Andre Labonte wrote:
These are rather poorly composed ... nice try at being artistic but it was a monumental fail ... "
Wow, tough crowd tonight.
I think it's a strong set. I like every one, each for different reasons. The strong silhouette with the diagonal streak stands out, especially on the second read when you see him reflected in the window.
The post processing is spot on, you have wonderful tonality in your B&W's.
Andre, these may not be your cup of tea and that's fine, but I think you're off base on your slam on his composition. I have a B.F.A from a design school rated in the top 20 in the US (#2 in Industrial Design, #7 in Graphic Design and #18 in Fine Art), with its film school in the top 25 in the world. Based on my education and experience, I feel almost all of these images have strong, interesting compositions.
I think it's a strong set. I like every one, each for different reasons. The strong silhouette with the diagonal streak stands out, especially on the second read when you see him reflected in the window.
The post processing is spot on, you have wonderful tonality in your B&W's.
Andre, these may not be your cup of tea and that's fine, but I think you're off base on your slam on his composition. I have a B.F.A from a design school rated in the top 20 in the US, with its film school in the top 25 in the world. Based on my education and experience, I feel almost all of these images have strong, interesting compositions....Show more →
Thanks. I have a B/A in photography and work full time in commercial advertising and have been supporting my family with this for several decades. I have taught photography part time on the college level and had a one man exhibit of some on my street work just this last April. I have been in dozens of exhibits both one man and group shows.
I can totally respect someone not liking my work but I think I do know how to put an image together visually. So Andrea, I really would like to know which ones you think are poorly composed and why you feel the composition isn't working in those images.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Thanks. I have a B/A in photography
My B.F.A. is from Art Center College of Design, Los Angeles. There's some other Art Center grads who post here once in a while. I have judged photo contests, including at the professional level and have taught off and on for over 30 years including at the college level.
I'm with you, I'd like to know why he thinks the composition doesn't work.
I know my work isn't for everyone. Street work is not held in high regard by many here and that to is very cool. We are all free to like what we like. But even in work I don't like I can still see if the pictures have an interesting composition. I believe as Weston did the if everyone composes by the same rules then the work becomes cliche and there can be no freshness of vision. That composition becomes a part of a personal way of seeing.
I like street work (I hate that word street) for the same reasons that Meyerowitz stated in the trailer of the upcoming movie (Everybody Street) that I posted in # 9. My professional work is usually very orchestrated and planned out and my personal work is just the opposite. Finding clarity in chaos is what this type of photography is about. Seeing and capturing things in a fraction of a second that have also have strong visual elements that fully support the statement is infinitely difficult.
I to would like to read what Andre thinks is wrong with the compositions and why he feels they are not working. Not saying my work is in any way great but I think it does look like my work. And the compositions reflect that. I think one of the biggest compliments that a photographer or any visual image maker can get is that the image he or she creates looks like their images.
Street photography is hard to view just once. I could come back to this thread in a year and have different opinions. At the end it's just an opinion and you know best when it comes to your work and what you want to do with it.
Most good photographs are the ones that you probably don't get immediate gratification from. They are the ones that reveal themselves slowly and get better with repeat viewings. Images that are looked at and gotten right away there is no need to go back to them again and again. But the ones that the creator has used the language well and put those elements that are not always easily seen but demand more attention are the ones you have to go back to and the more you look the more you see. It's really hard to building that kind of staying power into any 2 dimensional piece and that will include a photograph.
Arbus would cover her walls with her work and live with them a while to see which ones had staying power. Winogrand would wait long periods of time before processing to see if the images had the same impact in time as they did when he first shot them. I tend to like to spend some time with the work as Arbus did to see if it holds up. So your comment about having another look in a year and maybe seeing them differently has merit. It's like revisting a good book years later. The book could have a very different meaning. The book hasn't changed..
"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time."-Ralph Gibson
boingyman I do appreciate your thoughts and words...Thanks for taking the time to comment.
^^^^ Sir, very erudite commentary IMHO. I have a less sophisticated analysis of what constitutes for me "good art."Simple, I keep going back to look again and again at the photograph because there is something about it that compels to me see it again and again. Your photos do NOT admit of a simplistic read, again just from my perspective. I have much to learn from them, particularly about juxtaposition, lines of vision, yes, lines of vision and convergence and divergence, contrast and saturation, and a critical element that for me makes the picture. I cannot get that info all at once, the last being most ephemeral. (hehe, variables that are not unlike those taught to me by Vern Harrison at Central Virginia Tactical ) So... keep em coming, AirfrogUSMC. You do damn good work as far as I'm concerned
Love the skater.....he almost looks like part of the display in the window. Great moment.
I fall into the camp that I don't look at my take till days or weeks later. If and when I go through them....and I can't recapture that emotion or reason that I took it I don't usually proceed with the image.
I can't stand to look at a shoot right away. Kills it for me.
1, 3, 6 and 9 are the strongest to me. Intersting lines and tonalities throughout. I originally thought that #6 was a "close, but no cigar" shot. Then I saw the reflection on the right side balancing everything out and it was a BIG win.
# 5 is a very funny moment between the woman and dog, but the composition feels static - the left side of the frame feels empty. If you had a different POV and not as much dead space on the left, it would be stronger IMO.
No BFA here, but I have taken classes and am working on cultivating my eye. Thanks for sharing these!!
i don't care if it's street photography or not, they took my attention, it really represents moments from life, considering they're from a far part of the world to me, i really like them, for me they're not ordinary shots
Haven't been around in a while, but I'll comment on a few. Wow, I don't quite get Andre...'monumental fail'? Really? Oh well.
Starting with #6 and #7. #6- I like when subjects are walking or looking 'out of frame' sometimes, especially when there is an actual or possible point of interest implied. In this case, the obvious light source and possible approaching bus/vehicle? The person (display) on the other side looking the same way adds to it. That's the way I see it anyway. I like it.
#7- I rather like this one. I'd call it 'Smoker's Lounge'. I like the contrast (figurative) between the loading dock doors and business suits.
Now back to #2. It's really my favorite, but I wonder if the third significant element (table and chairs) is competing too much with the nice geometry of the steps and the woman? Take a look at a landscape crop, just above the top of the highest chair and see if the image is helped in any way. It seems less complicated.
Andre Labonte wrote:
These are rather poorly composed ... nice try at being artistic but it was a monumental fail ... as my daughter said when she saw these:
"That was strange, what was the point of these?"
Do you honestly not see any point to any of these photographs? I mean, some perhaps are interpretive, but the obvious contrasts and compositions in others shouldn't really be a mystery to at least another photographer.
FWIW, my fav would probably be the lumber shot if I had taken it and known I shot it in camera like that, not in crop later. Secondly, the last shot, the dividing line of light is pretty great. I feel the only missed shot is the girl in motion, partially due to the vantage point coupled with the grates and the comp just not..'working'.
I do understand that some my hate my work and I am totally cool with it. Everyone can't see and work the same way. But if you drop a bomb like:
"These are rather poorly composed ... nice try at being artistic but it was a monumental fail ... as my daughter said when she saw these:
"That was strange, what was the point of these?""
And then don't come back to say which compositions are not working for you and why is kinda lame. Not putting you down in any way for not liking the work or thinking that they don't work. Just if it's sincere and you really want to help or just make a sincere statement then you should be able to express that beyond poorly composed.
To the why. Here's just one reason why for me. Meyerowitz is far more articulate than I am so watch this trailer of an up and coming movie that I can't wait to see. DO NOT let your daughter view this Andre if she is young and is offended by the f word. And I also wanted to say that because i post this I am not saying that my work is comparable to these great photographers (they all have pretty different ways of seeing). I know that my work is a different from any of these photographers for good or bad. But I would rather it suck and look like mine than to be a pail imitation of someone else. That's me.
Oh BTW Jeremy, I usually don't get stoked about wedding work but your work is a cut above. I'm stoked. And I think I see some of you in it (big compliment BTW)
Ok the piece and please keep sensitive ears away from ear shot of the computer.
So these are just some reasons why I do it. Also I do believe as an art form the one thing that photography does better than any other is it freezes moments in time. I find that an extremely exciting thing. I prefer to see the moment and in a split second compose an image that makes some kind of visual sense from what is chaos. With my professional work, for the most part, it is done in very controlled situations and being created by committee (art directors, designers and other visual professionals so this type of work to me is a great break from the daily grind and great visual exercises if nothing more.
A word by Bresson and I stop here for now. And THANK YOU everyone for commenting good and bad and please continue to comment and agree disagree with my words Thats cool to but give me a bit more than it's hard to dance to.
Bresson:
"What reinforces the content of a photograph is the sense of rhythm – the relationship between shapes and values." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
"To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event, as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression."-Henri Cartier-Bresson
"......content cannot be separated from form. By form, I mean the rigorous organisation of the interplay of surfaces, lines and values. It is in this organisation alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organisation can stem only from a developed instinct." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
"'Manufactured' or staged photography does not concern me. And if I make a judgment, it can only be on a psychological or sociological level. There are those who take photographs arranged beforehand and those who go out to discover the image and seize it. For me, the camera is a sketch book, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity, the master of the instant which - in visual terms - questions and decides simultaneously. In order to "give a meaning" to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what he frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, a discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry. It is by great economy of means that one arrives at simplicity of expression."-Henri Cartier-Bresson
Also wanted to say Jeremy there is usually always going to be a slight crop in most of my personal work because I shoot with a rangefinder and what I see in the viewfinder is not what I get. Close and there is also a parallax. Those crop lines is just an approximation and not accurate. I am getting a lot better at it though.
"These are rather poorly composed ... nice try at being artistic but it was a monumental fail ... as my daughter said when she saw these:
"That was strange, what was the point of these?""
And then don't come back to say which compositions are not working for you and why is kinda lame.
No shit.
Andre, it would be fine to skip commenting on photos that don't do anything for you. I do that all the time. It's also sort of OK saying they just don't work for you. If you do comment on those kinds of photos it would be nice to articulate why.
It's not OK to insult the photographer and then ignore his sincere requests for an explanation why you think they are so bad.
So, Andre, it's time to take responsibility for your comment. Apologize or explain.
) So... keep em coming, AirfrogUSMC. You do damn good work as far as I'm concerned 