The theme: exploring the definition of Private and Public spaces and experiences of city dwellers, who is forced to deal with the lack of privateness in urban world. Some choose not to go with the crowd. Instead they intentionally express their feelings visibly, and how often do you tend not to notice it, especially in crowded surroundings and in the transit of everyday life.


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/529907473_95e76d4e93_o.jpg

hasselblad 6X6
Coney Island, NY

8/10

9/10

quality is poor.

7/10

...

^^ This is the original scan from a "film" negative, and it's of superb "quality" of course

did you do any editing to this? The sky is completely washed out and overall the photo looks blurry. what were your settings?

did you do any editing to this? The sky is completely washed out and overall the photo looks blurry. what were your settings?

What do you mean by "washed out"? Looks normal to me, almost too normal for a sunny mid-summer day in NY.

overall the photo looks blurry.

It's a low res copy from a scan, what did you expect? Even if the photo is a little blurry, what does the blurriness have to do with the subject? The vast majority of Henri Cartier-Bresson's (you know the little known guy who invented "decisive moment" in street photography) were made with a crappy equipment and were completely blurry. Still, the technical quality of his photos didn't prevent him from becoming one of he greatest photographers of all time.

For for people with discriminatory mind, people like yourself, the main (and frequently the only)criterion of artistic quality is faithfulness of representation of reality. They do not understand that technical superiority is not merely corner-to-corner sharpness, but an ability to obtain a desired emotional response from a viewer. Photography as an art form, however, embraces far more than just critical sharpness and correct exposure; hence it does not fit the standard, and real works of photographic art drown in a stream of dull, static and emotionally hollow pictures that are so abundant around here, because they are just all too easy to produce.

7/10----->its k but as people are saying, bad quality

Cheez, you're unbelievable:lol:

What do you mean by "washed out"? Looks normal to me, almost too normal for a sunny mid-summer day in NY.



It's a low res copy from a scan, what did you expect? Even if the photo is a little blurry, what does the blurriness have to do with the subject? The vast majority of Henri Cartier-Bresson's (you know the little known guy who invented "decisive moment" in street photography) were made with a crappy equipment and were completely blurry. Still, the technical quality of his photos didn't prevent him from becoming one of he greatest photographers of all time.

For for people with discriminatory mind, people like yourself, the main (and frequently the only)criterion of artistic quality is faithfulness of representation of reality. They do not understand that technical superiority is not merely corner-to-corner sharpness, but an ability to obtain a desired emotional response from a viewer. Photography as an art form, however, embraces far more than just critical sharpness and correct exposure; hence it does not fit the standard, and real works of photographic art drown in a stream of dull, static and emotionally hollow pictures that are so abundant around here, because they are just all too easy to produce.I appreciate your passion on the subject, but like you said, photography is art, and that means different things for different people.

I like that way you put it, "artistic quality is faithfulness of representation of reality" That is photography for me. Its about trying to capture one moment or scene that makes you feel you are there.

And don't take anything here personally.

No, you confuse technicality with artistic quality. In other words, you can capitalize on the virtues of pure ignorance

No, you confuse technicality with artistic quality. In other words, you can capitalize on the virtues of pure ignoranceNo a photo can be technically perfect and still be uninteresting and have little or no artistic quality. Capturing the moment is what is important.

8/10

The theme: exploring the definition of Private and Public spaces and the experiences of city dwellers dealing with the lack of privateness in urban settings. Some people choose not to go with the crowd. Instead they intentionally express their feelings visibly, and how often do you tend not to notice it, especially in crowded surroundings and in the transit of everyday life.

Capturing the moment is what is important.

Obviously not for you it is important. Or do I really have to quote you commenting on the "washed out" sky in photo?


My guess is that the best photography is hard to find. Good photography is rarely popular. I’m reminded of Bill Jay’s essay on photographic fame:

I think we can agree that any definition of fame would include such phrases as “popular acclaim,” “known far and wide,” “public estimation and regard,” “household name,” and similar tributes. Now lay back and concentrate. Name an active living artist-photographer who is famous. . . . . . . (The dots represent time passing. Go ahead, think about it for as long as you like.)

Ready now? Good. Who did you come up with? Joel-Peter Witkin. Robert Mapplethorpe. Annie Leibowitz. Sally Mann. Who? Never mind – we have enough names for our purpose.

The next question is: how many people in the USA have heard of any one of these names? As I cannot hear you I will answer the question myself. Probably one thousand at any one time. More? OK, let us up the figure to five thousand although I think that is stretching it.

Here is the first conclusion: in a nation of 260 million even the higher figure does not represent “public acclaim”; it means that the name is recognized by only five persons in a quarter of a million. Now, compare. When a minor television sit-com actress of dubious talent declared her lesbianism she inundated every major news outlet for weeks, including the cover of Time plus seven inside pages, and her coming-out episode was watched by everyone in the universe except me. That is fame.

The theme: exploring the definition of Private and Public spaces and the experiences of city dwellers dealing with the lack of privateness in urban settings. Some people choose not to go with the crowd. Instead they intentionally express their feelings visibly, and how often do you tend not to notice it, especially in crowded surroundings and in the transit of everyday life.

Obviously not for you it is important. Or do I really have to quote you commenting on the "washed out" sky in photo? I should have said interesting moment. You do a good job capturing your theme, but thats not what I felt when I first saw the photo.

Photography for me is capturing that one rare moment in time. And also how you capture that moment. Adjusting things like aperture, shutter speed, etc to get that desired effect is important to me.

I should have said interesting moment. You do a good job capturing your theme, but thats not what I felt when I first saw the photo.

What's interesting? The mainstream opinion was that Jeff Wall's photographs were boring. But what is boring? Is illuminating - boring..

[QUOTE=cbotnyse;17818539]Photography for me is capturing that one rare moment in time. And also how you capture that moment. Adjusting things like aperture, shutter speed, etc to get that desired effect is important to me.

Oh, please, I'm not a stock photographer nor am I an editorial photographer. I couldn't care less even if I splatter coffee all over my prints, the latter would add even more artistic value to it. If you want to see blatantly metered imagery, visit Istockhphoto.com, knock yourself out. Just don't come and bother me with discerning attention to the "F" number no more.

well good luck to you then. I hope you succeed convincing the ignorant masses of your art form.

^^

I don't need to :) Simple as it is to describe, those who like my stuff, just do business with me and don't pretend they know something about clicking shutter button(please don't take it personally though).

actually for a negative scan the quality is not bad... 8/10

These kind of shots become less interesting when in very sharp good brilliant or whatever quality. Nice one, 8/10.

^^

I don't need to :) Simple as it is to describe, those who like my stuff, just do business with me and don't pretend they know something about clicking shutter button(please don't take it personally though).No offense taken. The people who like my stuff, and do business with me, respect the fact I know where the shutter button is.

^^

It sounded like you were somewhat offended by me in the end. ;)

No I wasn't. Not at all.

Interesting but not special.

8/10

Very interesting - 9/10

did you do any editing to this? The sky is completely washed out and overall the photo looks blurry. what were your settings?

Oh...
Do you remember our fight over the "technically good" under one of you works?? I believe it was the Xmas tree in Chicago...
well this picture would be very definition of what I was saying that technique is subservient to the point... and in this picture is technically VERY good!
Pity that you with so many other people just don't see it.
In a way you miss the whole point of photography as an art form as opposed to mere depiction of reality.

To make simply "good quality" pictures is rather easy - just follow few simple rules and you are done! (of course some can't accomplish even that much) but ability to follow the instruction of you camera isn't really something to be all that proud about...

Here, on the other hand, we have couple of shots that transcend that.

And another comment I just feel I have to make! this one is about use of the score system.
I think the very fact that most posters think that it start with 7 speaks volumes.
It just perfect illustration of the point of view, one of complete denial! they look at the scale of 1 to 10 and say that the lowest number there is 6 or 7. That attitude translates into the way they perceive and process the world around
Sad!

7/10
;)

7/10

7/10

I don't think it looks poor quality at all. I think it looks pretty realistic. A day that warm and overcast on Coney Island is going to appear washed out like that.

I gave it a 7 because I wasn't particularly interested in what's in the photo but I think it depicts a day at the beach on a warm, overcast, smoggy day in one of the world's largest cities.

I'm not a photographer but that's just my 2 cents.

7/10

6/10

7/10

07

7/10