What about the victims they DON’T blur the faces out on? The “I can break these cuffs” guy for instance.
Needfuldoer
Sometimes, for example witnesses interviewed in the field for TV news, you just have to tape them giving verbal permission to use the footage. This doesn’t have to go on air, but as long as you have this permission you can use their name and image. (Of course this varies by state, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, check local laws, eat your vegetables, etc.)
Clif
As like as not, they have an entire department in charge of making sure all the release forms are on file.
AndroidDreams
Did you just call him a victim? I dunno if anyone trying to use brute strength to get out of solid steel handcuffs could be considered a victim, i mean they didnt tase him or beat him up, they calmly told him he couldnt break them
not all. and shows like cops. also that show where they ambush someone who is cheating and various other “reality” shows.
Skorpeyon
I would guess there is compensation, since these are for-profit shows, in allowing them to use your image. Some people feel the pay is “worth it” and sign the papers, perhaps? That, or they’re operating in states where laws allow for criminal’s faces to be shown regardless of permission, and they’ve waited until trial has ended and a verdict reached, etc. I’m super curious about this now, actually.
Leorale
Or it could be staged (or half-staged).
rectilinearpropagation
I think Cheaters must use release forms because they often blur people’s faces out.
They were talking about it on a show, and the explanation from one of the producers, on why they signed the releases was great. “Because they’re stooooopid! That’s why they’re criminals.” It wasn’t Cops, but one of the competitors.
I dunno, if a cop was arresting me, I’d be pretty scared to resist anything. Cops are scary, getting arrested is scary, I wouldn’t like to antagonize suit-guy-with-clipboard at the same time.
SgtWadeyWilson
Why not? This hypothetical you is a criminal who has already done something worthy of airing on television. Why stop antagonising when suit-guy-with-clipboard is standing there, practically asking for it?
rectilinearpropagation
“criminal who has already done something worthy of airing on television.”
A lot of times they really haven’t. An awful lot of Cops segments begin with the cop deciding to stop and question someone because they look suspicious.
“Why stop antagonising when suit-guy-with-clipboard is standing there”
Because by that time you’re handcuffed and in police custody. I would imagine that even if you had done something antagonizing, the desire not to get shot would override any previous motives.
Dorothy can be a bit slow on the uptake with other people’s problems, but I’m willing to bet A LOT that she will have reasons to reevaluate her view of Amaziegirl before this goes to print.
I mean, she *was* dating Danny, originally. It makes sense that they’re both prone to, y’know, “Danning it up”.
Wizard
“Danning” is an STD?
Silly Name
In Dorothy’s defence, she doesn’t have the full picture of what’s going on here. As far as she knows, Amazi-Girl punched a thief (just a punch which doesn’t seems to have caused any wounds), which I guess, from an outsider perspective, can be seen as “appropriate” use of force.
thejeff
Well, as far as this incident goes, she apparently has just as much of the full picture as we do. As far as we know, “Amazi-Girl punched a thief (just a punch which doesn’t seems to have caused any wounds)”.
That doesn’t sound good, to be honest. Dorothy is probably one of the worst people for Amber to talk to. Amber will probably frame it as “Danny is trying to stop me from becoming a superhero” and Dorothy will relate it to her own experience with Danny. She probably won’t realize the exact danger that Amber presents to herself and others.
I don’t think Dorothy knows that Amber/AG was dating Danny.
I’m a bit more worried that due to the idolization Dorothy has for AG, she’ll be inadvertently reinforcing the notion that Amber being a violent masked vigilante is all ok.
My phone has a better camera than any actual camera I’ve owned. Plus it’s smaller and way more convenient. I take loads more photos with my phone than I’ve ever taken before and they look GREAT.
Erm, as good as the photographer-quality cameras that Dorothy could borrow from the Indiana Daily Student equipment stash? I mean, Dor’ can’t exactly plan her Amazi-sightings, so I get it, but high quality cameras are still better than phones, for now, anyway.
Image quality relies heavily on the sensor size, so unless there’s an amazing breakthrough in how we capture pictures, a bulky dSLR will always be better than a slim camera phone.
Generally, newspaper photographs need to be about 200 dpi, and about 8″-10″, if it’s lead art (depending on the physical size of the paper). The few times I’ve had to edit a camera phone image for newspaper the images paled in comparison to a DSLR, especially when they were edited for the ideal crop.
There’s a huge difference in quality between a smartphone and a good still camera. It comes down to optics and the size of the image sensor. All the processing in the world won’t make more photons hit the pea-size sensor in a phone. I’ve yet to see a smartphone with a zoom that gives better results than scaling a wide shot in Photoshop. A decent still gamera will take higher resolution pictures, have a larger sensor for better low-light shots, and have optical zoom that won’t degrade image quality when you use it.
Smartphones can’t be beat for convenience and connectivity, but if I’m planning to go somewhere and I know I’m going to take pictures, a point-and-shoot comes along.
Exactly right. There’s an argument that the best camera is one you have on you, and you can get good results with a phone camera, but from a technical POV a dSLR is going to beat a phone camera every single time. There’s a reason why wedding photographers and other pros aren’t using iPhones.
I’ve taken pictures which were eventually printed in a local newspaper. It was done with a 35-mm camera, black-and-white film, and a 55-mm glass-element lens. Because it was going to be live-action and I was only going to get one shot, I also pre-framed the picture, pre-set the aperture and focus, and panned the shot (to blur the background and keep the subject in focus) to get the the picture. Because of this attention to detail, I got the shot (and the photo credit) — and as a bonus, since I retained possession of the negative, I was later able to crop the shot and still blow blow it up into a 20″x30″ poster-size print.
Next time you’re watching things like the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Indianapolis 500, look and see what the professional cameramen shooting for publications like Sports Illustrated are using. I guar-an-damn-tee you that it isn’t a smartphone’s camera app — and there’s definitely a reason for that.
I know a few professional photographers into sports photography. All of them have one ski bag and two big hockey bags worth of gear they have to take to every shoot, and more than one camera because different cameras are good at different things.
But it’s not just the camera, it’s also whatever you’re using for supplementary lighting (assuming it’s allowed), filters if needed to reduce glare (when you’re shooting outside in summer, frex), tripods, stands, levelling pads for uneven or soft ground so the tripod doesn’t sink into it, platforms for sitting/standing in the event of non-action photography, and I could go on.
Most of my photographer friends’ kit, if it was all wrecked tomorrow would cost more than a luxury car to replace. If you want good photos reliably, you need a heck of a lot more than a smartphone camera app.
Re: Phonecams vs DSLRs or even “bridge” or pocket digicams: Yes to the technical aspects; though I personally know one full-time newspaper photographer — an award-winner for what passes for a metro daily in my parts — who made the switch to “mirrorless” interchangeable-lens digicams. He swears by them now. I personally prefer my DSLR because the camera’s reaction time (from pushing the trigger to the cam going off) still beats any other camera I’ve owned, which is useful for action shots.
HOWEVER — you’ll find many newspapers no longer give a **** about any of that. Cheap cheap cheap. As an anecdotal illustration, I give you the Chicago tabloid that, in the interests of cheap, fired its entire award-winning photo-J staff, all of them, and gave iPhones to all its reporters. They interview, they shoot, they write. And I can tell you from my own experience, it’s possible to do it, but not possible to do all of it well. The skill sets and processes required get in the way of each other when you’re trying to do them simultaneously.
Yeah, for a liberal kind of college girl Dorothy seems a bit too blaise about this.
Viktoria
She’s a reporter. Remember how pissed people got at Anderson Cooper for deigning to help a person in distress rather than remain the aloof observer? Dorothy isn’t going to take a stance on a severe beating doled out to someone who likely didn’t deserve it, that’d hurt her impartiality.
Leorale
She’s also unfortunately distracted by getting the great footage. The guilt might come later when she really looks at them, or the focus on getting good pictures might keep blinding her.
Carriethedragon
That’s true, but also, Dorothy has gushed to Amazi-girl about how much she admires her before, so.
Clif
Also, given Amazigirl’s code, it’s unlikely that she punched him until he attacked her first when she interfered. Then a single punch and the question if he’s done or wants more. Fairly restrained use of violence in a good cause and hardly a bloodfest. Not much to make Dorothy change her mind.
Amazigirl is being the principled and constructive outlet for violent action that Amber needs. Not at all the hair triggered psycho that seems to inhabit the comic that some here are reading.
thejeff
Well, it’s unclear from this whether she’s still holding to that code. She might well be, but given the troubles she’s having, it could also be slipping.
trlkly
Exactly. I was myself going to point out how, this time, we didn’t get the part before it to let us know for sure. I have to believe that is intentional on Willis’s part.
thejeff
Well, I haven’t gone back to look at all the other “patrol incidents” to see exactly how they were presented. I am kind of curious how the commentariat would have taken this exact scene if it had been thrown in earlier – or how we’d interpret some of the earlier ones if they happened now.
Our opinion of AG’s mental state very likely affects how we interpret these scenes.
Michael Haneline
May I ask what Anderson Cooper incident you are referring to?
Viktoria
The kid in the Haiti earthquake. I can’t find anything other than positives now, but I remember at the time people complaining that he “shouldn’t put himself in the story” and similar bs.
There is also the incident, during the civil rights battles of the 1960s, in which a news photographer lowered his camera to help a marcher who’d just gotten beaten bloody. One of the other marchers, though grateful for the humanity, told the photographer: “No! Keep shooting! People have to see this!”
Elisto
It’s actually not bs but specifically part of journalism ethics to stay “neutral” and not get involved in the situation they’re documenting, but in dire situations like Haiti and other disasters, whether or not to maintain that code obviously isn’t clear (even if technically they really are supposed to anyway), and reporters know this. Cooper’s not the only one who’s been in that situation and made that kind of choice.
219 thoughts on “Pleasure”
miados
I’ve always wondered about that with shows like cops
Michael Haneline
That’s probably why the blur out their faces?
Lan
What about the victims they DON’T blur the faces out on? The “I can break these cuffs” guy for instance.
Needfuldoer
Sometimes, for example witnesses interviewed in the field for TV news, you just have to tape them giving verbal permission to use the footage. This doesn’t have to go on air, but as long as you have this permission you can use their name and image. (Of course this varies by state, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, check local laws, eat your vegetables, etc.)
Clif
As like as not, they have an entire department in charge of making sure all the release forms are on file.
AndroidDreams
Did you just call him a victim? I dunno if anyone trying to use brute strength to get out of solid steel handcuffs could be considered a victim, i mean they didnt tase him or beat him up, they calmly told him he couldnt break them
miados
not all. and shows like cops. also that show where they ambush someone who is cheating and various other “reality” shows.
Skorpeyon
I would guess there is compensation, since these are for-profit shows, in allowing them to use your image. Some people feel the pay is “worth it” and sign the papers, perhaps? That, or they’re operating in states where laws allow for criminal’s faces to be shown regardless of permission, and they’ve waited until trial has ended and a verdict reached, etc. I’m super curious about this now, actually.
Leorale
Or it could be staged (or half-staged).
rectilinearpropagation
I think Cheaters must use release forms because they often blur people’s faces out.
jeffepp
They were talking about it on a show, and the explanation from one of the producers, on why they signed the releases was great. “Because they’re stooooopid! That’s why they’re criminals.” It wasn’t Cops, but one of the competitors.
Leorale
I dunno, if a cop was arresting me, I’d be pretty scared to resist anything. Cops are scary, getting arrested is scary, I wouldn’t like to antagonize suit-guy-with-clipboard at the same time.
SgtWadeyWilson
Why not? This hypothetical you is a criminal who has already done something worthy of airing on television. Why stop antagonising when suit-guy-with-clipboard is standing there, practically asking for it?
rectilinearpropagation
“criminal who has already done something worthy of airing on television.”
A lot of times they really haven’t. An awful lot of Cops segments begin with the cop deciding to stop and question someone because they look suspicious.
“Why stop antagonising when suit-guy-with-clipboard is standing there”
Because by that time you’re handcuffed and in police custody. I would imagine that even if you had done something antagonizing, the desire not to get shot would override any previous motives.
Tacos
That’s what I always assumed. People dumb enough to give permission to show their faces cuz they gon’ be on tv yo.
Phlebas
Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot.
StClair
They plan and plot, but they always get caught!
miados
their reckless deeds are brought to naught.
Doctor_Who
She’s beating up Dean Venture! I knew he was a bad egg!
tim gueguen
No, she’s beating up a young Norman Osborne.
Dara
Definitely Norman Osborne.
Doctor_Who
Let’s hope this doesn’t result in some kind of grudge against superheroes.
Clif
Super villain origin.
Foxhack
He doesn’t have Galasso’s hair so he’s not really an Osborn.
KSClaw
Don’t tell him, but he’s adopted
SgtWadeyWilson
You mean don’t tell Galasso, right? I certainly wouldn’t want to try explaining that to him. Or much of anything, really.
Shanunu
Maybe Dorothy will talk to her?
TheOthin
Dorothy doesn’t seem to see a problem here.
Bagge
Dorothy can be a bit slow on the uptake with other people’s problems, but I’m willing to bet A LOT that she will have reasons to reevaluate her view of Amaziegirl before this goes to print.
KKoro
I mean, she *was* dating Danny, originally. It makes sense that they’re both prone to, y’know, “Danning it up”.
Wizard
“Danning” is an STD?
Silly Name
In Dorothy’s defence, she doesn’t have the full picture of what’s going on here. As far as she knows, Amazi-Girl punched a thief (just a punch which doesn’t seems to have caused any wounds), which I guess, from an outsider perspective, can be seen as “appropriate” use of force.
thejeff
Well, as far as this incident goes, she apparently has just as much of the full picture as we do. As far as we know, “Amazi-Girl punched a thief (just a punch which doesn’t seems to have caused any wounds)”.
Suitora
That doesn’t sound good, to be honest. Dorothy is probably one of the worst people for Amber to talk to. Amber will probably frame it as “Danny is trying to stop me from becoming a superhero” and Dorothy will relate it to her own experience with Danny. She probably won’t realize the exact danger that Amber presents to herself and others.
Tacos
I don’t think Dorothy knows that Amber/AG was dating Danny.
I’m a bit more worried that due to the idolization Dorothy has for AG, she’ll be inadvertently reinforcing the notion that Amber being a violent masked vigilante is all ok.
TheGrammarLegionary
No, Dorothy’s very much aware of that relationship, with amusing consequences:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-5/04-walking-with-dina/goofoff/
Amazi-Stool
Also this!
JQuire
Ohmygod, I totally forgot that Dorothy ALSO has a yellow and blue plaid shirt. ‘O_O
Wheelpath
Willis, everyone knows phones are just as good quality and lighting wise.
Brigid Keely
My phone has a better camera than any actual camera I’ve owned. Plus it’s smaller and way more convenient. I take loads more photos with my phone than I’ve ever taken before and they look GREAT.
DarkoNeko
Do we really want HQ pics of a masked Vigilante in the newpaper ?
StClair
By the time they go through the typical college-newspaper printing process, they won’t be HQ anyway.
Clif
If the criminal bleeds, it leads.
Tacos
Hey maybe the cops can then use the pictures when they go on a manhunt for her after she crosses the line and almost kills someone.
Carriethedragon
Erm, as good as the photographer-quality cameras that Dorothy could borrow from the Indiana Daily Student equipment stash? I mean, Dor’ can’t exactly plan her Amazi-sightings, so I get it, but high quality cameras are still better than phones, for now, anyway.
LiamKav
Image quality relies heavily on the sensor size, so unless there’s an amazing breakthrough in how we capture pictures, a bulky dSLR will always be better than a slim camera phone.
Rose
how long has it been by this point? she probably doesn’t know that the stash exists
Scubasteve0209
Generally, newspaper photographs need to be about 200 dpi, and about 8″-10″, if it’s lead art (depending on the physical size of the paper). The few times I’ve had to edit a camera phone image for newspaper the images paled in comparison to a DSLR, especially when they were edited for the ideal crop.
Needfuldoer
No
There’s a huge difference in quality between a smartphone and a good still camera. It comes down to optics and the size of the image sensor. All the processing in the world won’t make more photons hit the pea-size sensor in a phone. I’ve yet to see a smartphone with a zoom that gives better results than scaling a wide shot in Photoshop. A decent still gamera will take higher resolution pictures, have a larger sensor for better low-light shots, and have optical zoom that won’t degrade image quality when you use it.
Smartphones can’t be beat for convenience and connectivity, but if I’m planning to go somewhere and I know I’m going to take pictures, a point-and-shoot comes along.
LiamKav
Exactly right. There’s an argument that the best camera is one you have on you, and you can get good results with a phone camera, but from a technical POV a dSLR is going to beat a phone camera every single time. There’s a reason why wedding photographers and other pros aren’t using iPhones.
Orion Fury
Probably the next version will have those for when he’s moving.
Bicycle Bill
I’ve taken pictures which were eventually printed in a local newspaper. It was done with a 35-mm camera, black-and-white film, and a 55-mm glass-element lens. Because it was going to be live-action and I was only going to get one shot, I also pre-framed the picture, pre-set the aperture and focus, and panned the shot (to blur the background and keep the subject in focus) to get the the picture. Because of this attention to detail, I got the shot (and the photo credit) — and as a bonus, since I retained possession of the negative, I was later able to crop the shot and still blow blow it up into a 20″x30″ poster-size print.
Next time you’re watching things like the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Indianapolis 500, look and see what the professional cameramen shooting for publications like Sports Illustrated are using. I guar-an-damn-tee you that it isn’t a smartphone’s camera app — and there’s definitely a reason for that.
ischemgeek
I know a few professional photographers into sports photography. All of them have one ski bag and two big hockey bags worth of gear they have to take to every shoot, and more than one camera because different cameras are good at different things.
But it’s not just the camera, it’s also whatever you’re using for supplementary lighting (assuming it’s allowed), filters if needed to reduce glare (when you’re shooting outside in summer, frex), tripods, stands, levelling pads for uneven or soft ground so the tripod doesn’t sink into it, platforms for sitting/standing in the event of non-action photography, and I could go on.
Most of my photographer friends’ kit, if it was all wrecked tomorrow would cost more than a luxury car to replace. If you want good photos reliably, you need a heck of a lot more than a smartphone camera app.
DSL
Re: Phonecams vs DSLRs or even “bridge” or pocket digicams: Yes to the technical aspects; though I personally know one full-time newspaper photographer — an award-winner for what passes for a metro daily in my parts — who made the switch to “mirrorless” interchangeable-lens digicams. He swears by them now. I personally prefer my DSLR because the camera’s reaction time (from pushing the trigger to the cam going off) still beats any other camera I’ve owned, which is useful for action shots.
HOWEVER — you’ll find many newspapers no longer give a **** about any of that. Cheap cheap cheap. As an anecdotal illustration, I give you the Chicago tabloid that, in the interests of cheap, fired its entire award-winning photo-J staff, all of them, and gave iPhones to all its reporters. They interview, they shoot, they write. And I can tell you from my own experience, it’s possible to do it, but not possible to do all of it well. The skill sets and processes required get in the way of each other when you’re trying to do them simultaneously.
CriticalQuit
Most underwhelming amazi-girl reaction award goes to…
Mandy
I mean, I know I would be a little put-off if I’d seen someone get the shit beat out of them right in front of me, whether they stole my bag or not.
tim gueguen
Yeah, for a liberal kind of college girl Dorothy seems a bit too blaise about this.
Viktoria
She’s a reporter. Remember how pissed people got at Anderson Cooper for deigning to help a person in distress rather than remain the aloof observer? Dorothy isn’t going to take a stance on a severe beating doled out to someone who likely didn’t deserve it, that’d hurt her impartiality.
Leorale
She’s also unfortunately distracted by getting the great footage. The guilt might come later when she really looks at them, or the focus on getting good pictures might keep blinding her.
Carriethedragon
That’s true, but also, Dorothy has gushed to Amazi-girl about how much she admires her before, so.
Clif
Also, given Amazigirl’s code, it’s unlikely that she punched him until he attacked her first when she interfered. Then a single punch and the question if he’s done or wants more. Fairly restrained use of violence in a good cause and hardly a bloodfest. Not much to make Dorothy change her mind.
Amazigirl is being the principled and constructive outlet for violent action that Amber needs. Not at all the hair triggered psycho that seems to inhabit the comic that some here are reading.
thejeff
Well, it’s unclear from this whether she’s still holding to that code. She might well be, but given the troubles she’s having, it could also be slipping.
trlkly
Exactly. I was myself going to point out how, this time, we didn’t get the part before it to let us know for sure. I have to believe that is intentional on Willis’s part.
thejeff
Well, I haven’t gone back to look at all the other “patrol incidents” to see exactly how they were presented. I am kind of curious how the commentariat would have taken this exact scene if it had been thrown in earlier – or how we’d interpret some of the earlier ones if they happened now.
Our opinion of AG’s mental state very likely affects how we interpret these scenes.
Michael Haneline
May I ask what Anderson Cooper incident you are referring to?
Viktoria
The kid in the Haiti earthquake. I can’t find anything other than positives now, but I remember at the time people complaining that he “shouldn’t put himself in the story” and similar bs.
DSL
There is also the incident, during the civil rights battles of the 1960s, in which a news photographer lowered his camera to help a marcher who’d just gotten beaten bloody. One of the other marchers, though grateful for the humanity, told the photographer: “No! Keep shooting! People have to see this!”
Elisto
It’s actually not bs but specifically part of journalism ethics to stay “neutral” and not get involved in the situation they’re documenting, but in dire situations like Haiti and other disasters, whether or not to maintain that code obviously isn’t clear (even if technically they really are supposed to anyway), and reporters know this. Cooper’s not the only one who’s been in that situation and made that kind of choice.
nobodybasically
Daisy: That Amazi-Girl is a menace! (Though I might be inclined to reconsider if SHE reconsiders that chest window idea.)
Palamdrone
Daisy’s last name wouldn’t happen to be Jameson would it?
StClair