What do you think /p/? Was he a good photographer?

No, but his films were pretty good - dramatic angle game was a little too strong though.

(Some of his photos)
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2015/02/stanley-kubricks-photographs-of-1940s-nyc.html

>>2886473
those are great

>>2886480
you have low standards

>>2886486
hmm really makes you think

File: Untsdgitled.jpg (106KB, 770x799px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 770x799px

this one is actually pretty great

the rest are kind of "beginner"

>>2886486
>>2886505
please explain what you don't like about the photos - I'm trying to understand your aesthetic

somewhat unrelated, but i feel like posting nonetheless

https://player.vimeo.com/video/61167615

>>2886639
Not that anon, but some of them are snapshitty and probably only included in that small collection because they represent the period well. I think most of them are framed and lit very well considering they're street photos.

>>2886440
No but he was a better film maker

I like his photos. But his eyes were better for the continuity of it's snap. The photography of his movies are iconic.

>>2886639
they're generic and simple, had been done before
he hadn't really perfected his vision or developed his style at that point yet

>>2886440
Literally who?

>>2887471
Stanley Kubrick

>>2887471
kill yourself