Thread replies: 187
Thread images: 52
Thread images: 52
Project portfolio review.
Some images I think are good. Any criticisms or improvements welcome.
>>
You seem like you haven't put a lot of thought into your shots
>>2748169
The car on the left entering is pretty distracting, plus there's nothing really going on here.
>>2748170
Just not very well composed. There might've been something there with the boat and building, but def not with this composition
>>2748173
literally why
>>2748174
no
>>2748177
This one has potential because of the contrast with the various women, but since we don't see their faces and the younger one's is blurry, it loses any emotional impact
>>2748181
Just a standard full body portrait. The background (particularly the branches to right and the people on the left) is pretty distracting. The leading lines to her are nice though.
>>2748184
Again, this has potential, but needs more thought with respect to composition.
>>2748189
Dof is off, and it's a pretty plain background with not much emotion either
>>2748192
One of the stronger ones of the bunch
Your issue is that you're not putting thought into your shots. You're just sort of pointing your camera at things and hoping it looks good. You need to read more on composition before anything else.
Also these aren't worthy of their own thread, use the RPT and only pick your best plus use exif pls
>>
>>2748199
How can I add more thought? I thought I made good composition.
I didn't put them into the recent photo thread because I wanted advice. I am thinking of becoming a professional. I think I have enough skills to be a good photographer but I need help making my portfolio perfect.
>>
>>2748199
>these aren't worthy of their own thread, use the RPT
nah, this board needs more photo threads. RPT were one of the reason this board went to shit
>>
>>2748206
Thinking about what's in the shot, if it's adding or subtracting to it's value, whether lines are present and where they're leading, etc. What photographs here do you think represent good composition and why?
>>
>>2748217
I think they are all good. These are my best photos. I have been told that they would be good enough for getting into a publication like a magazine.
>>
>>2748170
The LG logo kills the composition. Just no
>>
>>2748215
I definitely agree /p/ needs more photo threads, but photo threads of at least a certain caliber. If everyone from the RPT instead made their own photo thread, the board would clogged with fairly shitty photograph threads. That's what the RPT is for, for photographs that aren't quite good enough for a whole thread on their discussion, but still can have some cc and whatnot.
>>2748221
>These are my best photos.
>>2748173
This is one of your best photos? I'm honestly torn between thinking I'm being trolled or accidentally being a massive dick to someone just starting out.
>>
>>2748226
I am definitely not a troll. I am just happy to have advice. I am starting professional photography and so want to get opinions. That way I can show my very best work to my customers.
There was another thread with advice for a photographer with a website called Jonathon. There was a lot of advice for him. Advice is good because everything can always be improved.
Can you talk about what you think is wrong with each photo? You do not seem to like them but I do not know why?
>>
>>
>>2748169
I'll just say what stands out negatively for me
>>2748169
w2c straight lines
>>2748170
see >>2748225
>>2748173
can work in black and white otherwise choose a colour palette and run with it throughout the series
>>2748174
w2c highlights
>>2748177
could do with less blur and a more coherent subject
>>2748181
this is good, I like this one, but there's literally no other picture with the same overall theme
>>2748184
I also liked this one but get the straights right
>>2748189
again, blur. Also no subject at all
>>2748192
also good but not a big fan of the colours, seriously pick a palette. Would work way better in black and white
>>2748208
again not a fan of the colours
>>2748209
pretty bland, also get your aperture right
>>2748212
I reckon this might be my favourite one, but what facial expression is that
>>2748214
again colours, also the background really distracts the viewer away from the subject in the same way there's too much useless foreground
>>
>>2748248
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
So you don't think these are good enough for a serious publication to use?
>>
>>2748238
>>2748173
There's no subject. You can't see anyone's face. There's no "story" being told. It looks like a shot from a surveillance camera. Plus the lighting is odd and pretty distracting. You have to look at your photographs and think "why would someone remember this?". There's no reason to remember this photo - nothing is happening in it.
>>2748212
This is definitely stronger, but still is a emotionally flat. Perhaps the arabic on the wall means something, but fuck if I know. Even though this one has a more complete subject, it's flat. There's no depth to the photograph - it's just a woman sitting on a couch. You see the photograph in one second and forget it in the next.
>>2748208
Definitely better with a subject and a stronger sense of story. The lighting and colors are off though and because of that half the picture sort of melds together. The best part of the shot is the two guys in the back sharing a laugh, but there's a whole lot of other stuff distracting from them. You want to capture that moment and try and minimize the rest.
>>
This one is good. I can not see how you would not like it.
>>
>>2748249
I'm not >>2748236, see >>2748250
>>2748249
coming back to your question: publication is a whole new world desu and you can get away with loads of things but if it's something you aspire to do then go ahead and do it. I noticed you said that
>I have been told that they would be good enough
and it's probably true, aesthetics is a pretty subjective and coming from a different cultural background might warrant different responses on the viewer. If the response you elicit from your peers is that it's good enough then just go ahead and do it, just keep in mind there's lots to be improved
>>
>>2748251
composition is way off imho, could do without the left-hand side half of the image desu, there's some distracting green highlights there
>>
where is it by the way? Maghreb? I'm intrigued
>>
>>2748169
I would have waited for the car to pass and placed myself a bit to the left, so the road would've been in a more steep angle
>>2748170
once you notice the LG logo you can't unsee it. This would be good a bit zoomed in, with nothing but water at the bottom.
>>2748173
>>2748174
The light is nice, but there is nothing going on
>>2748177
should've centered the attraction
>>2748181
nice colors, pretty good
>>2748184
weird poses, I don't know what's going on here
>>2748189
blurry
>>2748192
seems a bit out of focus, and her face sucks a bit - but still pleasant
>>2748208
good, but suffers from weird framing and being too dark
>>2748209
out of focus
>>2748212
best of the set, but that facial expression... Always go for the sad face look
>>2748214
my focus is always going towards the background builing, also oof and blurry face coming from the left
>>2748251
no subject
Sorry for my very bland critique.
Although some of them suffer from bad framing / weird focus, you have a good eye for what to capture, but fail to do so. Think about what you're really trying to convey with these pictures, and then refine the idea. Once you've done that, refine it again. Anyway keep shooting
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search:
[Google]
18KB, 480x360px
OK. Time to be honest...
These photographs aren't mine. I took them straight from the portfolio of Magnum photographer Olivia Arthur. That's right - MAGNUM photographer Olivia Arthur. Olivia has been incredibly successful with her great work exploring the roles of women is strict Islamic countries. These images were from Egypt. Her work in Saudi Arabia is also well known.
I wanted to conduct a little experiment after seeing lots of people get their photographs trashed by people on /p/. They came seeking advice (for example the recent thread for a website review) and they get a torrent of stupid advice. There is zero attempt to analyze the message or intention behind the images and a massive obsession with ensuring the images conform to whatever is the fashion at the moment. A complete obsession with - portraits follow rules x,y,z; landscapes follow rules a,b,c; and so on.
This is why it is pointless to ask for critical appraisal on the internet from random strangers. You wont get any sort of constructive feedback you can actually use. For beginners this is terrible as they are particularly susceptible to being influenced. Instead of being encourage to develop their style they just get shouted at to follow a set of arbitrary rules for what a hive mind thinks makes a good photo. Next step is a critical analysis of noise in shadows and that beginner hops onto the gear fag train.
/p/ --> where Magnum photographers need to post in the RPT because they're work is too shit to deserve its own thread.
>>
File: Barack-Cheesin.jpg (22KB, 331x318px) Image search:
[Google]
22KB, 331x318px
/P/ vs Magnum...
>You seem like you haven't put a lot of thought into your shots
>Just not very well composed.
>literally why
>no
>Dof is off, and it's a pretty plain background with not much emotion either
>Your issue is that you're not putting thought into your shots.
>You're just sort of pointing your camera at things and hoping it looks good.
>you need to read more on composition before anything else.
>Also these aren't worthy of their own thread,
>I definitely agree /p/ needs more photo threads, but photo threads of at least a certain caliber.
>…RPT is for, for photographs that aren't quite good enough for a whole thread on their discussion, but still can have some cc and whatnot.
>w2c straight lines
>can work in black and white otherwise choose a colour palette and run with it throughout the series
>could do with less blur and a more coherent subject
>this is good, I like this one, but there's literally no other picture with the same overall theme
>I also liked this one but get the straights right
>again, blur. Also no subject at all
>also good but not a big fan of the colours, seriously pick a palette. Would work way better in black and white
>again not a fan of the colours
>pretty bland, also get your aperture right
>I reckon this might be my favourite one, but what facial expression is that
>again colours, also the background really distracts the viewer away from the subject in the same way there's too much useless foreground
>>
File: dalai-lama-laughing.jpg (34KB, 483x322px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 483x322px
>There's no subject. You can't see anyone's face. There's no "story" being told. It looks like a shot from a surveillance camera. Plus the lighting is odd and pretty distracting. You have to look at your photographs >and think "why would someone remember this?". There's no reason to remember this photo - nothing is happening in it.
>This is definitely stronger, but still is a emotionally flat. Perhaps the arabic on the wall means something, but fuck if I know. Even though this one has a more complete subject, it's flat. There's no depth to the >photograph - it's just a woman sitting on a couch. You see the photograph in one second and forget it in the next.
>Definitely better with a subject and a stronger sense of story. The lighting and colors are off though and because of that half the picture sort of melds together. The best part of the shot is the two guys in the back >sharing a laugh, but there's a whole lot of other stuff distracting from them. You want to capture that moment and try and minimize the rest.
>composition is way off imho, could do without the left-hand side half of the image desu, there's some distracting green highlights there
>I would have waited for the car to pass and placed myself a bit to the left, so the road would've been in a more steep angle
>once you notice the LG logo you can't unsee it. This would be good a bit zoomed in, with nothing but water at the bottom.
>The light is nice, but there is nothing going on
>should've centered the attraction
>nice colors, pretty good
>weird poses, I don't know what's going on here
>blurry
>seems a bit out of focus, and her face sucks a bit - but still pleasant
>good, but suffers from weird framing and being too dark
>out of focus
>best of the set, but that facial expression... Always go for the sad face look
>my focus is always going towards the background builing, also oof and blurry face coming from the left
>no subject
>>
>>2748549
/p/ successfully rekd
>>
>>2748549
saw that coming, well played though
>>
>>2748199
Lmao
>>
>>
Hahaha
>>
>>2748549
Logical fallacy: Popular is not good or correct.
>>
#EREKT
E
R
E
K
T
I wouldn't consider all of them too be that great, but most are pretty good. I'll remember to make a b8 thread like this somewhere down the line
>>
New: the thread
>>
File: garlin.jpg (54KB, 640x401px) Image search:
[Google]
54KB, 640x401px
>>2748592
>Having some of the most acclaimed and accredited photographers in the world put you through a highly rigorous application / associate member pathway, before voting on your permanent membership into arguably the most highly esteem photographers collectives ever known, does not mean your artistic output is up to the high standards expected of /p/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.6.7 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>
>>2748549
Just when I was about to think that there was one decent photographer on here
>>
>>2748616
In semi-fairness (it's kinda unforgivable that so many people not only didn't recognize, but also didn't bother image searching at least one of these), these are PJ shots. /p/ is terrible at PJ and was judging them as street shots.
>>
>>2748634
Which reveals that /p/ ain't too hot at street either. Because street is journalistic in nature and root.
But this is nothing new. /p/ has fallen for stuff like this thousands of times now. Nothing new to this thread.
>>
>>2748637
I can't comment there because I freely admit I don't know shit about street.
>>
File: NYC6215.jpg (390KB, 927x627px) Image search:
[Google]
390KB, 927x627px
Way too much saturation. You need to relax with the VSCO because you're just desperately trying to make your images look like Kodachrome and it just looks shit. The window frame top right is also super distracting. You should have made this black and white. Try to think about your shots more and think about composition.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Photographer Steve McCurry Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6602 Image Height 4464 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:05:20 17:27:49 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 6602 Image Height 4464
>>
File: NYC7349-660x436.jpg (66KB, 660x436px) Image search:
[Google]
66KB, 660x436px
Really bad flash anon. Did you even meter? Too edgy and try hard. B&W so street. LoL. There is also noise. Get yourself a better dSLR or Sony A7r-ii-mk17b-v.4c poorfag.
>>
File: 3.-HarryCallahan62Providence.jpg (1MB, 1600x1038px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1600x1038px
>>2748634
>>2748549
I don't know what you think you're proving.
even as "pj" shots they aren't that good.
take a look at any of the nation geographic photographers, they're basically documentations yet still manage to have strong aesthetic, composition, and beauty
you keep resorting to the fallacy that because she's Magnum, she's good.
at least half of the 20ths century's most famous and beloved photographers were never in any formal organisation, or members of some faux-prestigious "photographer's guild" when they produced their best work
>>
File: NYC116703.jpg (55KB, 940x627px) Image search:
[Google]
55KB, 940x627px
Good try, Tim Hetherington, this image has potential. There's some shit motion blur though and the colours are all washed out. What lens are you even using? You need to go back to your old job until you can afford proper gear. I understand if you don't want it to get damaged at airsoft but deal with it.
>>
>>2748658
Stop baiting for once in your life, kid cadet
>>
File: LON143442.jpg (73KB, 940x627px) Image search:
[Google]
73KB, 940x627px
This is some boring shit, Martin Parr. My grandmother could take better shots than this. You have to do better than just pointing your camera at things and pressing the shutter button. If your composition was better and it was B&W this would be a half decent street shot. Keep practicing.
>>
>>2748660
1/10
>>
File: PAR115311.jpg (128KB, 940x620px) Image search:
[Google]
128KB, 940x620px
What the fuck even is this? Some shitty OOF shitsnap of grandpa falling over? You didn't even get him in frame. You need to learn about shutter speeds and how to stop motion. Also, image quality is terrible. Did you take this on a Holga?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Photographer Photographs by Robert Capa © 2001 by Cornell Capa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 14173 Image Height 9351 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:11:06 17:50:27 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 14173 Image Height 9351
>>
>go on /mu/
>ask them to rate your band's music
>they all say it sucks
>reveal that its actually Nickelback demo's
>"HA! U guise no nothing about music!!! their album sold over 100000 records and theyre in the rock and roll hall of fame!!!!111"
>>
File: PAR46659.jpg (132KB, 931x627px) Image search:
[Google]
132KB, 931x627px
Too much going on in this image anon. You need to learn to compose properly. Just focus on one thing either the foreground or the background. The people are too small and no detail in face. Keep practicing street and you'll start getting better.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model XY-15 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5342 Image Height 3600 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Image Created 2015:05:26 16:42:20 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 5318 Image Height 3580
>>
File: 1352647299879.jpg (12KB, 250x250px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 250x250px
>>2748557
>>2748592
>>2748658
>>2748667
>dat level of damage control
Please keep going, I'm enjoying myself more and more
>>
>>2748672
>getting so mad your retaded le trole didn't work
try /b/
>>
>>
File: PAR65493.jpg (130KB, 940x610px) Image search:
[Google]
130KB, 940x610px
Am I supposed to be impressed by your watch or something, Joseph? No one gives a shit about your fake Rolex you bought in some shitty Prague market. Poorfag. This image is terrible. Do you even landscape? You need to learn about the rule of thirds and DOF. The important building at the back isn't even in focus. This image just doesn't tell a story. It's a just a shitty snapshit.
>>
File: Laughing_Animals_2570870k.jpg (163KB, 857x536px) Image search:
[Google]
163KB, 857x536px
>>2748678
Are you so fucking retarded you still think those pics were OPs and they're mad because they weren't liked?!!
Haha. 20th Jan 2016 - the day /P/ last remaining brain cell died!
>>
>>2748677
I'm not even OP, but it obviously did work :^)
>>
File: previewbook.jpg (136KB, 1000x800px) Image search:
[Google]
136KB, 1000x800px
/P/ photobook idea...
Anons of /P/ provide wisdom and guidance for successful working photographers.
>>
lmaooooooooooooooooooooooo
this happened because yall uneducated peasants who know more about tech details of cameras youll never own than about basic compo.
/p/ got tyrannosauus rekked looooooool.
>>
>>2748680
is this bait, or a genuine failure to detect sarcasm?
>>
>>2748549
the website critique was pretty legit doe.
>>
>>2748667
Magnum to Nickelback is really not a good comparison at all though.
Besides I consider /mu/ to be quite good at appreciating art really. That said I don't go to the Soundcloud/Bandcamp threads too much.
>>
>You're just sort of pointing your camera at things and hoping it looks good
And that's why the photos are shit. I've never met, or seen a portfolio from a woman photographer where this isn't the case.
>>
File: 1414693857549.jpg (85KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
85KB, 1920x1080px
>>2748713
>/r9k/
>>
If I had to guess, I'd say these are successful for what they're saying, and where they're saying it, DESPITE the quality of the photos. It's always been true that saying something interesting in a bad way is better than saying nothing really well. Yes there are obvious aesthetic and artistic issues with the photos, but that's not the point of these photos, and presenting them in a way that begs judgement based on artistic merits when there are none is pretty skewed. I also assume that in her portfolio, there is text to go along with the photos, or at least a title, showing what they goal was, rather than it just being a page of these photos, leaving the interpretation up to the viewer?
>>
So, other than the fact this lady is a magnum photographer, why are these shots good? I mean, maybe they've been taken out of context, but some of them genuinely look like snapshits.
I wasn't one of the anons posting earlier before someone says it, but a couple of them did have genuinely helpful criticisms of some of the shots.
>>
>>2748549
still some boring ass photos
>>
File: 1382736885028.gif (2MB, 250x187px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 250x187px
>>2748713
>And that's why the photos are shit. I've never met, or seen a portfolio from a woman photographer where this isn't the case.
>>
>>
>>2748732
Good point. Glad you're here to really make this a discussion, rather than a "gotcha" post.
>>
>>2748735
What discussion is there to be had? This guy rused the fuck out of some retards. Now comes the part where we throw our heads back and laugh.
>>
>>2748738
He was trying to make a point about how /p/ views and judges photos. Seemed like a good learning and discussion opportunity, and in response to it, a bunch of people are trying to take part in that conversation, and in respnose, we have reaction photos and accusations. If the people saying that the photos don't look very good are wrong, then why not have the other side of the discussion?
>>
>>2748740
>trying to make a point
>trying
'Trying' like Brazil 1-Germany 7.
>>
>>2748740
Because the other side of the discussion isn't worth having. It's going to devolve into a bunch of misogyny and morons who backed themselves into an indefensible corner trying to assert that their refined taste is better than Magnum's.
>>
>>2748755
Even a simple educational statement about why /p/ is wrong, extolling the approach and merits of the ("obviously") good photos would be fine.
But posting objectively sub-par photos, getting the expected responses, and saying "No, wrong, Magnum says they're good so you're all fags" is pretty funny to exactly one person, and leaves everyone else either dismissing the thread, dismissing Magnum, or otherwise confused.
Pointing to someone else and saying "you're an idiot" may help you feel better about who you are, but it certainly doesn't do anything to help the community. Not telling people why these are supposedly good photos leaves people exactly where they were before.
>>
>>2748755
No it isn't. I genuinely don't get what is so good about these photos? Are they good. I didn't think so (apart from a couple that send interesting), but someone must have seen something in then. Is it a context issue? Or is there something going on in the shots that I just can't appreciate?
So far, nobody has actually been able to articulate why they are good, other than "magnum lol, rused", which frankly is as bad as someone criticising a photo for being a snapshit
>>
>>2748757
>Pointing to someone else and saying "you're an idiot" may help you feel better about who you are
This.
$20 says OP posted some of his boring shitty photos that he thought were great. Got shit on for lots of glaring problems, and went on the hunt for "good photographers with bad photos" to troll with, to prove that /p/ would say that those bad photos are bad, to prove to himself that /p/ is wrong, and this his good photos are probably still good, even though nobody but his roommate thinks so.
The fact that he chose these photos in particular to post shows that he knows full well that they're bad photos, and posted them because he knew the response they'd get. It's not a post to correct, educate, or open people's eyes, it's literally a one trick bait trap to make himself feel better.
>>
>>2748760
They're not good and neither are any of you except for isi, she's decent
>>
File: 1385715792618.jpg (12KB, 333x279px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 333x279px
>>2748757
>But posting objectively sub-par photos
>>
>>2748781
Yes good counter point. Way to contribute or explain.
>Been here too long
Feel free to leave. The board doesn't need more people who stand on the sidelines and throw rocks.
>>
File: mike-daisey.jpg (55KB, 600x450px) Image search:
[Google]
55KB, 600x450px
>>2748755
Exactly.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Width 600 Image Height 450
>>
>>2748783
There's no such thing as "objectively bad." The fact that you even uttered that phrase makes you not worth my time.
>>
>>2748786
The fact that you can't even give the counter point in a debate, and simply dismiss everything you disagree with while also acting superior and pretending youre "winning" means you're not worth anyone's time, but considering that this has the potential to be a good thread, I'm still trying.
>>
I love how this is being displayed as "LOL /p/ attitudes REKT", but the response is actually much more indicative of shitty /p/ habits
>assuming if it's published in Magnum it must be good
>assuming objectively good photographs exist and people can't have differing opinions
>assuming that standalone photographs from collections can't look like shit when devoid of proper context
>assuming photojournalism is the same as photography as an art
>immediately dismissing any reasonable response as LOL DAMAGE CONTROL LE TIP
The cringe isn't from people unknowingly critiquing Magnum photographs, the cringe is from the people responding to that with typical /p/ smug superiority. And if you want evidence of this, look at how literally no one came to the thread and said "hey these photos are really good, let me explain why..." or "the criticism are unfounded because...". People only came out after it was revealed it was Magnum and even then no one offered explanations for the original criticisms. They just went LOL REKT and offered no substantive discussion. Keep circlejerking, /p/
>>
File: derek-gervais-grinning-dogs.jpg (46KB, 570x300px) Image search:
[Google]
46KB, 570x300px
>>2748787
>Implying this already isn't a fucking awesome thread watching you fucktards squirm your way out of be called out for being stupid.
>>
>>2748791
It's really funny watching people try to lean the entire conversation on "Magnum photographer" as if it's a be all end all debate finisher. There's not a single post in this thread citing any positive aspects of these photos regarding their merit as photos.
>>
File: 1377745881082.gif (2MB, 295x270px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 295x270px
>>2748791
>and then they wanted us to explain to them just how stupid they actually are
>>
>>2748795
Yeah but le epic ruse. Anons got rekt. Or something.
Can I be part of the /p/ circlejerk now?
>>
>>2748795
>Implying this already isn't a fucking awesome thread watching you fucktards squirm your way out of be called out for being stupid.
>>
>>
>>2748793
>>2748799
this is the most obvious false flag. Nice try
>>
>>2748800
>Implying people aren't already enjoying this
>>
File: 4r9a54.gif (1MB, 200x200px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 200x200px
>>2748801
>>
eh I still stand by what I said
also when looking through the series I admit it's a lot better
just to say that having some context to them goes a long way, for instance knowing the name of the project is 'Cairo's Muslim Youth' can change how I perceived the pictures
also knowing I was on the Magnum website changed a lot as well lmao I fucked up /p/ please take me back
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=29YL53F2WEJ4
>>
>>2748663
now, come on. someone point out what's exceptional about this picture. it literally looks like no thought was put into it
>>
>>2748856
Go read a book. It's not our job to spoon feed you.
>>
>>2748859
>implying reading any book will give me more insight into that particular picture
also stfu if you aren't here to contribute. your post is unecessary
>>
>>2748860
>Tells people to stfu because they're not contributing.
>Doesn't contribute, just asks for people to do his thinking for him.
>>
>>
File: LON103904.jpg (44KB, 624x627px) Image search:
[Google]
44KB, 624x627px
>>2748826
This is basically it; lack of context. How are you supposed to know how well these photos serve their purpose, if you don't know what their purpose even is?
If you used these images as your photography portfolio without any context or title, such as in this thread, then they don't have a huge amount of merit. But Olivia Arthur has taken these photos for a specific purpose - to document 'Cairo's Muslim Youth', and they do exactly that.
>I'm just glad I didnt embarrass myself by posting a critique
>>
>>2748859
Oh moopco
>>
Just read this thread top to bottom, this is my first post.
>>2748170
>>2748173
>>2748174
>>2748208
>>2748209
>>2748251
These photos are bad, and OP, and the photographer, should feel bad for presenting them as serious work.
When they're removed from the context of the editorial they accompany, there is nothing visually stimulating or appealing about them at all.
Why in fuck's name this idiot is using a Hasselblad is beyond me. I thought it was in the original rules of Magnum that they all used 35mm cameras? Using an MF SLR today is even more awkward and ass-backwards than it would have been in the 50's, and it's contributed nothing to these photos except marginal shutter speeds, spherical abberation, underexposure and missed focus.
The entire premise of this thread, that a professional photographer working under a prestigious banner is beyond approach or critique, should be basically offensive to anyone who posts here.
Especially when disembodied from the reason they were made, if a photograph is without any artistic merit, that should be the end of the story.
But even with a story to back them up, I find it difficult to believe that these photos would particularly contribute to any narrative.
>>
File: tumblr_nx4r5ow4Gu1uyx50so1_500.gif (2MB, 448x432px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 448x432px
>>2748549
>>
This thread is the reason I stopped making threads for my work. Most of you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you just regurgitate "rules" you learned on blogs marketed to middle-aged beginners.
I don't like the individual shots posted either, but it's not because they don't follow "muh rules", just because this is a really shitty way to present a photojournalism essay. The work posted on her website is much more appealing visually, without needing historical/cultural context.
So basically you're all idiots, especially OP for thinking his b8 wasn't complete shit in the first place.
>>
>>2748896
>especially OP for thinking his b8 wasn't complete shit in the first place.
It still proves /p/ are nothing but a bunch of morons that are full of shit...in case anyone needed proof. This is the best thread ever, honestly. I had a good time.
>>
>>2748883
>When they're removed from the context of the editorial they accompany
That would make them something completely different and you cannot be fully critical of them while doing that.
>>
>>2748896
>No subject no mood no processing doesn't go outside and only takes pictures of bushes from his bedroom window with his budget full frame camera detected.
>>
>>2748900
>It still proves /p/ are nothing but a bunch of morons that are full of shit
It really doesn't. It proves that /p/ saw the same things that OP did, except didn't know they were taken by a magnum photographer. They were selected intentionally because they are visually shitty.
>>
>>2748906
I think it's pretty telling that not a single one of these images is on her profile on the magnum website.
>http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL535OLY
The ones that are there are great, for the most part.
>>
>>2748910
Very telling, yes.
>>
>>
>>2748915
>Oh shit, people are coming to a stable consensus about these photos as the OP is analyzed and the real information is coming out... better try to stir the pot some more...
>>
>>2748896
Except for the fact that most of the criticisms weren't just random rules. People weren't saying "Wow why is this centered, rule of thirds much?". They were talking about abstract concepts the photos lacked. /p/ is cancered so much more by people bashing this conception of a stereotypical /p/ user (which is ironically in the definite minority) than it ever was by gearfags or film v. digital threads.
>>
>>2748880
what's a moopco
>>
Haha this is the most entertaining thread on /p/ in a while. I wish I was in here from the ground up.
Few observations:
1. Before OP made that Shyamalan revelation, no one defended the pics, and now people are coming out of the woodworks going "I knew you guys were all retards".
2. This does show that /p/ is generally really shitty when giving criticism. A lot of it was "wtf? Are you trolling?" So bait was successful.
3. However, this doesn't prove that the photos are good somehow. I'll give an example. Let's say Jackson Pollock is as obscure as this photographer is to the mainstream public. If I went on a painting forum and said "Hi guys this is what I made over the last few weeks" People would be like "wtf that sucks". Then you can't go ha! Sucker! This is actually a painting worth millions!!!! and prove somehow that it's a great painting.
All this does is show that there is a real divide between modern "high" art and the general public.
4. The photos DO show some real, technical errors. The focus is wrong, etc. Now if you produce a body of work and this comes across as intentional, that is one thing. However, it is not wrong in a critique forum to say this photo had potential if you nailed the focus. It's all up to the intent.
5. I don't even think this is the photographer's strongest work, as it is not even in her online portfolio.
6. /p/ is really shitty at judging photojournalism. If some of these were in a newspaper or a online news format people wouldnt call them snapshits. But to be fair, that's because it would contain more context than "hi /p/, critique my photos".
TL;DR You are all fags
>>
>>2749029
If you think that people who want to discuss photos are somehow "not your problem" and that "go read a book" is good advice, then YOU are a moopco.
>>
>>2749058
"go read a book" is great fucking advice. you should probably follow it.
>>
>>2749090
Like I said, hey Moopco. There are a billion books out there, and most if not all are more or less useless when it comes to learning to emote and capture. It's good for knowing technique, and giving you false confidence to attack isi though, so that's good. Reading a book about photography is about as useful as reading about how to have sex.
>>
>>2749092
Says a guy who's never actually read a book about photography. ;)
>>
>>2749106
I've read dozens, which is how I know that once you're actually taking photos, all books do is give you shackles and bumpers that keep you rigid. They teach technique that isn't relevant. They teach you to reference things that today's audiences don't understand or care about. They give you bullet points to tick off, rather than freedom and confidence to create unique artwork. Look at MoopCo critique for example. It's all "You didn't check Box 3 Sub-heading C by placing your secondary subject at the radial of whatever cock."
You can hand someone all the tools in the world, but no amount of reading the instructions on those tools will cause him to make a beautiful house with them. He'll make the same house everyone else does, and stand there telling his neighbor he's holding his hammer wrong.
If you have books in mind that actually teach people to see art correctly, or teach a photographer how to approach a situation in an artistic way, or teach someone how to think emotionally, rather than something formulaic, I'd be happy to see those links pop up rather than "go read a book" but I know better.
>>
>>2749132
Criticizing Photographs by Terry Barrett
Occam's Razor by Bill Jay
Vitamin Ph published by Phaidon
How to Read a Photograph by Ian Jeffrey
The Nature of Photographs by Stephen Shore
Looking at Photographs by John Szarkowski
Plus it's important to consume monographs by both respected and obscure photographers.
It sounds like all you read are plebtastic books about technique and camera operation if you think any of these books give you "bullet points".
>>
>>
>>2749135
No no, moop doesn't trip anymore.
>>
But OP, the photos really were pretty fucking lame.
Are you the kind of person that defends Uncle Terry's work?? If so, LMAO
>>
File: man-sitting-at-desk-with-feet-up-holding-laptop-on-lap-laughing-A5T04P.jpg (233KB, 1300x957px) Image search:
[Google]
233KB, 1300x957px
OP here,
This thread gives more than Santa working as CEO of Oxfam.
Thoroughly satisfied with my work here. Not just in highlighting the original bullshit but also the climate-change-denial bullshit arguments that followed as butthurt people desperately try to maintain their fragile mind space.
Y'all gearfags obsessed with following prescriptive rules because you literally don't recognise a decent piece of work when it's put in front of your face. Don't be too sad though, gearfags, go cheer yourselves up by starting a 'FF vs crop' thread or arguing with someone who owns a camera from a different brand about which camera is better at ISO 2,073,600. Or how Leica is for rich dentists. Or which youtube channels is/isn't OK to watch this week.
To anyone new to photography - this is why you don't ask for opinions about your photography online. Certainly not at /p/.
>>
>>2749454
I learned a while ago not too take critique from /p/ too seriously anymore, the good or the bad one. I mostly just post pictures to share them with others, similar to how I would share them on flickr or instagram or something and I try to tell people when I like their pictures, but as for actual critique, I try to do that myself. It's me who should be satisfied with the picture most after all.
Of course if somebody points something out, I still consider it, but only if I agree with it personally
>>
>>2749454
Go on then op, why are those original photos good?
>inb4 op can't explain it, just falls back in to "lol, I troll u" and "magnum, rekt"
>>
The fishing on /p/ is still good...
/p/ on Christopher Anderson
>The subject is quite good, not sure about his pose though, do you have any other photos from this shoot with different options?
The post processing is a bit iffy, the colour palette seems nice, I like how you've kept some clean-ish whites but there's something weird going on in the background bokeh like you've over sharpened or something.
>>
>>2749511
and why is that wrong?
>>
/p/ on Don McCullin
>in this shot the centralized perspective gives the photo itself very little space to develop. You got that woman right into your face. You could have used the line on the pavement and the buildings on the left as leading lines decentralizing the shot, but leading the eye towards that woman. Tilting your camera only a little giving more empty space in the foreground would have created that effect.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 340 Image Height 514
>>
/p/ on Don McCullin
>n this shot however I'm missing something.. We see 4 people on stairs with only little action and even less interaction. The composition here underlines this even more: We see the two guys on the right talking to each other, the guy on the left looking out of the frame and well positioned on the left third the girl who goes completely unnoticed by all others. So your composition is quite good and I cannot even tell you what I'm missing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 779 Image Height 517
>>
File: 1433059448384.jpg (48KB, 500x393px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 500x393px
>this thread
>>
>>2749511
>Hulk Green
>>
>this is literally a picture of nothing
>>
I know its a joke thread and all but just because someones a magnum photographer doesn't mean their pictures are to be uncritically loved.
images were criticised here with no context so telling people off for criticising them based on nothing but the contents of the images is a bit odd.
so I would say based on 0 context or knowledge of the intentions of the photographer that
I like the portraits.
Is that a girl doing karate in some middle east country. thats something to think about possibly? I don't know i have no context here.
girl having fun on swing. yeah thats nice..?
I don't really know whats going on in any the other portraits. I like this one
>>2748189
but couldn't really say why
>>2748192
I like this too. travelling to work or something? I dunno.
cityscapes are just cityscapes. Couple walking down the street could be more interesting if I could see her face. or know whats going on
can't be bothered commenting on any others. but without providing context you're setting people up to fail and fall into the trap to prove the point you want to prove.
I know nothing about the images. All I can do is comment on how they look, what I could imagine them to be saying but I don't know the reason for any of these images. You've set a trap to try and prove a point.
You could have done something useful and said
"the aim of 'my' project is bla bla bla. what do you think" then people would be able to engage properly but thats not what you wanted?
I really don't think much of the majority of threads on /p/ and I agree with what you say about /p/ often being all about strict rules of composition and technique. But making a thread to tell people that they MUST LIKE THESE IMAGES YOU IDIOTS just because they're rubbishing images made by a magnum photographer is the same as people telling you that images suck cause the depth of field isn't 'right'
whatever i'm rambling.
>>
>>2749630
People don't have to like them, but the mega pleb up top who went into a play-by-play critique and THEN suggested that these barely deserved to go in an RPT, let alone their own thread? That was /p/ in a nutshell.
>>
>>2749712
It's accurate. Without the context and the words that go along with it, these are just photo, standing on their own, and they don't stand on their own.
>>
>>2749713
They absolutely do. Take off your STEM hat and your need for everything to be tack sharp and on the intersections of thirds and go look at the photos again.
They're very much a record of a specific time and place and the people (and their culture) that occupy that continuum.
>>
>>2749716
You are just excited because unlike most of /p/, you can identify some semblance of a subject. But without knowing who those people are, or why we're looking at them, they're just boring ass photos, of boring ass people, doing nothing at all. It's /p/ street tier, where you go "Oh look a person! Shit if I take the time to expose correctly or focus, they might see me taking the photo, and then I might drop all my spaghetti... maybe if I just shoot from the hip, from behind them..." The photos don't communicate ANYTHING, and they are visually very poor and off balance.
Feel free to describe what you like about them though. I'd love to "learn something"
>>
http://www.oliviaarthur.com/Making-Ground
her shit's actually really good, y'all are faggots
>>
>>2749727
We aren't talking about "her shit" we're talking about these specific photos. OP picked out her worst stuff on purpose, to get the exact reaction he got.
>>
File: stevie-wonder.jpg (31KB, 306x306px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 306x306px
>>2749718
Oh look, you're still trying to drag people into a discussion about this... This is what religious people, homeopaths, climate change denial, etc, all do - when their bullshit is called they scramble to option any dialogue they can so they can desperately twist things and create strawman arguments...
No one is falling for it and everyone is having a good chuckle at your stupidity.
>>
>>2749718
I like that they're simple slices of life in a region that is typically unwelcoming to outside in a time when Muslims are the most feared group of people on the planet (besides murricans, fuck yeah). They show that hey, they like looking at scenic views from a bridge too. They love soccer, they do karate. They like taking pride in their appearance, and even have some vanity (like the girl in the red hijab). There's a Middle Eastern girl riding a fucking State Fair swing with Spiderman on it. That could be your grandma on the couch with the tapestry behind her.
Think of these as the Anti-McCurry: where he loves exoticism and making foreign cultures seem weird and alien, these photos are domesticating, reassuring, calming.
>>
>>2749733
>This is what religious people, homeopaths, climate change denial, etc, all do
Pretty sure you'll see all the people supporting rational though in the world actually trying to have a reasoned discussion with everyone else, who stands there refusing to enter into the discussion.
"Because Magnum says so" is pretty equivalent to "because the Bible says so"
>>
>>2749736
>"Because Magnum says so" is pretty equivalent to "because the Bible says so"
That's because you're a moron and don't understand what Magnum is, or how analogies work.
>>
File: jeddahdiary19_670.jpg (109KB, 670x449px) Image search:
[Google]
109KB, 670x449px
>>2749727
Her work is fantastic. Anyone who has spend any time in those countries can appreciate just how hard it is for an outsider to documents things like she does and the fact that it's women just makes it even more impressive. Her work in Saudi Arabia was great.
It's also worth listening (I'm sure there's a youtube vid somewhere) to her advice for new photographers. She has an interesting background - Maths grad from Oxford, went off to India to become a photographer as London,etc, was oversaturated and no opportunity. She's cool.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1500 Image Height 1014 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:09:07 16:47:46 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1462 Image Height 980
>>
This thread bought to yall by MIDF, muslim internet defense force, for appreciation of sand culture, under the facade of "trolling". Great psyop OP.
>>
>>2749739
Found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ3wlKV2Mlc
>>
>>2749737
>That's because you're a moron and don't understand what God is, or how analogies work.
>>
>>2749744
Comparing an ancient book written by anonymous fucks to a contemporary group of people whose work we can examine and verify for ourselves is moronic.
The bible is an act of faith. On the other hand, you can go to Magnum.com, look at the photos, think to yourself, "hey! these are pretty good. they must not let any old schlub with a camera into their ranks!" and know that if someone got accepted into Magnum, it actually means something.
>>
>>2749753
>whose work we can examine and verify for ourselves
That's what people who don't like the photos are trying to do. But the people (person) claiming that anyone who doesn't like them is an idiot without support or description is pretty directly in the way of that process.
I would like to point out that these photos are not affiliated with Magnum in any way.
>>
>>2749760
>I would like to point out that these photos are not affiliated with Magnum in any way.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=29YL53F2WEJ4
>>
>>2749760
>I would like to point out that these photos are not affiliated with Magnum in any way.
They're shot by a Magnum photographer. Don't make yourself look any stupider than you already do.
>>
>>2749771
>They're shot by a Magnum photographer.
So if I work for a good restaurant, and I go home and cook by myself in my kitchen, and burn all my food, does that mean that it's still good food, because I work for a restaurant? And when my family eats it, and complains about the lack of flavor, and how my mashed potatoes are crunchy, I can tell them they're retards, and obviously they don't know how to eat food, because I work for a restaurant...
>>
>>2749777
Analogy just isn't your thing, dude. Give it up.
Or actually, keep it up, because this thread is giving my sides a workout they haven't seen in a decade.
>>
>>2749778
You're wrong. Just give it up.
>>
File: 1426137723455.jpg (389KB, 1284x980px) Image search:
[Google]
389KB, 1284x980px
Holy fuck, I don't think I've ever seen so many people self-shrekt themselves in a single /p/ thread. These guys are scrambling over each other to be the one to take the abuse square on, chin stuck up in the air, right in the kisser.
Usually these "aha! it was all a ruse! these photos are by a renowned artist!" threads end in mild embarrassment and shucks, you got me.
>>
>>2749718
>The photos don't communicate ANYTHING
Many photos taken by professionals don't communicate anything. Look at Richardson or Eggleston...I don't know what you're getting at here.
>>
>>2749811
Both Richardson's and Eggleston's photos are extremely communicative. Full of subjects you enjoy looking at.
>>
File: 03.-eggleston_untitled1965cart.jpg (151KB, 673x1005px) Image search:
[Google]
151KB, 673x1005px
>>2749818
But what are the photos COMMUNICATING?
Push those carts, boy.
>>
Literally every single thing that ruins /p/ is represented in this thread
>people trotting out arbitrary rules they learned
>constant avoidance of real discussion with just condescending gifs
>circlejerking over famous photogs/assuming famous photogs are beyond critique
>not distinguishing pj from photography
all we need is a gearfag or two and an isi debate and we've got all our bases covered
>>
>>2749854
isi did show up, so she at least held up her part in this mess.
>>
>>2749854
Don't forget Playing Gotcha, moopco booking, and overall trolling.
>>
>>2749868
Works as a containment thread...
>>
>>2749840
The dread of white middle America. Or something?
>>
>>2749753
You must be stupid or something. They're both examples of deference to authority.
>>
>>2749739
That's an interesting shot for sure. But why isnt it in focus? Is she trying to do bure or something? But it feels like photojournalism.
>>
>>2750045
*fedora tipping intensifies*
>>
>>2750101
It's actually like talking to a retard
>>
>>2750238
It must be so hard to find other enlightened individuals like yourself. But when you do.. it's gotta make you really happy, right? Almost euphoric?
>>
experiment in bad photos being passed off as good photos because of namedropping
>>
>hey guys look at these poor people lol they're poor
really epic stuff
>>
>>2750252
I'm not even an atheist so I don't even know what you're talking about
>>
>>2748883
>beyond approach
Your English is as bad as the photos you're criticizing
>>
What happened is,
Magnum hired a shitty photographer and already paid her for her work. So, grugedly, they had to use it.
OP, being a good little drone, says the photos dont have to be good because Magnum published them. He also thinks Terry is the next Michelangelo
>>
>>2750427
>*reproach
Happy?
>>
File: fucktardsstillatit.jpg (41KB, 500x413px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 500x413px
OP here again,
MFW I check back again 2 days after the party and I find you fucktards still trying to dig your way out of the mental hole you dug for yourselves.
I'm actually feeling a bit mean now... This is a bit like organizing a spelling bee for dyslexic school kids.
>>
HCB never took a good photo in his life.
>>
File: 14xgfg4.jpg (99KB, 469x600px) Image search:
[Google]
99KB, 469x600px
>>2750704
If photographs are memories and memories sometimes lie, how can HCB be bop de boop?
>>
>>2748554
there is always one monumental faggot that always 'sees it coming'
Thread posts: 187
Thread images: 52
Thread images: 52