Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiggliemon | Hacker News Reader

By the title you’d assume these are candid shots of people in real life situations with the phones digitally removed.

The actual method the photographer used was to stage situations, and acquire models to act out scenarios for maximum effect.

I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer - but I think it’s important to point out - as it does effect the content. This is staged art. This isn’t documentary.

View on HN

You're right, I misinterpreted it. My mistake, sorry about that. Hopefully a mod can update the title.

Here's the explanation from the photographer on how they were made:

"The large format portraits are of individuals who appear to be holding personal devices although the devices have been physically removed from the sitter’s hand. They are asked to hold their stare and posture as I remove their device and then I make the exposure."

https://www.removed.social/about/

Thanks, I was looking at the hands and wondering this myself. I would have been a lot more impressed if these were candid shots and then the photographer got images of hands or close likenesses and photographed them in the same positions and then photoshopped them in.

Alright, we've updated the title from “Photographer Removes Phones from Photos”.

It's affect, not effect, in this case: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/affect-or-effect

(I'm sorry. My English is far from perfect either, I just really stumbled over this one for some reason.)

While that situation is often the case, effect is used correctly as a verb in this context. From your link:

> When used as a verb effect means ‘to bring something about as a result’. It’s most often used in a formal context as oppose to everyday English:

> Growth in the economy can only be effected by stringent economic controls.

> The new policies did little to effect change.

> The prime minister effected many policy changes.

Edit: there are two places were effect is used as a verb in that comment. I'm referring to the last one.

Is the viewer brought about as a result of the production of said images?

No, but the content is brought about as a result of the production of said images.

So "I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer" should be "I don’t know how the production of said images will affect the viewer".

I'd argue that both uses are incorrect here, and that's probably why it caught me so off guard. If you look at "it does effect the content", what does "it" refer to? The production? In that case, it'd technically be true that the production brings about the content, but that's almost certainly not the intended meaning here because it's a tautology. The much more likely intended meaning is that the specific manner of production affects (as in, makes a difference to) the content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com