Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: To Punch or Not To Punch  (Read 6927 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2016, 03:36:40 pm »

But lads, you gotta admit: far less messy, and almost never depressing at the end of it all.

But I don't know... I don't suppose that because of it, anyone actually got angry at themselves, or with anyone else, did they?

Or is that rhetorical one just really more of the same?

Rob

drmike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • On Flickr:
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2016, 04:02:59 pm »

I've been trying to ignore this thread but I'm finding it too hard :)

St. Ansel did it right. You can't do it any righter.

As was pointed out by Jeremy, when he or I take a photograph of the dome then it's ours, we did it, we will certainly have done it differently to AA due to light, sky etc. Assuming the technique is good 'better' is almost without meaning.

Landscape never can do that kind of thing because it doesn't change and it's divorced from people.

I gaze at my lawn as the light changes and see different things to record in each passing minute at the end of the day. Even more simply yesterday the shadows were affected by the grass that I cut today, so the same or similar shadows look quite different. Two photographs taken one each day and you'd know a person had intervened. You might draw some conclusions about his relationship with the lawn. So precise is the cutting, so exact the edge that he must have been some sort of lawn geek or well paid. Or, as in my case he just wanted the blasted grass to be shorter and stuff the edges :)

So taking a larger canvas a few minutes changes a landscape beyond recognition and that's without post processing mangling it. The landscape round me has been sculpted and changed by people for thousands of years. A clever landscape photographer could reveal that. I can't because I'm rubbish at landscapes. So I simply don't accept your comment as valid.

I don't agree with much of what you said about street either but it's too hard to put into words briefly. I do find it fascinating to look at street and see what works (for me) and what is just 'click'. As an example when Martin Parr does street it's almost always worth a look and even that's mixed.

But these are just the ramblings of a real also ran in the photography stakes. The more experience I gain the less I feel I know and less confidence I have in my point of view.

All that said it's interesting to hear what others think and feel so I hope you'll forgive me for joining in.

Mike
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2016, 04:07:28 pm »

Robert (stamper), you're right. I didn't say I don't admire some street photography, and some of the stuff you, Russ and others have posted here has certainly piqued my interest. Much of it, though, I don't understand: that's to say, I don't know why the photographer did, or I should, find the shot interesting. As I say, I must  concede that it's my failure as people I respect seem to agree on those images which are "good street". I just don't do it myself.

1. Rob, I think different considerations apply when you are earning your living from photography. You have more than yourself to please. Professional portrait photography is another area of the craft I don't really understand: 2. are Leibovitz's photographs interesting because they're by Leibovitz, or because they're of famous (and impliedly at least interesting) people? I mention her name only because it sprang to mind, of course, not to single her out.

Russ, it's not cruel. I understand your dismissal, but I don't share it. My motivation in shooting scenes others have shot before is that the result is mine. Of course it's not Ansel's; probably (certainly?) it's not as good as his; but I did it, and what hangs on my wall is the result of my efforts.

I don't get the transcendental experience you mention from street photography. I do get a sense of wonder from some really good landscape, and I do remember the images. You're excluding the effects of light and shadow, of weather, of cloud. Those are the things that make good landscape. Of course Half Dome is unchanging, over our lifetimes at any rate; but the conditions around it, or other constant land formations, are hugely variable. See this, for example.

Anyway, this is essentially a meaningless discussion. You like your art; I like mine. Neither is better than the other. De gustibus non est disputandum. When I covered certain topics at law school, I used to describe pointless theorising as mental masturbation.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

1. I'm not sure what 'professional' has to do with anything that I wrote - I was referring to the emotions, not the business factor that sets off the possibility of doing the work in the first place; in fact, for me, the commerce simply allowed me the finances to do what I wanted to do: photograph female beauty, even if it was sometimes compromised by the goddam products we had to try and sell.

"As for today's exponents: my feeling is that, devoid of almost any actual possibility of doing photography as a means of regularly putting bread on the family table, disinterested in the vacuity (which I feel) most landscape represents, they have little else left to explore and from which to attempt to garner their jollies. Trouble is, it's now totally irrelevant. As is almost all of photography."

The reference, above, to photography as career wasn't supposed to suggest that everyone doing photography today would have also had professional hopes; more that the amateur outlet is pretty much all that's going, and will increasingly be the case, I think, and that unless you dig landscape, there's not a lot left to do other than 'street'. It was an extension of my attempt to answer your 'why' about the reasons people shoot 'street'.

2. I think your second point is more than fair: her pictures, IMO, depend almost totally on the people within the frame. Her value, I think, lies in her own fame and the ability that has given her to feel (I imagine!) absolutely not disadvantaged/intimidated by subject fame/presence. Skill has to be taken as a given at almost all levels of commercial work if you are to survive for any length of time, and she has plenty of that (and assistants too, with their contributions). But, she could still hack it pretty well when she was alone, on the road with the Stones, for Rolling Stone, a delightful combination of similar words and different meanings, now I see it in print. But originality ain't there to any huge degree: her famous shot of Ms Goldberg emerging from the bath of milk was already done ages ago, as was the shot of Bette Midler lying on the bed of roses... all old ideas.

Huge problem with photography: it's all derivative now, unavoidably so. Like I said, it's amost irrelevant.

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2016, 04:28:28 pm »

I've been trying to ignore this thread but I'm finding it too hard :)

As was pointed out by Jeremy, when he or I take a photograph of the dome then it's ours, we did it, we will certainly have done it differently to AA due to light, sky etc. Assuming the technique is good 'better' is almost without meaning.

I gaze at my lawn as the light changes and see different things to record in each passing minute at the end of the day. Even more simply yesterday the shadows were affected by the grass that I cut today, so the same or similar shadows look quite different. Two photographs taken one each day and you'd know a person had intervened. You might draw some conclusions about his relationship with the lawn. So precise is the cutting, so exact the edge that he must have been some sort of lawn geek or well paid. Or, as in my case he just wanted the blasted grass to be shorter and stuff the edges :)

So taking a larger canvas a few minutes changes a landscape beyond recognition and that's without post processing mangling it. The landscape round me has been sculpted and changed by people for thousands of years. A clever landscape photographer could reveal that. I can't because I'm rubbish at landscapes. So I simply don't accept your comment as valid.

I don't agree with much of what you said about street either but it's too hard to put into words briefly. I do find it fascinating to look at street and see what works (for me) and what is just 'click'. As an example when Martin Parr does street it's almost always worth a look and even that's mixed.

But these are just the ramblings of a real also ran in the photography stakes. The more experience I gain the less I feel I know and less confidence I have in my point of view.

All that said it's interesting to hear what others think and feel so I hope you'll forgive me for joining in.

Mike


1. I can't imagine why you would want to ignore this thread; in fact, I think you should be pleased that Russ resisted a suggestion to close it! And certainly, of course you must join in!

2. Whether a photograph has merit because it's mine/yours, in the sense that you suggest that, I find odd. I have made many lousy landscapes professionally because they were to be syndicated as 'atmospherics' which, simply put, means to entice tourists to visit places some travel agent is trying to sell. They achieved nothing beyond, I hoped, being pretty and technically good. So as landscape, some esoteric medium, they failed. But that, I think, applies to the huge majority. I'm afraid I find the Saint boring, and  that's not to deny him superlative skills: it's the subject matter that doesn't boil my waters. Yet, there is the very occasional black/white shooter whose work most certainly does just that - the reason? his take and, usually, utter simplicity of both subject and technique. Colour pretty much always fails to move me in landscape, but not so with water, where motion also plays a huge part in defining a dynamic.

Rob

drmike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • On Flickr:
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2016, 05:07:04 pm »

Rob I'm confused now. You say all photography is derivative and hence meaningless (although I'm not clear if this is just applied to pro only) - a view I cannot agree with, to do so would surely suggest that we cannot find beauty (to use just one word) where others do not. Almost all the photographs I take are pretty pointless in one respect but are my attempts to capture fleeting beauty from the world around me. I have to say hardly anyone feels the same as I do about them but should I stop trying and enjoying trying? Should I accept I  cannot be good because others have gone before me?

There really is nothing new under the sun in some ways and that was as true in 1950 as it is now. So Martin Parr to use him again shouldn't have tried? I'm not sure but I don't think he started out as a pro and probably never expected to be in the position he is now able to be offered and accept worthwhile commissions.

I'm not saying an image has merit because it's mine but it is my baby so I love it - well some of them. That's great it brings me joy and that must be  a good thing. If others also find it pleasing to look at then that's good too. But to suggest as has been done I shouldn't bother because some mutt went there first and snapped is plain wrong and means we have reached boundaries in vision and imagination which is plainly not true.

Landscapes are not really my interest but I can see how they attract some people and I think some are superb works of art. To an extent it depends how you define landscape but if it's so easy as has been hinted although not by you how is it I can't take a good landscape to save my life? All I have to do is stand in the same place as AA and bingo genius will follow. Huh.

But again, I must emphasise my lack of experience and expertise. I do sit and think about these things but in a very untutored way.

Mike
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2016, 04:49:18 am »

Rob I'm confused now. You say all photography is derivative and hence meaningless (although I'm not clear if this is just applied to pro only) - a view I cannot agree with, to do so would surely suggest that we cannot find beauty (to use just one word) where others do not. Almost all the photographs I take are pretty pointless in one respect but are my attempts to capture fleeting beauty from the world around me. I have to say hardly anyone feels the same as I do about them but should I stop trying and enjoying trying? Should I accept I  cannot be good because others have gone before me?

There really is nothing new under the sun in some ways and that was as true in 1950 as it is now. So Martin Parr to use him again shouldn't have tried? I'm not sure but I don't think he started out as a pro and probably never expected to be in the position he is now able to be offered and accept worthwhile commissions.

I'm not saying an image has merit because it's mine but it is my baby so I love it - well some of them. That's great it brings me joy and that must be  a good thing. If others also find it pleasing to look at then that's good too. But to suggest as has been done I shouldn't bother because some mutt went there first and snapped is plain wrong and means we have reached boundaries in vision and imagination which is plainly not true.

Landscapes are not really my interest but I can see how they attract some people and I think some are superb works of art. To an extent it depends how you define landscape but if it's so easy as has been hinted although not by you how is it I can't take a good landscape to save my life? All I have to do is stand in the same place as AA and bingo genius will follow. Huh.

But again, I must emphasise my lack of experience and expertise. I do sit and think about these things but in a very untutored way.

Mike


Mike -

I have to be brief because I must go out and fight/untangle problems in my real world, but I won't go into that here.

Derivative; meaningless. Yes, I think so, but then so is sex, and we still find it (usually) irresistible. It's what we are and what we do.

Does somebody else love your sense of beauty? Do you want to marry a woman nobody else would want to be seen with on a rainy day, even if she has the only large umbrella in town?

In the end, I have no more answers than I have questions, and even where I have questions I suppose that I also store hoped-for answers in my little black box somewhere deep within the personal system...

What is beauty? Is it tangible or simply another figment of an ever-hopeful and sometimes febrile imagination?

Originality might really be little more than a myth, even when it seems to be offering something new. For my few pennies, stuff like cubism, for example, isn't originality: it's cynicism in a big way.

Regarding Mr Parr: I so wish he hadn't tried! I think he should know that, in my opinion at least, he carries huge guilt.

Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2016, 07:19:36 am »

Here's a provocative statement: porn is more likely to be art than landscape.

Of course that's about my definition of art: it has to be visually appealing to my subjective perception (please, no vivisection!) and it leads me to thinking.

Rarely does a landscape lead me to think something other than "that's nice". Or the thought is "too much tone mapping and too much dof suck."

Now of course you might say that porn is mostly about flooding blood into your nether parts and away from your brain, and that is the most usual business model.
However, sex remains one of the few real taboos... I mean real sex, and the pleasure of it, as opposed to a woman with unnatural boobs sprawled on an ugly car to help it sell, or the American movie version in which it serves to establish a moral flaw and explain why the character will later be killed.

We still keep real sex behind closed doors. We automatically say that a close-up of a vulva or an erect penis is obscene.
So here is challenge: go look at something like
http://bettytompkins.com/
(the "fuck paintings") and then ask the question... why do we say these images are obscene?
So there you are, porn provides images that generate an immediate response, but also a potential self questioning: why do I automatically think of this as obscene? Why does society say it's obscene and must be hidden, while Amnesty International can post me a letter with a photo on the outside of a teenager about to be hung in Iran?
Why does 99% of society agree that it's obscene while 75% are enthusiastic viewers?

Those are interesting questions, are they not? They engage both the brain and the gonads. Far more than choice of f-stop or image-stitching vs pixel density...
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2016, 08:07:58 am »

I gaze at my lawn as the light changes and see different things to record in each passing minute at the end of the day. Even more simply yesterday the shadows were affected by the grass that I cut today, so the same or similar shadows look quite different.

Mike

Watching grass grow is always exciting.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2016, 08:11:20 am »

Graham,

For me, the reply is a simple one: I find the images in the link unpleasant because, first off, I think them ugly, and not in the least provocative in a sexual sense.

If anything, sex works best in the dimness of a warm, summer's afternoon with the shutters closed and the windows open. The low light lends an air of mystery, hides the inevitable faults that both partners have in abundance, and makes the whole process seem on the plus side of beautiful.

Frankly, even photographs of that genre that try to be beautiful yet explicit still don't cut it for me. For some reason best known to himself, even an old hero, Frank Horvat (www.horvatland.com) eventually wandered, pointlessly, into the same field of close-ups and all he managed to achieve, for me, was to lose some of his credibility and gravitas; it struck me as the final, desperate throws of an old man trying to find something new (to him?) to explore. I hope I don't go that way myself. I doubt that I will: I'm both too stingy - possibly poor? - to blow money on models and I still seek a beauty that feels relevant to my own values and to what I was always trying to achieve, to greater or lesser success...

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2016, 08:17:00 am »

Watching grass grow is always exciting.

The problem is, Russ, it does grow too damned fast!

Fortunately, I no longer have to do my own lawns as it is a community responsibility handled by a contract gardener. Yet, yet... I sure miss my own driveway and garage. Life is seldom in perfect equilibrium; if it were, I think it would lose the momentum of its instability and stop, never to budge again. Hell, then we'd all fall off!

Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2016, 10:08:51 am »

I think the idea of going close-up is to become abstract, and hence disconnect the knee-jerk response a little (much as Brandt did with his nudes I guess).
I chose Tompkins because
a) it's harder to play the "it's oppressive to women" card for images produced by a woman;
b) it's painting, so it makes some hesitate a little longer at the trash/art boundary.

Beauty is of course personal  :)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2016, 10:20:48 am »

Graham,

Nothing is beautiful at the moment. I just received the quotation for sending my watch off to Geneva for some R 'n' R.

Worse, there's a remark on the quotation telling me that one of the links on the Submariner bracelet isn't an original part. Which is interesting, as I bought the watch new. The first 'service' was handled by Watches of Switzerland in Bonnie Ecosse, the others all by the very exclusive/approved agent here in Palma de Mallorca, where it lies at the moment awaiting my approval of their quotation.

It will be worth finding out what excuse comes up to explain the non-legit part... I do hope they don't accuse me of trying to get it fixed (the sprung bracelet) in a cycle shop: that won't go down very well at all.

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 10:24:55 am by Rob C »
Logged

drmike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • On Flickr:
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2016, 01:19:58 pm »

Rob - regarding your reply to me, I'm not sure how sex crept into the discussion nor how partnering and ugly woman with an umbrella but I think it perhaps reflects our different focus in life. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder and the creator but that doesn't move us on.

Originality? In some respects nothing is truly original yet each new work is totally original although it may be both awful and derivative. But it must be unique - almost nothing is the same from one moment to the next.

Martin Parr should be ashamed? I think not. On form he's very engaging and challenging. I find him clever without being cliquey, he has some lovely collections and I will always make time to look at his work. That said I am not impressed by his selfies not the rhubarb set but some of his earlier books I find inspirational and validating when I try to look at the world slightly differently.

Mike
Logged

drmike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • On Flickr:
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2016, 01:24:17 pm »

Watching grass grow is always exciting.

I'm surprised you'd say that. I find it singularly dull from one moment to the next but taken over a period its impact on the environment such as my shadows could be quite strong. Unless of course you were being droll and effectively dismissing my argument which is fair enough I suppose.

Mike
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2016, 02:45:07 pm »

Rob - regarding your reply to me, I'm not sure how sex crept into the discussion nor how partnering and ugly woman with an umbrella but I think it perhaps reflects our different focus in life. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder and the creator but that doesn't move us on.

Originality? In some respects nothing is truly original yet each new work is totally original although it may be both awful and derivative. But it must be unique - almost nothing is the same from one moment to the next.

Martin Parr should be ashamed? I think not. On form he's very engaging and challenging. I find him clever without being cliquey, he has some lovely collections and I will always make time to look at his work. That said I am not impressed by his selfies not the rhubarb set but some of his earlier books I find inspirational and validating when I try to look at the world slightly differently.

Mike


Mike, I repect your views, so there's nothing much I can add, other than to say that I still, on rereading what I wrote in one helluva hurry, think my meanings were absolutely crystal clear. If you don't get them, well, fine; there are many people here whose posts also confuse and confound me, so we aren't that different!

Mr Parr has always struck me as having a very cruel streak, disguise it as his fans may try. I don't enjoy cruelty any more than I do pornography, which I avoid and hate because it has always cast its contaminating smell over everything I have done as a photographer, because to some minds, the photography of models is porn - almost by definition. And in the primitive British north, from whence I hail, the shadows of Knox and Calvin lingered strong whilst I remained there and tried to defy it all and make my mark.

My web site is easy to find; look at the first gallery and it covers part of my professional oeuvre, which represents the few final years of commercial calendar effort, the many more ones of fashion being lost forever due to my destruction, back in '81 as I was quitting Britain, of the whole lot of them (negatives and trannies) that I couldn't sell back to clients. I think a brief look at that gallery will show I have no interest in porn.

I had no idea that the Internet was coming; I had no inkling that fashion pictures would one day sell as art. My thousands of negatives represented, I thought, a redundant storage problem I didn't need in Spain, and nothing else... I feel for the late Brian Duffy who did exactly the same thing but, fortunately for his heirs, less efficiently.

Anyway, enjoy what you do and as long as you do it for yourself and anyone who digs it, why not? I do no more than that either.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 02:53:53 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2016, 02:58:29 pm »

Jeremy,

1. I'm not sure what 'professional' has to do with anything that I wrote - I was referring to the emotions, not the business factor that sets off the possibility of doing the work in the first place; in fact, for me, the commerce simply allowed me the finances to do what I wanted to do: photograph female beauty, even if it was sometimes compromised by the goddam products we had to try and sell.


2. I think your second point is more than fair: her pictures, IMO, depend almost totally on the people within the frame. Her value, I think, lies in her own fame and the ability that has given her to feel (I imagine!) absolutely not disadvantaged/intimidated by subject fame/presence. Skill has to be taken as a given at almost all levels of commercial work if you are to survive for any length of time, and she has plenty of that (and assistants too, with their contributions). But, she could still hack it pretty well when she was alone, on the road with the Stones, for Rolling Stone, a delightful combination of similar words and different meanings, now I see it in print. But originality ain't there to any huge degree: her famous shot of Ms Goldberg emerging from the bath of milk was already done ages ago, as was the shot of Bette Midler lying on the bed of roses... all old ideas.

Huge problem with photography: it's all derivative now, unavoidably so. Like I said, it's amost irrelevant.

Rob

Rob, no disrespect intended: it was the compromise to which I was alluding.

I'm pleased I'm not entirely alone in my view of portrait stuff. I can see Leibovitz's photographs, and admire the technique (but then technique is something I imagine a professional would take for granted), but I can't really fathom what it is that excites such admiration other than the fame of the sitter.

Jeremy
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2016, 03:17:58 pm »

Rob, no disrespect intended: it was the compromise to which I was alluding.

I'm pleased I'm not entirely alone in my view of portrait stuff. I can see Leibovitz's photographs, and admire the technique (but then technique is something I imagine a professional would take for granted), but I can't really fathom what it is that excites such admiration other than the fame of the sitter.

Jeremy

Oh, I didn't take offence Jeremy, I just didn't get the connection. But yes, commerce is full of trade-offs, even of downright naked betrayals and sabotage, of which I  have certainly been victim along with, I don't doubt, many other snappers... Even Don McCullin got stuffed over the Falklands. And he's no shrinking violet.

Looking back, I sometimes think that given the opportunity again, I'd do something else. Then within seconds, I know I am deceiving myself with that idea. I'd do very little differently, only perhaps be a little more ruthless and never give second-chances. The latter have always cost me dear.

Rob

drmike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • On Flickr:
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2016, 03:38:42 pm »

Mr Parr has always struck me as having a very cruel streak, disguise it as his fans may try. 

I feel very cruel may be a little harsh but certainly he has an incisive eye and takes few prisoners when observing human nature. I'd have thought many street photographers are cruel sometimes or at least exploitative not that I really feel Parr is 'street'. I'm not really aware of his fans being defensive but then I don't go hunting for that sort of thing. His rhubarb shots seem quite warm to me and also disappointing.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2016, 04:11:48 pm »

I feel very cruel may be a little harsh but certainly he has an incisive eye and takes few prisoners when observing human nature. I'd have thought many street photographers are cruel sometimes or at least exploitative not that I really feel Parr is 'street'. I'm not really aware of his fans being defensive but then I don't go hunting for that sort of thing. His rhubarb shots seem quite warm to me and also disappointing.

Agreed. But volume excuses none.

Rob C

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: To Punch or Not To Punch
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2016, 03:29:14 am »

I feel very cruel may be a little harsh but certainly he has an incisive eye and takes few prisoners when observing human nature. I'd have thought many street photographers are cruel sometimes or at least exploitative not that I really feel Parr is 'street'. I'm not really aware of his fans being defensive but then I don't go hunting for that sort of thing. His rhubarb shots seem quite warm to me and also disappointing.


I don't think it cruel to capture what you see unless you intervene and set it up to look cruel. Is this image cruel?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up