Your Opinion to these Random Photos

[Great Bustard]

Using my best Steve Martin voice: Well, excuuuuse me!

Perhaps if you're familiar with the organization yes. If you have no idea who they are (and don't care) I think not.

Picasso was just some guy with a paint brush and Hendrix was just a guy who played the guitar.

Photographs aren't "successful" all by themselves -- their "success" depends on the context. Some people know the context of the photos in the OP, others (like me), do not. For those who don't know the context, the photos aren't "successful".

Funny, but it seems that everyone has a different takeaway. I didn't see that these photos were tied together to show that "context is important,'but more because they all seem to break certain rules... they have cluttered compositions, busy backgrounds, blurry subjects, etc. I feel that for the most part they're all excellent photos even without the benefit of context. If you know something about the history of photography you'll learn that for many years photographers tended to approach making images in much the same way that a painter does, which is to say very deliberately and with a sense of composition that was informed by European paintings from centuries ago. At some point though a lot of photographers started to create a new aesthetic where compositions were looser and more spontaneous feeling. I feel like this kind of aesthetic philosophy is what this group of photos are demonstrating. Funny how this attitude image making is actually very old at this point and very widely accepted, but still pretty controversial in some quarters. I'd say that the group here on DPR is largely on the conservative side in terms of their tastes and so it's unsurprising to me that there's so much negative reaction to these kind of photos. A lot of folks here are much more on the classicist side in terms of how they think about the medium...

Hmm. So you are saying, then, that all (or, at least, most) of the photos in the OP would appeal to you even if they had simply been photos of people and/or events that were not famous or well known, from some random person's instagram gallery, and processed in-phone with various filters? Not saying anything's wrong with that, mind you, just wanting to make sure that's what you're saying.

 

[doady]

I never seen these photos before, I don't know who these photographers are, but they obviously have a distinctive way of looking at things, and the photos together are very striking. I like 3-6 most. Looking at them, my first thought was that I still have a lot to learn myself as a photographer. Yet all these photos fail so badly to capture the attention and imagination of DPReview users, so there is no hope for my own work for sure. It just shows what I know about photography and art (nothing).

The fact that they fail to capture the attention and imagination of so many people means they are a failure IMO. Some people will intellectualize and say we lack the knowledge to appreciate them. I will counter that the purpose of art is to communicate something to people and if the majority of viewers don't get it then the photo has failed to do its job.

Looking at these photos almost immediately made me wonder what can I do to improve to make photos that are on the same level. It was inspiring, but then seeing others trash them so easily, it was disheartening.

And it's not like they are all shots with the same mood of the same subject in the same style from the same photographer. They are different photos with different moods of different subjects in different styles from different photographers. It is a wide variety of photography, and people simply dismissed them all as a whole.

 

[grsnovi]

Different strokes for different folks.

The OP presented them as a group - albeit one he claimed to be random. In reality they weren't really random - they were likely shot as part of an assignment or story. They were all shot by Magnum Photographers - a group revered by some and unknown to others.

For some looking at these photos trying to catch a theme (the "why" the OP assembled them in the first place) we were left baffled.

Some people like realism in paintings others like impressionism. The accounting for taste among different styles is all about what makes us unique.

 

[Aaron801]

Using my best Steve Martin voice: Well, excuuuuse me!

Perhaps if you're familiar with the organization yes. If you have no idea who they are (and don't care) I think not.

Picasso was just some guy with a paint brush and Hendrix was just a guy who played the guitar.

Photographs aren't "successful" all by themselves -- their "success" depends on the context. Some people know the context of the photos in the OP, others (like me), do not. For those who don't know the context, the photos aren't "successful".

Funny, but it seems that everyone has a different takeaway. I didn't see that these photos were tied together to show that "context is important,'but more because they all seem to break certain rules... they have cluttered compositions, busy backgrounds, blurry subjects, etc. I feel that for the most part they're all excellent photos even without the benefit of context. If you know something about the history of photography you'll learn that for many years photographers tended to approach making images in much the same way that a painter does, which is to say very deliberately and with a sense of composition that was informed by European paintings from centuries ago. At some point though a lot of photographers started to create a new aesthetic where compositions were looser and more spontaneous feeling. I feel like this kind of aesthetic philosophy is what this group of photos are demonstrating. Funny how this attitude image making is actually very old at this point and very widely accepted, but still pretty controversial in some quarters. I'd say that the group here on DPR is largely on the conservative side in terms of their tastes and so it's unsurprising to me that there's so much negative reaction to these kind of photos. A lot of folks here are much more on the classicist side in terms of how they think about the medium...

Hmm. So you are saying, then, that all (or, at least, most) of the photos in the OP would appeal to you even if they had simply been photos of people and/or events that were not famous or well known, from some random person's instagram gallery, and processed in-phone with various filters? Not saying anything's wrong with that, mind you, just wanting to make sure that's what you're saying.

For me there's a range of quality of these photos but at least my favorites of these I'd say would be great even if they weren't capturing important events or famous people. This kind of less classical, edgier, more seemingly chaotic way of making photos is something that I feel is really in my blood at this point. Decades ago I took photo and photo history classes in college and really got into a certain movement in photography of folks who were considered very radical at the time and shot in a much different way than folks in the past had. These folks like Garry Winnogrand, Robert Frank and Lee Freelander were primarily art photographers and not photojournalists so they weren't shooting important events or famous people (for the most part anyway). One could say that they had a kind of documentary aspect to their style but they shot more ordinary stuff, not important events. I can see that the aesthetic of news and editorial photography was either influenced by these figures or just happened to move in the same direction concurrently. However haphazard these kind of photos might appear initially, I think that they were generally taken by folks who put a lot of thought into what they were doing and maybe just had a kind of aesthetic philosophy that's different enough from a lot of folks here that they simply can't relate to it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that at a certain point in the development of the medium the formal way of looking at composition changed into something that was a lot more dynamic. The way to "read" these kind of images is a very different and it seems that not everyone either has the ability to understand them or just is interested in doing so...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[robert1955]

So, it appears they were not random at all, but were all chosen from a collection of Magnum photographers. Which brings me to two points which may have been touched on already [did not read all posters]

Selection: apart from being from that group, there really is not much they have in common. You might say this shows the width of what these photographers can do, but that is rather a meager story. Actually style, subject matter etc are all over the place

Presentation: we get 20 or so photo files which have about the quality of the ones used on Facebook timelines. That is not the way to really appreciate a photograph.

 

[Guy Parsons]

Not one belong to me.

And there's the problem. If you are going to put other people's work up for comment or criticism then you must name the authors of each photo.

Point well taken and I expected feedback like that. Maybe not for you, would knowing the history of each photo influenced the response?
Of course details will be provided in due time.
Thank you for your feedback.

For me it's mainly a case of acknowledging of who the authors are (=common courtesy), definitely not a case of knowing of their reputation and I can admit that their names mean nothing to me.

I judge photos by what they say to me standalone, if context is provided then it may alter some meanings. If someone judges photos by the author's name then I feel sorry for them.

Thus for my comment - not one of them appealed to me for any reason, the peacock one was a tiny bit clever but still nothing to look at.

So as a set of photos, basically a waste of space.

 

[EOS GUY]

There's nothing chaotic about them actually. I can see the intent of every single one.

Look at the challenges and the photos that win prizes on this website and then realise the difference between what you're looking at and Bresson, Moriyama, Koudelka, Pinkhassov, Friedlander etc and just realise it's a different way of seeing.

Not right, not wrong but certainly different.

This is basically turned into

'Check out these Nirvana songs!'

'Loada rubbish, I like Clapton he could play properly!'

And so it goes.

Be safe and happy shooting

--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Above all else, peacefulness, love and harmony.
- Noel Shoestring

 

[Guy Parsons]

Not one belong to me.

And there's the problem. If you are going to put other people's work up for comment or criticism then you must name the authors of each photo.

I disagree. A photo should stand on its own merits without knowledge of the photographer influencing an opinion.

My reason now posted elsewhere, it's all about common courtesy when copying someone else's work, not about "knowing the author" which is a very sad way to think about art or documentation.

For me famous names mean nothing, I agree that a photo presented on its own with no story or accompanying explanatory set of associated photos means little unless it stands out in some way. None of those stood out.

 

[Great Bustard]

Using my best Steve Martin voice: Well, excuuuuse me!

Perhaps if you're familiar with the organization yes. If you have no idea who they are (and don't care) I think not.

Picasso was just some guy with a paint brush and Hendrix was just a guy who played the guitar.

Photographs aren't "successful" all by themselves -- their "success" depends on the context. Some people know the context of the photos in the OP, others (like me), do not. For those who don't know the context, the photos aren't "successful".

Funny, but it seems that everyone has a different takeaway. I didn't see that these photos were tied together to show that "context is important,'but more because they all seem to break certain rules... they have cluttered compositions, busy backgrounds, blurry subjects, etc. I feel that for the most part they're all excellent photos even without the benefit of context. If you know something about the history of photography you'll learn that for many years photographers tended to approach making images in much the same way that a painter does, which is to say very deliberately and with a sense of composition that was informed by European paintings from centuries ago. At some point though a lot of photographers started to create a new aesthetic where compositions were looser and more spontaneous feeling. I feel like this kind of aesthetic philosophy is what this group of photos are demonstrating. Funny how this attitude image making is actually very old at this point and very widely accepted, but still pretty controversial in some quarters. I'd say that the group here on DPR is largely on the conservative side in terms of their tastes and so it's unsurprising to me that there's so much negative reaction to these kind of photos. A lot of folks here are much more on the classicist side in terms of how they think about the medium...

Hmm. So you are saying, then, that all (or, at least, most) of the photos in the OP would appeal to you even if they had simply been photos of people and/or events that were not famous or well known, from some random person's instagram gallery, and processed in-phone with various filters? Not saying anything's wrong with that, mind you, just wanting to make sure that's what you're saying.

For me there's a range of quality of these photos but at least my favorites of these I'd say would be great even if they weren't capturing important events or famous people. This kind of less classical, edgier, more seemingly chaotic way of making photos is something that I feel is really in my blood at this point. Decades ago I took photo and photo history classes in college and really got into a certain movement in photography of folks who were considered very radical at the time and shot in a much different way than folks in the past had. These folks like Garry Winnogrand, Robert Frank and Lee Freelander were primarily art photographers and not photojournalists so they weren't shooting important events or famous people (for the most part anyway). One could say that they had a kind of documentary aspect to their style but they shot more ordinary stuff, not important events. I can see that the aesthetic of news and editorial photography was either influenced by these figures or just happened to move in the same direction concurrently. However haphazard these kind of photos might appear initially, I think that they were generally taken by folks who put a lot of thought into what they were doing and maybe just had a kind of aesthetic philosophy that's different enough from a lot of folks here that they simply can't relate to it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that at a certain point in the development of the medium the formal way of looking at composition changed into something that was a lot more dynamic. The way to "read" these kind of images is a very different and it seems that not everyone either has the ability to understand them or just is interested in doing so...

I 100% understand what you're saying -- thanks much for the outstanding clarification!

 

[Aaron801]

There's nothing chaotic about them actually. I can see the intent of every single one.

Look at the challenges and the photos that win prizes on this website and then realise the difference between what you're looking at and Bresson, Moriyama, Koudelka, Pinkhassov, Friedlander etc and just realise it's a different way of seeing.

Not right, not wrong but certainly different.

This is basically turned into

'Check out these Nirvana songs!'

'Loada rubbish, I like Clapton he could play properly!'

And so it goes.

Be safe and happy shooting

I agree and maybe my choice of the word "chaotic" wasn't quite the most appropriate one. It does seem like these kind of photos might come off that way to folks who aren't quite geared to that particular aesthetic though. To use another music metaphor, it's probably a similar type of reaction that some people have to jazz music, where they'd describe that as "chaotic" even though there are definite rules, forms, etc...

 

[gloaming]

...

The fact that they fail to capture the attention and imagination of so many people means they are a failure IMO.

If your premise is to be taken prima facie, then you must be correct. I'm not convinced. Who ever said that the purpose of any 'art' is to capture the attention and imagination of 'so many' people? Wouldn't so many include just two of us?

Some people will intellectualize and say we lack the knowledge to appreciate them.

Does that make them mistaken?

... and if the majority of viewers don't get it then the photo has failed to do its job.

Oh, please. I would ask that you cite a reasoned argument, or mount one yourself, showing that a failed piece of art fails to have most viewers 'get it'.

 

[Klaus dk]

I guess you are one of those pseudo intellectuals I commented on elsewhere.

I looked up "pseudo intellectual". It's a well chosen avoidance strategy and insult in one. If I see something you don't, you can't verify if I actually see it or if I'm just faking, and since you can't (or won't) see it, I can't prove that it's there.

Sorry to be so direct but because you are criticizing other posters in such a condescending way I believe you deserve some of it in return.

That's your interpretation. It's a disturbingly common practice to accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing yourself.

If a photo fails to communicate with most people and only with an elite few then I think it fails as a photograph.

Oh yes, because only the lowest common denominator is allowed and elite equals suspicious, just like in the USSR. Drain the swamp!

Look up the lyrics to "Swinging on a star". It has nothing to do with adultery among astronauts, it's a simple pop song from 1944, when knowledge were still considered attractive.

 

[grsnovi]

I wonder how this thread would have gone if originally posted in: Documentary and Street photography - where many of the regular may have recognized these shots.

 

[Aaron801]

I never seen these photos before, I don't know who these photographers are, but they obviously have a distinctive way of looking at things, and the photos together are very striking. I like 3-6 most. Looking at them, my first thought was that I still have a lot to learn myself as a photographer. Yet all these photos fail so badly to capture the attention and imagination of DPReview users, so there is no hope for my own work for sure. It just shows what I know about photography and art (nothing).

The fact that they fail to capture the attention and imagination of so many people means they are a failure IMO. Some people will intellectualize and say we lack the knowledge to appreciate them. I will counter that the purpose of art is to communicate something to people and if the majority of viewers don't get it then the photo has failed to do its job.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this point. First of all, everything has it's audience and I think that the folks on this forum are probably not collectively the best audience for these kind of photos. Folks on here tend to be pretty conservative with their tastes and prefer more formally composed shots than the kinds of examples here. In the magazines, newspapers, etc that these photos likely first appeared in they were likely very well matched to their audience. The art directors and photo editors for publications like that well understood their audience and weren't in the habit of running images that their readers can't relate to.

Maybe you're just the kind of person who has very vanilla tastes and find yourself liking the same sorts of things that you feel that most other folks do. In that case it seems that your insistence that anything that doesn't speak to you is somehow a failure is maybe a kind of defense mechanism that you have in order to rationalize your tastes. Maybe it isn't a matter of other folks parading some kind of emperor's new clothes, but more of a lack of understanding on your part...?

If every form of communication and every form of art (which is ultimately a form of communication as well) was designed to appeal to the greatest number of people as possible we'd loose the diversity that we have... and I think that would be a shame. To my tastes the kind of things that are pretty obviously made to appeal to the broadest demographic possible are almost always the kind of things that don't appeal to me at all. I want to see a movie made by people who are passionate about the ideas that they're presenting not something shaped by an anonymous focus group (I like to see the personalities of the creators on the work, not just a reflection of their supposed audience).

I think that it's pretty sad when certain folks don't relate to something that they immediately go into a kind defense mode where they accuse it of being kind of pointless, pretentious, elitist exercise. Why not just admit that it isn't your taste or maybe try to figure out what might be the significance of it?

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[tassienick]

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."

Anyway, having been behind a camera for 50 years, not one of these photos impressed me. That said, I had also never heard of Magnum Photos before.

Just... how? Like saying I've played football for 50 years but I've never heard of Man U.

Looking at their website I can't say that they are or are not anything more than an exclusive club of individuals who've taken some good photographs over the last 70 years. I suspect the collective wouldn't necessarily nominate this batch as representative.

 

[BrownieVet]

The Photog used a shutter speed of 1/10,000 in all of them?

 

[cba_melbourne]

Perhaps the well informed readers have seen one or two of these photos.



Not one belong to me.

.

I have not seen any of them before. And I did not read this whole thread, so pardon if this has already been said.

This last picture immediately catches my eye. This picture is very very special. It tells a story. It speaks directly to my emotions. He is not throwing that bottle at the tank.... else his expression would be desperate as all were about to die in the next second. His expression is angry, so he is not about to die yet. What is going on?

Also, these two black figures center left under the pole, two apes? Cannot see clearly to be sure. The evolution of apes to.... angry soldiers??

It's one of those pictures, you see it once and you will remember it forever.

***

I just HAD to research this picture. It is not just a snapshot, it is famous picture:

It is Susan Maiselas that took it during the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution.

The picture even has a name: Molotov Man.

You can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Man

***

How many that say these are poor pictures, have actually had an entire wiki page dedicated to one of their own pictures? Gee, some people, you could push their nose into a great subject and they would still not see it....

 

[Guy Parsons]

Perhaps the well informed readers have seen one or two of these photos.



Not one belong to me.

.

I have not seen any of them before. And I did not read this whole thread, so pardon if this has already been said.

This last picture immediately catches my eye. This picture is very very special. It tells a story. It speaks directly to my emotions. He is not throwing that bottle at the tank.... else his expression would be desperate as all were about to die in the next second. His expression is angry, so he is not about to die yet. What is going on?

Also, these two black figures center left under the pole, two apes? Cannot see clearly to be sure. The evolution of apes to.... angry soldiers??

It's one of those pictures, you see it once and you will remember it forever.

***

I just HAD to research this picture. It is not just a snapshot, it is famous picture:

It is Susan Maiselas that took it during the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution.

The picture even has a name: Molotov Man.

You can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Man

***

How many that say these are poor pictures, have actually had an entire wiki page dedicated to one of their own pictures? Gee, some people, you could push their nose into a great subject and they would still not see it....

It is simply a moment in time captured by a brave photographer, could we or would we do the same shot?

It's basically instant opportunity journalism and is by no means an attempt at art. Or like many famous photos, was it staged?

So really, I'm not sure why the OP gathered all these shots, smells of trollery.

People who worship famous names may be impressed, I guess.

 

[Photodog2]

I know, I was just having a bit of fun. I actually liked all the images except for #3. I also recall seeing two of the images previously, the third to the last and last. They all tell an interesting story even without captions or explanation. My favorites were #1, 5 and 9. Good art for various reasons. If the images you took years ago were similar then I think you were on to something positive and I look forward to you showing them.

 

[BrownieVet]

Thank you for your comment and participation.
You are correct, Susan Meiselas/Magnum took the Photo
I listed the source and other relevant information when the responses was 60 something
The post : SOURCE and DESCRIPTION is 23 above your post.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63890481

I selected the photos I posted at random form about 40 in the e-book I own, hence, my reference to RANDOM PHOTOS.

Perhaps the well informed readers have seen one or two of these photos.



Not one belong to me.

.

I have not seen any of them before. And I did not read this whole thread, so pardon if this has already been said.

This last picture immediately catches my eye. This picture is very very special. It tells a story. It speaks directly to my emotions. He is not throwing that bottle at the tank.... else his expression would be desperate as all were about to die in the next second. His expression is angry, so he is not about to die yet. What is going on?

Also, these two black figures center left under the pole, two apes? Cannot see clearly to be sure. The evolution of apes to.... angry soldiers??

It's one of those pictures, you see it once and you will remember it forever.

***

I just HAD to research this picture. It is not just a snapshot, it is famous picture:

It is Susan Maiselas that took it during the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution.

The picture even has a name: Molotov Man.

You can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Man

***

How many that say these are poor pictures, have actually had an entire wiki page dedicated to one of their own pictures? Gee, some people, you could push their nose into a great subject and they would still not see it....