fall and removing the chair from the picture.I would have never stuck him in the back and off to the side.


Is the teacher allowed to do that?  Is the teacher authorized to do that?  Does the teach know how or have the physical strength to do that?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2013)

Can anyone say, *PhotoShop*?


----------



## DarkShadow (Jun 14, 2013)

tirediron said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> > The teacher could have helped him out of the chair and put him on the end of the bench while kneeling down to support him from a fall and removing the chair from the picture.I would have never stuck him in the back and off to the side.
> ...


If they have to help him to the restroom, then they must have permission to move him as needed.At least they could have put him close to the other children.


----------



## Designer (Jun 14, 2013)

PhotoShop


----------



## e.rose (Jun 14, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Sorry, but to me that's something blown grossly out of proportion.  Look at the composition; the children are exactly centred on the bench, the teacher is on the [image] left side at the back, everyone's hands are crossed; this has been the bog-standard forumula for elementary school class photos since there have been elementary school class photos.  Could the photographer have done a better job at composing and "included" Miles better?  Certainly.  Should he have done that?  Absolutely!  To say, "_the photo is discrimination and a reflection of a society that still attaches stigma to disability.  &#8220;Kids can be cruel but this comes from adults, which is even worse,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Adults should know better_.&#8221;  to me seems almost slanderous.
> 
> This may well have been the first time the photographer was faced with a situation such as this, and given that it`s Life Touch, he may not have been an experienced photographer, just trained by them  in the `Light one here, light two there, snap, snap, next please`routine.  Coming across a situation that may not have been mentioned in the training, he didn`t know what to do, and did what he thought best at the time.



Having WORKED for Lifetouch 2 years ago...

I agree with this entirely.

Photographers who work for Lifetouch are RARELY actually photographers.  There's only one other person that I know that works for them that is also a legitimately good photographer.

One of the girls that I started with didn't even own a camera of her own.  Not even a point and shoot.  And she was hired and trained.

LT photographers are trained to do the same thing over and over and over again... and when something is different it's briefly addressed in training, but not really practiced.

Seems to me that whoever took this photo probably did what they ALWAYS do... because they were trained to do so... and probably doesn't really have any TRUE comprehension of what composition is and when thrown in the curveball of a child unable to sit on the bench... just did what he/she always did and then tacked the kid onto the side... because to them, that's logically where the wheelchair fit.

Should they have had the common sense to slide the class over?  Sure... but I HIGHLY doubt this was an intentional act of discrimination.

It's more like an unintentional lack of common sense.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Can anyone say, *PhotoShop*?



PhotoShobblplbbbb

.. no.


----------



## Kolia (Jun 14, 2013)

I bet I can tell who's a parent and who is not here !


----------



## amolitor (Jun 14, 2013)

I'm a parent.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 14, 2013)

good grief. I understand the child limitations, but he sure didn't LOOK like he was at all out of sorts in the picture. he sure didn't LOOK like he felt he  was being excluded. 
for all we know, he is friends with all the other students and they get along just fine.  So the school managed to hire some assembly line "photographers" that aren't extremely well versed in composition. wowzers...imagine that. 

but seriously mom? your going to make your child a victim now? The kid looked like he was doing everything in his power NOT to be a victim of circumstance, and there you go, completely subverting everything that child has worked so hard to overcome to lead as much a normal life as possible. Oh, I understand as much as the next person. I have a special needs child, and i promise you, MY child will NEVER be a victim. My opinion would be that the mom grossly overreacted, and her crusade was to quench the fires of her own ego more-so than any legitimate grievance against her son, and in doing so, potentially did him far more psychological harm than any mediocre photographer could have ever done. Monstrous says I.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 14, 2013)

I've been a teacher (in more recent years with infants & toddlers with delays) but when I was doing school age classroom teaching our school picture day was assembly line at best. This looks like the set up was to center the kids on the bleachers - obviously nobody thought about how this would work if a child uses equipment and would be seated to one side - it was probably inadvertent not intentional to have the child who uses a wheelchair positioned somewhat away from the group.  

The child looks like he might be leaning toward the bleachers but not knowing the child there's no way to know; his chair seems to have an arm rest on one side and controls (joystick) to operate the chair on the other side, so he may or may not always sit straight in it (I've known kids to sit different ways depending on what their condition is, what type of chair or equipment they're using, or to lean more when they're tired etc.).

I can understand the parents having feelings about seeing their child being seated separately from the group, and bringing some awareness to this might help awareness of including all kids; I don't think putting it on Facebook was the best idea, and bringing it to the attention of the photography company and the school might have been the best way to have something done about it. It seems like the school helped correct the situation by making sure the the photo was retaken and certainly this is something that could be taken care of easily enough just by doing what they did, seating him on the bleachers (or the group could have been seated differently on the bleachers). Now at least the photography company can think about other seating arrangements that could be used by their photographers in the future.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jun 14, 2013)

The kids should have been sitting 2 feet to their left, and the gap would have been erased.  Why the need to be centered on a bench?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2013)

I spent almost 20 years married to a woman who had a terrible car accident that made her need the use of a power wheelchair very much like the one the boy was using in the photo. I can tell you from experience, a large power chair like that takes up a LOT of room, and will weigh between 200 and 350 pounds, and in virtually ALL cases, only the chair's owner will be capable of driving the thing. Many power chairs have been tuned to respond to very minute joystick movements, and "other people" can often not drive the chair without literally slamming it into nearby objects. The child is the person who drove his chair up to the side of the risers. The idea of removing the kid from his chair and sitting him there on the risers?? Uhhh, a seriously bad idea, on multiple levels I think. Depends on his actual condition. Who would assume liability if he were to be injured?

Unless the photographer had been trained in alternate posing strategies, and had different equipment, like short-length risers, apple boxes, etc., there's pretty much not much that could have been done if the idea was to go with the "traditional" kids-on-risers, teacher at the side kind of group shot. Building a group pose with that many people takes a lot of skill and understanding; on the opposite end of the skill level, simply having the kids stand in rows, on risers, is easy, and is what a typical Lifetouch shooter is going to do, day after day after day.

This whole incident is really bordering on ridiculous. I KNOW all about "wheelchair issues"; if the boy's parents had even a whiff of a clue, they would have addressed this issue and their concerns BEFORE the incident happened. If they are going to raise a kid who attends public school while in a wheelchair, they'd darned well better learn to be *advocates *for their child, rather than waiting for these kinds of issues to creep up, then raising a huge fuss. Again...they need to think ahead, and be proactive, and not reactive. Of course, the kid is seven years old; the entire family will continue to learn more and more about the trials and tribulations of wheelchair life among the larger able-bodied society at large.

Communication is the key; If a person has special needs, or concerns, then the parents NEED to make their concerns known, and not ***** and moan after the fact. They ought to feel very bad for their OWN part in this 'incident'. Seriously...they needed to take some responsibility, and look out for their child's special needs. If the kid had a peanut allergy, would they not speak up BEFORE he ate peanuts in the school cafeteria?


----------



## esselle (Jun 14, 2013)

The photographer could have been more creative no doubt, but think it was an unintentional mishap. Interesting story though and I'm reminded that there are people with a lot on their plates compared to me. No idea how I would react; until we walk in another's shoes.....


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 14, 2013)

Trained photographer or not, this is still sh*tty.


----------



## Overread (Jun 14, 2013)

Why do I feel like I'm the only one wondering why every other child has their face blurred. I mean seriously why the need to blur their faces when names and the school and nearly all info needed to identify them is present within the article - you don't need to blur them to protect/hide them from whatever it is people think it hides/protects people from (esp as the whole articles is news anyway and thus generally safe from needing any permission slips).

As for the situation and keeping in mind the mentions about the group hired by the school from members here (Esp one who worked for the company - HI EROSE - hang around here more - we miss you!) It just looks like general low end, get the shots done simple formula photography. Yeah it ain't going to win prizes - the whole setup is to get the shots done and presentable for the parents. Heck chances are they had to pose dozens of classes comprising of dozens of kids that day. The photographer/camera operator was likely just following their trained and tested method. Heck when taking the shot the tiny distance between the kids and the one in the wheelchair likely didn't even appear to be all that great (being something that only appeared larger when printed on the photos - something an experienced photographer might well know but an inexperienced one trained to just do a single simple product style shot isn't going to be aware or trained for). 

I'd just top this up to sensationalist news and leave it at that - nothing more to worry on and leave the kid/school/photographer alone. Yeah its not high class photography, but not every photographic venture has to be and by heck not every group/organisation can afford high class quality photography anyway.


----------



## Designer (Jun 14, 2013)

Kolia said:


> I bet I can tell who's a parent and who is not here !



O.K., how is a parent supposed to react?  Not only am I a parent, but I have a nephew who has that same condition.  Sometimes I have to take him to the bathroom, which includes everything.  I've fed him, dressed him, and tried to figure out what he is trying to communicate.  Been there.


----------



## Kolia (Jun 14, 2013)

Designer said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > I bet I can tell who's a parent and who is not here !
> ...



To a parent, what is wrong with the picture is evident. 

I too would have complained to the company.  And if they had refused to do something about it and didn't even recognized the problem, I would have gone to social media also. To me, the escalation seems reasonable.


----------



## e.rose (Jun 14, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Kolia said:
> ...



Okay, lets get this straight...

I don't think there's a single person in here who DOESN'T see what is WRONG with the image.

Parents or not.

What SOME of us are saying is that rather than accusing the likely 18-20something year old kid that took this picture of being discriminatory towards those with special needs, we're saying they're an IDIOT who has no idea what composition is, and yes, could have EASILY slid the class over... but didn't.  Because he/she wasn't "trained" to do that, and unfortunately ALSO lacked the common sense to figure it out themselves *without* being trained to do so.

Like I said previously... unintentional lack of common sense.  Not intentional discrimination.

Either way... the images does suck in that regard, but it's not discrimination.  Just lack of talent.  Or. Compositional skills.  Or... logic, I dunno pick one.


----------



## mishele (Jun 14, 2013)

^^^^That photographer sucks!!


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2013)

Only in America do we feel we have the God-given right to be personally offended.  And by God, _offended we are_!


----------



## amolitor (Jun 14, 2013)

The picture's not good, but the mom's freakout is just as bad. She's reading stuff into the picture that's just not there. Why? Either she's.. overly excitable.. or she's trying to get free stuff out of LifeTouch. Or both.

Why anyone would want free stuff from LifeTouch I do not know. I don't want their stuff at all. If it came with $100 bills attached, maybe.


----------



## e.rose (Jun 14, 2013)

mishele said:


> ^^^^That photographer sucks!!





Exactly.

Just a big ol' case of "This photographer sucks".

Nothing more.  Nothing less.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The kid's posture looks perfectly consistent with a wheelchair bound person, not "straining to be part of the group" and the wheelchair was placed as close as physically possible to the stands. The kid also looks happy as a lark, in this admittedly tiny pictures.
> 
> To make this better, you really have to break the stock setup apart and rethink it, and reposition everything.
> 
> LifeTouch doesn't really use "photographers" do they? They're lightly trained technicians.



I work at Lifetouch and you're hitting nail on the head


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

tirediron said:


> To say, "_the photo is discrimination and a reflection of a society that still attaches stigma to disability.  &#8220;Kids can be cruel but this comes from adults, which is even worse,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Adults should know better_.&#8221;  to me seems almost slanderous.



As a person with a disabled child, I do tend to agree. I would have been offended by the photograph, but to assert some broader social statement is pretty absurd.

Ofcourse, my child who has autism and pretty significant ADHD, class photos of him involve looking in some off direction with and squirming out of his teacher's arms ... though, I can appreciate exactly the reasons for that.


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 14, 2013)

unpopular said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > To say, "_the photo is discrimination and a reflection of a society that still attaches stigma to disability.  &#8220;Kids can be cruel but this comes from adults, which is even worse,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Adults should know better_.&#8221;  to me seems almost slanderous.
> ...



The parents are definitely reading to deep into the photograph and are not being diplomatic one bit, having said that, this photograph is probably a perfect representation of how they feel or they think their son feels. Isolated. 

That's what it looks like. It looks like he's not being included in the class picture, as if he was just thrown in there. My children are not handicapped, but I was still a little unnerved by this photo.
Not because I think it was done on purpose, but the exact opposite. It looks like zero thought and consideration went into his placement. Kind of like "Just put him over there". *Click* Nexxxxt!

The parents reaction suck, but this photo was probably very painful to see the first time around.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> this photograph is probably a perfect representation of how they feel or they think their son feels. Isolated.
> 
> That's what it looks like.



This is a perfect example of how the photographer's intent is irrelevant to the representation of the photograph. Some time back there was a debate about if a model was 'too thin', my argument in this debate was that it didn't matter if she was too thin or not - but rather if the photograph represents an unhealthy body image - for which a significant population agreed it did. But this has nothing to do with the debate of if the model herself was unhealthy or if it was any of our business if she was.

Photographs are objects independent of their actual subject. This image represents "isolation" and a desire to be a part of a greater group and the visible disability inhibiting that desire. It doesn't much matter what the child actually feels, or what the photographer thinks of disabled children, this is what the photograph represents to most who view it.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 15, 2013)

e.rose said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but to me that's something blown grossly out of proportion. Look at the composition; the children are exactly centred on the bench, the teacher is on the [image] left side at the back, everyone's hands are crossed; this has been the bog-standard forumula for elementary school class photos since there have been elementary school class photos. Could the photographer have done a better job at composing and "included" Miles better? Certainly. Should he have done that? Absolutely! To say, "_the photo is discrimination and a reflection of a society that still attaches stigma to disability. Kids can be cruel but this comes from adults, which is even worse, she said. Adults should know better_. to me seems almost slanderous.
> ...



Rosey!! 

1.  Very well said; and

2.  Welcome back..  we missed ya'!


----------



## runnah (Jun 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I'm a parent.



That's apparent.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 15, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Can anyone say, *PhotoShop*?



Having also worked for Lifetouch... You won't ever catch them using photoshop. At least not that I saw.



DarkShadow said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > DarkShadow said:
> ...



Ed-Techs are the ones that work with children with disabilities. I'm not sure a teacher qualifies to do that.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Having also worked for Lifetouch... You won't ever catch them using photoshop. At least not that I saw.
> 
> Ed-Techs are the ones that work with children with disabilities. I'm not sure a teacher qualifies to do that.



We use it like mad.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 15, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> We use it like mad.



I was referring to the folks who received the images at the branch where I worked. Before they were sent to the lab for print.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I was referring to the folks who received the images at the branch where I worked. Before they were sent to the lab for print.



I work at the Church Difectories branch but we have a print lab and a massive retouching department.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 15, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I was referring to the folks who received the images at the branch where I worked. Before they were sent to the lab for print.
> ...



I'm sure you do. I'm talking about what I saw during my time there.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Admit it, you were too busy banging your tin cup on the bars and singing blues to notice much.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Devinhullphoto said:
> ...



What are you talking about? I was out touching lifes all day.


----------



## Michael79 (Jun 15, 2013)

I just had an experience with my sons School and lifetouch. They were shooting his graduation, and the School asked all us parents to remain seated the entire time, and that lifetouch would get the necessary pictures you would expect from a graduation. A couple days later we received this email.

"Important  announcement to the graduates of Bow HS:  We have uploaded candid photos that  were taken at your graduation ceremony.  Unfortunately, due to circumstances  beyond our control, the diploma images were not able to be successfully  uploaded.  By way of apology, Lifetouch will be sending each graduate a  complimentary graduation group photo that was recently taken at your school.   Lifetouch regrets any inconvenience this has caused you and appreciate the  patience and understanding of the Bow HS community.  Thank  you."

Makes me mad that I didn't break the rules and snapped a diploma picture!


----------



## kathyt (Jun 15, 2013)

Michael79 said:


> I just had an experience with my sons School and lifetouch. They were shooting his graduation, and the School asked all us parents to remain seated the entire time, and that lifetouch would get the necessary pictures you would expect from a graduation. A couple days later we received this email.
> 
> "Important  announcement to the graduates of Bow HS:  We have uploaded candid photos that  were taken at your graduation ceremony.  Unfortunately, due to circumstances  beyond our control, the diploma images were not able to be successfully  uploaded.  By way of apology, Lifetouch will be sending each graduate a  complimentary graduation group photo that was recently taken at your school.   Lifetouch regrets any inconvenience this has caused you and appreciate the  patience and understanding of the Bow HS community.  Thank  you."
> 
> Makes me mad that I didn't break the rules and snapped a diploma picture!


Can they legally tell you not to take pictures at your child's HS graduation? I can understand no flash, but I would be taking pictures that is a fact. This is a big deal. I would be pissed.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 15, 2013)

LifeTouch does a surprisingly good job with pictures, considering.

What they do best, though, is negotiate. They are amazing at persuading schools to connect them directly to the parental money pipeline with various exclusive and quasi-exclusive and not-exclusive-but-we-sort-of try to make you think it's exclusive arrangements.


----------



## Michael79 (Jun 15, 2013)

I am pissed, we were able to take photos. We were asked not to leave our seats. From the angle I was at though, I was facing his back.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

^^ Yes AFAIK, the school can control the venue this way, and Lifetouch can stipulate that they won't do the job unless there is no photography permitted. Unless it being a public school changes this, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be illegal.

Personally I think lifetouch is getting a little out of touch. If they think that a photographer sitting in the audience is competition, I think that says a lot about the quality they're demanding parents pay for. Their copyright policies are WAY out of touch with most large retailers and their prices are pretty outrageous for what you end up with. I think parents who are looking for inexpensive portraits are better off going to Sears or even Wal-mart.


----------



## Michael79 (Jun 15, 2013)

What is funny, I responded to them stating I was furious. So they emailed back this response.

"Unfortunately, it was a technical malfunction during the upload process.  We are  currently working with the school to see if it is possible to coordinate a cap  and gown portrait day for any graduate that may be interested.  We will post  that information to the lifetouchevents.com website as soon as  possible.  Again, we sincerely apologize."

So who knows, maybe some graduates might want to step foot back in the old highschool.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 15, 2013)

unpopular said:


> ^^ Yes AFAIK, the school can control the venue this way, and Lifetouch can stipulate that they won't do the job unless there is no photography permitted. Unless it being a public school changes this, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be illegal.
> 
> Personally I think lifetouch is getting a little out of touch. If they think that a photographer sitting in the audience is competition, I think that says a lot about the quality they're demanding parents pay for. Their copyright policies are WAY out of touch with most large retailers and their prices are pretty outrageous for what you end up with. I think parents who are looking for inexpensive portraits are better off going to Sears or even Wal-mart.



Lifetouch owns a lot of those studios.


----------



## Overread (Jun 15, 2013)

I know a lot of schools are imposing general "no photography" bans at events (esp things like plays or concerts) because it allows the audience to watch the event rather than the backs of various phones/tablets/cameras/heads as someone is always aiming to get a shot of their kid. And that is to say nothing of the fact that most cheap cameras only have one "no flash" mode and most people never bother to find it (and if they do it always gives poor results for them so they never use it anyway) - so the kids get bathed in a sea of flashgun light.


----------



## e.rose (Jun 16, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Having also worked for Lifetouch... You won't ever catch them using photoshop. At least not that I saw.
> ...



You use it?  They didn't send it out to the lab???  That's weird...


----------



## e.rose (Jun 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Devinhullphoto said:
> ...



Believe it or not, it was a good job.

I didn't like ACTUAL photographers knowing I worked for them while I did, but as far as day jobs went, it was fine.  I got paid, I did easy **** all day and I went home.  I'd still be there had the Spring season not been too slow... and then I got another job... then another... then moved to Nashville and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.


----------



## Overread (Jun 16, 2013)

e.rose said:


> and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.



Does this mean we have to change your name to iRose now?


----------



## e.rose (Jun 16, 2013)

Overread said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.
> ...





...maybe we should... :lmao:


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 17, 2013)

They offered to reshoot it. That really should be enough...


----------



## kathyt (Jun 17, 2013)

e.rose said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


So....which PC do you recommend?


----------



## Kolia (Jun 17, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> They offered to reshoot it. That really should be enough...



Eventually they did. But not initially, which prompted the whole escalation.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 17, 2013)

I just read the article again.

The parents (and I am one) are reacting so beligerently it's funny. It's not "discrimination", it's a poorly composed photo. Period. But that won't grab headlines, so they whine about "discrimination", because that get's people's attention. They're going out of their way to completely disparage the company on the basis of a single photo (where have we seen that before), and it's simply unwarranted.

The photo was re-taken, which was correct response to this. Did it take a while? Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't make the re-shoot wrong.

Now, the $64.00 question: Who here thinks the parents will end up suing Lifetouch? I think they will, and they'll lose, and they'll look stupid.

As they should...


----------



## runnah (Jun 17, 2013)

Well I think any parent of a child with disabilities is going to be hyper sensitive to anything that could be considered upsetting. But not being in that position I cannot say how I would react.

The photographer in me is outraged, but the parent in me is less so.


----------



## Designer (Jun 17, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> .. so they whine about "discrimination", because that get's people's attention.



That happens a lot, IMO.  Back when I owned a small business, one person claimed "discrimination" even though nobody else could see it.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 17, 2013)

Designer said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > .. so they whine about "discrimination", because that get's people's attention.
> ...




Unfortunately, words like "discrimination" and "racism" have lost their true meaning, simply because people have come to decide it's a good idea to trot these words out any time they get butt hurt about something.

That photo wasn't an example of discrimination, it was an example of poor composition.

People need to lighten up...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 17, 2013)

Sorry I couldn't stay away, but had to add. The whole situation of blame the photographer for a poor set up, it could have all been avoided if they had of just slid all the other kids down to end of the bench eliminating the gap, problem solved.  I do a lot of shooting with Canada's Paralympic swimmers including group shots, several are in wheel chairs, several are blind, it doesn't change how I set the shot up.  People are easily intimidated by people with physical challenges, what a lot see as physical challenges are based simply on the people looking at them, these "normal" people, including the photographer that set this shot up are the ones that face the mental challenges themselves.

It's just an inexperienced photographer not seeing the set up, I don't believe there was any malice intended on the part of the person taking the picture.  This just became an issue because it's what people do, they would rather single out the boy in the wheelchair instead of looking at the solution to correct it.  I have to believe that they could have done a reshoot on this if the mother was unhappy, most school photographers offer re-shoots if the parents aren't happy.  That's how it should have been handled, but people like to run to the media and scream discrimination.  It's the politically correct thing to do, I'm surprised a law suit hasn't been launched.


----------



## Kolia (Jun 17, 2013)

I agree it's not discrimination. People will use anything to get traction in these situations. Journalists will push in that direction too. 

I have complained to the company who took my daughter's class picture (in daycare of all places !) and had a very quick response with 50% off rebate. I kept it low profile and was doing it more to inform them if a situation. 

All pictures were focused on the back wall in my daughter' case...


----------



## kathyt (Jun 17, 2013)

There are a few things that went wrong here. The photographer could have easily regrouped this to include him even with him in his wheelchair. The teacher is well aware of his physical capabilities and should have spoke up and been prepared to either (a. Get him out of his chair and on the bleachers with the use of caregivers (same ones that take him to the restroom etc.) or (b. arranged for the parents or family member to come in to participate with transfer. Parents are well aware of when school photos are going to be taken, they put up the darn paper months in advance. If she was so concerned about it then she could have been more involved. I hate it when people blame everyone else but except no personal responsibility. Maybe a free photo package is in order, but that is about it. This isn't a customized session mom.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 17, 2013)

I don't know how I'd feel about getting him out of his chair, I think that would be kind of like the bad old days of how we used to never photograph disabled people in a wheelchair. The wheelchair isn't the problem.

From what I can see, it seems that you could have easily just shuffled the students over towered the wheelchair, and moved him in a bit closer. There would be a little bit of bench sticking out, but it's better than this solution to have the kid leaning in as if to say "hey, i'm over here! I want to be part of the group, but I just can't because of this chair!"

But taking the chair out of the equation is not the solution IMO.


----------



## runnah (Jun 17, 2013)

Nah, but him dead center and have the kids wrap around. Easy.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 17, 2013)

runnah said:


> Nah, but him dead center and have the kids wrap around. Easy.


This was the "solution" proposed by countless respondants to the Province's article, and IMO is not the answer.  That makes him the centre of attention, and would give him a compositionally superior position in the photograph which is just as wrong as the compositionally inferior one he has in the first image.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Jun 17, 2013)

tirediron said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, but him dead center and have the kids wrap around. Easy.
> ...



I agree.. seems like that would just make him the center of attention and be this over the top "we love our handicap classmate!" thing.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 17, 2013)

runnah said:


> Well I think any parent of a child with disabilities is going to be hyper sensitive to anything that could be considered upsetting. But not being in that position I cannot say how I would react.
> 
> The photographer in me is outraged, but the parent in me is less so.



The problem is that parents of children with disabilities expect that _*everyone else on the planet *_will instantly, willingly and understandingly react in deference to _their _child. Well, that's just not a reasonable expectation. I don't mean to dismiss such challenges, but those parents really shouldn't make the mistake that _their _child is somehow more precious than anyone else's child. Unfortunately, these parents are often myopic.

The photographer in me isn't "outraged". In fact, the photographer in me really doesn't care, as it has no bearing on me or what I do. But if being "outraged" makes you feel better, knock yourself out...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 18, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> I agree.. seems like that would just make him the center of attention and be this over the top "we love our handicap classmate!" thing.



You know, while I can see your point, think about all those videos where the autistic basketball team equipment manager suits up and gets to go into the last game of the season and he makes a basket. Spectators rush the hardwood and people gush at how wonderful it all is. 

How is something like that any different?


----------



## kathyt (Jun 18, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I don't know how I'd feel about getting him out of his chair, I think that would be kind of like the bad old days of how we used to never photograph disabled people in a wheelchair. The wheelchair isn't the problem.
> 
> From what I can see, it seems that you could have easily just shuffled the students over towered the wheelchair, and moved him in a bit closer. There would be a little bit of bench sticking out, but it's better than this solution to have the kid leaning in as if to say "hey, i'm over here! I want to be part of the group, but I just can't because of this chair!"
> 
> But taking the chair out of the equation is not the solution IMO.


The article states that they, the care staff, are able to take him out of his chair for the school photo like they did for the second image. Therefore, no extra attention is placed on him in the school image at all. Problem solved. He can be just like his peers. Just because he needs a chair most of the time doesn't mean it needs to be documented as such.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 18, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how I'd feel about getting him out of his chair, I think that would be kind of like the bad old days of how we used to never photograph disabled people in a wheelchair. The wheelchair isn't the problem.
> ...



Personally, I see where nothing is gained by ignoring the reality of the situation. He is not, never can be and never will be "just like his peers".

They needn't put a spotlight on the fact that the kid is in a wheelchair, but ignoring that fact is just as offensive and silly...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how I'd feel about getting him out of his chair, I think that would be kind of like the bad old days of how we used to never photograph disabled people in a wheelchair. The wheelchair isn't the problem.
> ...



Historically, though, this is kind of politically incorrect. Though out the 19th and early 20th century, wheel chairs were such an object of shame or even disgust that they were never to be seen in photographs, and great lengths would be made to prevent them being seen at public functions. In fact, it was frequent that the chair-bound to not be encouraged to participate in outdoor actives where they could be seen in their chair.

While relocating him from his chair might be a good option for this individual and this family, I don't think it is generally a good way to handle the situation due to the historic implications.

Being a person with a psycho-neurological condition, it is very easy to hide my disability. But I don't think that hiding disabilities is an acceptable approach to fighting stigma, and popular acceptance must come disabled or not, chair or no chair.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 18, 2013)

unpopular said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


This isn't about fighting stigmas or historic implications. It is about a young boy, sitting amongst his peer for a class photo. No more, no less. I do understand where you are coming from though.


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 18, 2013)

frommrstomommy said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


 
Man, how horrible that would of been.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 18, 2013)

When I did classroom teaching school picture day was an assembly line all day long, whether the kids were developing typically or had developmental delays - we were on a tight schedule and before my class was done the next group was usually at the door waiting to come in. I doubt in this case that anyone realized how it looked on camera except the photographer who probably just did whatever was the standard procedure. If this class had been bigger they might have filled the bleachers and wouldn't have even had this situation so obviously they just needed to set up differently for a class this size.

How schools are set up and run varies state to state in the US; where I live as a teacher I was able to get kids in and out of chairs and equipment (we also had assistants, therapists, etc.); training on how to get children positioned properly was done on an ongoing basis. This situation would have just been a matter of realizing how the photographer was going to be set up so staff could adapt as needed (which now it seems like they'll be aware of doing). 

Kids who use a wheelchair wouldn't be in the chair all day, they might use it just to go from the bus to the classroom, the classroom to the gym, etc., and it depends on the child how much support is needed or what type chair he/she would use. Since bleachers don't have a back, some kids who use a wheelchair might be able to sit with assistance and others might need the support of their chair for school events (like picture day) where the bleachers are used. 

The equipment has changed in more recent years, kids who need a brace or helmet usually can pick out the color and design they want, etc. so it's become more child-friendly. It is still a wheelchair or equipment but is considered to be more as a tool they'll be using however they need it.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Jun 18, 2013)

tirediron said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> > The teacher could have helped him out of the chair and put him on the end of the bench while kneeling down to support him from a fall and removing the chair from the picture.I would have never stuck him in the back and off to the side.
> ...



Absolutely not!  Why wasn't this mother there on picture day to assist her son in this situation?  Surely she didn't expect the photographer to scoop the child out of his chair on plop him on the bench?  She couldn't have expected the teacher to do the same?  Much like all schools, I assume this photo was taken in the gym - a big square room with nothing other than perhaps a set of bleachers to sit on?  Without the aide of the boy's mother (or somebody authorized to remove the child from his chair), this photographer had few options at making this composition less alienating.  Putting the teacher between the boy and the bleachers would have been a good option in this case...  To say the photographer did this intentionally is slanderous at the very least.  To say he may have erred would be more accurate I believe.  We all make mistakes.  How we rectify those mistakes is what defines our character.  The photographer shouldn't be hung for this and the mother shouldn't be so quick to point fingers.  In my opinion, she should have been there to assist in this situation or at the VERY LEAST she should have had her wishes known prior to photo day so that arrangements could have been made.  My $0.02.  Cheers!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> This isn't about fighting stigmas or historic implications. It is about a young boy, sitting amongst his peer for a class photo. No more, no less. I do understand where you are coming from though.



Any time you're dealing with something like this the political baggage comes along with it, and cannot be separated from it.


----------



## Bulb (Jun 20, 2013)

The Problem:
Miles appears to be separated from his classmates.

The Solution:
Many, many solutions. The simplest being simply aligning everyone to the right side of the risers. Perhaps maneuvering him in front of the risers and going for a tighter shot.

The Cause:
It all boils down to training. School-hired photography companies almost exclusively hire highly inexperienced photographers. These guys have little to no experience and are sadly mistaken if they think they will be getting much more. They usually have to go by strict formulas as well. Sometimes it's as strict as having a mat with the locations of the lights and camera marked on it. This is tolerable if you consider that these companies sometimes need to take hundreds of identical pictures per day, but it has an added consequence: the photographer a) does not expect any variation, b) is not trained to handle any variation, c) does not have the experience to handle the variation themselves.

Let's be fair with this guy. Yes, he's a crappy photographer, but he's also probably very inexperienced. He followed his training to the best of his ability. Trying something crazy and unexpected is unheard of for him, and it would possibly mean abandoning protocol

The solution that was provided was actually one that the photographer never could have done, even if he were more experienced. "In the new photo, which his parents have not yet seen, Miles was taken out of his wheelchair and supported by a caregiver on a bench beside his classmates." Supported by a caregiver. Was the photographer supposed to not only abandon all of his training, think outside the box for the first time, come up with a solution to a problem which he had never experienced in any form, AND pull a certified caregiver out of his butt in order to make this photo the best it could be?

This is a picture of a happy kid. He is further from the group than he could have been. He probably considers himself a normal kid, but his mother has singlehandedly drawn much more attention to his condition in one day than a lifetime of slightly separated school pictures.


----------

