so i have an upcoming class where i need to present a small series

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

im just posting phone pix of these prints i did bc im at the library without a scanner right now

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone SE
Camera Software	9.3.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 19:19:45
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (151KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x750px

sorry i forgot how to resize shit on a cell phone lmao

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (93KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1000x750px

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

If you're just posting everything in the OP pic, these are all pretty bad. Out of focus, blurry, and weak subjects even for high art photography.

File: image.jpg (135KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x750px

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (139KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x750px

>>2920355
yeah i am
you really think the subjects are that bad? i know they are weak in the traditional technical sense, but those subjects include riot police surpressing a protest in times square, naked grils, public fighting... considering most of the subjects on /p/ are just buildings with clean geometry i would think yall would appreciate some of these subjects

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (151KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x750px

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (194KB, 1000x750px)

194KB, 1000x750px

also i would argue even the weaker subjects are thematically consistent enough that they are worth consideration in the context of the set, idk

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (101KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1000x750px

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (113KB, 1000x750px)

113KB, 1000x750px

that it
please respond.

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Subject include;
1. Some guy's leg from a weird angle
2. chickens in a cage
3. a nekkid grill, maybe a body in a morgue?
4. a selfie or photo of someone in a bar
5. people walking in a tunnel?
6. ???

#1 looks like an accidental snap. I can kinda see where you were going with it I think. Maybe trying to use an nontraditional angle to show a sense of chaos in the street? Not a bad idea, but the combo of the grainy B&W, the blur, the off-center subject, and the angle just make it look really sloppy and accidental. I guess I would say 4/5 for thinking outside the box, 2/5 for execution.

#2 is kinda interesting in an abstract way. In fact if the rest of the pictures were better I would acknowledge this one as a creative pic. Subject matter is ok. My favorite of the 6.

#3 is boring as hell. nudity is very overdone as the "go-to" attention grabber for amateurs, and this one.. laying flat with face out of focus (hint: the face is usually what makes a great nude) At least you can tell what it's a picture of though.

#4 Direct on shot, well centered. This composure always looks like just a snapshot taken on a disposable party cam or something. This one has obvious motion blur and is WAY under exposed. Worst one of the lot.

#5 is kinda interesting in composure, but again the exposure and blur ruin it.

#6 is interesting just because I can't tell what it is, lol.

What are you taking these with? Why do they look like they do?

>>2920372
I don't mean this to sound as harsh as it does.. take my criticism as what it is and not an insult or pointless trash-talking. Please fill us in on what your using, what you were going for, ect.

>>2920372
>>2920375
i dont think this is harsh at all, its exactly what i was looking for in making this thread. i'll write more when i get to a computer since my phone is dying but in brief i am interested in the way a photograph turns its subject into a new photographic object by decontextualizing it & removing externalities. i explore that by doing this deliberately (blurring & defocusing the image, framing the shot to cut the object off from any context, anonymizing human subjects by deliberately hiding their faces in one way or another, cutting human beings into various body part objects). i also look at other systems which do similar things, like how sexualization as it manifests itself in e.g. the fashion industry dehumanizes people and pieces them out into body part objects, "those legs" "a great ass" "huge tits." i refer to the connection between the object-making of photography and those systems by visually incorporating them into these photos either directly or thru visual motifs: workers in sex industry, the police, the prison systems, and so on. hopefully this is a start towards explaining what im going for & the reason these photos look like they do. a lot of the ideas i am working with come from jean baudrillard (a lot of the sex industry/fashion stuff comes from "symbolic exchange and death" for example) and similar writers in critical theory.

>>2920395
>jean baudrillard

The difference between your shots and Jean's is that he used the environment and the subject to do the disconnecting. You're just making shit blurry and underexposed and it's making your pictures almost impossible to look at and completely incomprehensible and boring (>>2920359 being your worst offender imo)

>>2920401
im not talking about baudrillard's photography, i'm talking about his writing. i appreciate his photo work but im applying some similar principles in a very different way - certainly i wouldnt claim that my stuff is a lot like his, or even that it's particularly inspired by it.

>>2920402
makes a lot more sense then, sorry.

Still don't like your pictures. Motion blur and underexposure seem like a very amateur and almost even lazy way to achieve the effect you want.

Maybe try more practice getting your artistic view across without sacrificing literally every technical detail of taking a picture.

File: just like my oriental cartoons.jpg (588KB, 1000x925px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1000x925px

Why are you even bothering, bro?

>>2920408
obviously i'm a big fan of provoke (well, specifically one or two photographers from the provoke set) but I'm not copying them - no more than they were copying other similar-looking work like Capa's D-Day photography or Frank's work in the US and Paris. i have a thoroughly thought out backbone of critical theory that forms the basis for my work, and which is very distinct from the stuff they were doing with provoke. there are some superficial resemblances but if you look at the two side by side with any sort of in-depth analysis you'll see some pretty significant core differences.

>>2920403
i appreciate that you're not a fan, that's cool.
but im also not very interested in the traditional technical details of "good photos" - i'd rather take these ideas i'm interested in to their logical extremes and end up with something that's far from a "good photo" but is conceptually satisfying to me than do it half-way and produce something that's aesthetically pleasing but doesn't say everything i'm trying to say.

this is how i know you are a phony:

>you really think the subjects are that bad? i know they are weak in the traditional technical sense, but those subjects include riot police surpressing a protest in times square, naked grils, public fighting

you dont immerse yourself in lolabstract to then break out character and say "but look, underneath the noise are real interesting subjects, it was just a ruse okay". if you leave the real word to the symbolic and abstract you better mean it, if you need to justify how your subjects are" indeed good" by some journalistic positivistic canon, but you posture in postmodern experimentation it then lands just flat.

empty work, not even you believe in it.

>>2920417
if you think that saying "i incorporate particular subjects and visual motifs into my work because i think their meaning is significant and conceptually consistent with the main topic i'm exploring" and "also those are some cool subjects no matter what way you look at it" are contradictory statements u are so silly lmao

the weakest photo in the thread is the lower left one with the cat imo, i like it and it sort of works as a metaphor (cat is caged) but really it's a bit too much of a stretch... unfortunately though I don't think I have time to print a replacement before the critique. i guess it works well enough.

>>2920416
I think you're gonna burn yourself out with all this logic and critical theory bullshit. It's too rigid to put into photo, and if this is what is the byproduct I would certainly find another medium.

>>2920425
this.

If your going for the look of those provoke images you need to look at the pics to see WHY they seem to work and yours don't. Honestly there is an "edgy art rag" published locally that has a bunch of pics like that in it, and I think the images really need to be in the context of a cheap, gritty publication to work. On their own they are just bad photos.

>>2920425
on the contrary, i think photography is the perfect medium for critical theory because it's such a bizarre fusion of mechanically "perfect" duplication of the world and a creative human-driven art form. you practically need critical theory to make any sense at all of the implications of its weird ass position in the art world.

>>2920427
but im not going for the look of those provoke images, im exploring my own distinct concepts and ideas and trying to imitate provoke would be self-defeating

>>2920429
I can only appreciate your similarities to me and the passion to create something that has a pathos to it, or at least striving for an academic approach to a hobby. But but, As mentioned before this is weak because the effects are mimicking that of a layman with no skill in photography (I say mimick because you ought to know what your doing before applying all these critical pathways to justify your photo's) with no contrast to show that you do have skill and that these 9 photos do have merit as it would be obvious from other bodys of work that this is not a cheap, quick way to create "art" that fits your critical theory, not visa versa. I feel heavily that the critical theory is #1 for you and these pictures use cheap tactics to fit that which you've constructed in your mind. So tes you can justify the merit but everyone else doesn't see it. To put it short your Picasso with Benjamin Button syndrome, also the reason modern art is arguably dying from false post modernists.

>>2920436
I guess all I'm saying is drop the shit, learn to be proficient and have a portfolio of techniques mastered, then branch out to experiment. If you want respect from others or anyone to take you seriously.

File: image.jpg (511KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 2048x1536px

>>2920436
>>2920437
just because i havent posted anything in this thread doesnt mean i dont have quite a bit of experience in "real" photography. for instance here is a "real" portrait (a shitty low res scan iirc but you can probably get the idea)

>>2920444
I agree with buddy about you being phoney. I don't need your justification, I'm only saying based off this thread and these photos it seems like your up to your ears in bullshit and need to maybe deconstruct some of your ideas that have got you to this point, because this set is uninspiring, full of cheap tactics and wanton in direction. It might not seem that way to you but you're presenting this to "not you".

>>2920444
>See i know how to take real pictures too!

Holy shit have a backbone, own it or just drop it already. Baudrillard my ass, you're vanilla as fuck.

>>2920448
Also the fact you don't have other work of high quality (objective quality) readily available shows you don't have a mastery of the process of photography from negative to print, because if you had the mastery you'd have the practise photos to back it up (ala portfolio). These come off as amateur backwash because they are, there's nothing backing them up and critical theory won't help, you explaining to people what they mean won't help, practice, practice, practice will help. When you make a series like this and the print is of premium archival quality, You'll know that thought went into it because only an insane man would spend the time getting there with no passion.

>>2920452
Not to be all up in your ass though, you do have 9 photos in series and you've thought. That's all very good, but anybody can do that and I feel like you don't want to be anybody. I would recommend friendly to assess yourself, why you have this habit to over construct theories ect. and deconstruct the exact process you've built up. In the mean time, shoot and shoot and develop and print and print and print, gain experience, gain knowledge, gain techniques. Don't try skipping go and running to the end before you've gained the experience to do so, If you want good quality prints and the knowledge to achieve effects that you really want then I think that's the real recipe.

You wrote a whole rant about your theory behind these poorly composed and captured images. It was a nice wall of text, but ultimately meaningless, filled with words but empty.

My number one criteria for art has always been this simple thought: if visual art requires a paragraph explaining / justifying it, it has failed.

That's why this has failed. It doesn't matter if in your head it's 'anonymizing' or 'decontextualizing.' Those are just fancy words that mean nothing when the consumer eyes up your shots and moves on.

I understand to a degree what you attempted to achieve here, and its admirable that you have an apparently cohesive vision. However it's just too lazily executed. If you put as much work into honing your technique as you did justifying your results, you'd be half way there.

Oh and by the way, that 'real' picture you posted is brutally out of focus too.

>>2920456
Then again I live by wanting to see the photos that people want to take, I like the intimacy, honesty and caring that can be provided by a photo. The ability to create an archival quality print of someone you love, or something you love is a very nice feeling, and it's that feeling I love to see in photos.

How much Vaseline did you smear on your lens to get this God-awful look?

>>2920457
i don't agree with this at all

the idea of a photo needing to be explained by a paragraph of text extends much beyond this are bure boke style of photography

these photos are just meant to be visually striking and interesting, not to have some deeper meaning that needs an accompanying essay.

OP's photos might fall flat but look at the work of daido moriyama, his photos have similar visual themes but are done really well and do not require a wordy explanation

>>2920395
the whole "fashion industry is bad, fuck the cops, sex workers are cool" thing is so played out and very entry level

you've got some good ideas in your photos but your ideology behind the photos is contrived and straight up boring

>>2920424
>metaphors in photos

this guy hahaha

>>2920450
look if you bully me one more time i will kill myself and my blood will be on youre hands

>>2920474
im not saying "fashion industry bad, sex work good, cops bad." I'm saying that all those things have a certain sort of objectification in common with photography, and therefore when im exploring that theme of "object-making" i use those things as visual shorthand to tie the series together and suggest the sort of themes im looking at. Not a moral judgment simply a neutral analysis.

while its not very original I kind of liked the photos... until you posted your wordy but empty conceptual explanation. cringe

its like you want to so hard to fit in with the 70s conceptualists but you have no idea what you're doing

I don't know why you keep posting here. We tell you the same thing each time, and you never take anyone's advice. Post your shitty diary somewhere else please

>>2920358
>those subjects include riot police surpressing a protest in times square, naked grils, public fighting
The only subject I can tell what it is is the naked girl. None of your other photos communicate what the subject is or why.

File: _MG_5471.jpg (437KB, 801x1000px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 801x1000px

>>2920345
I always like your threads No1, even though you do cop a bit of shit, it is refreshing to discuss this type of photography, and although there is a lot of valid criticism coming from these other people threads like this are positive for /p/.

I agree with the anons that you are letting the rigid intellectualism of your course or your interest in media theorists impact you in too much of a way in which there is no soul to your work.

When i say that, i understand that your photography doesnt have to 'say' anything specific, but especially with this style, at its core photography is centered around the experience of the photographer snapping the shutter. In that aspect, the photos in this set are just far to detached from one another. Instead they feel like an experiment in only the aesthetic of are bure, a mixture of photos that really do bite too hard on the style of established legends, (which isn't the main problem) and say nothing else.

I feel you use these highbrow art ideas of decontextualisation, but youve found yourself in this awkward middleground where you havent decontextualized enough but also by doing it the amount you have, youve told the viewer that any deeper meaning they could potentially read into it is immediately unjustified.

For a 9 photo board like this, my recomendation would be to simplify, focus one one of the sensations or deeper meanings you talk about and excentuate it in a way that really drives the point home more simply.

For example, my favorite is the one at the center of the square, the energy and anonymity of inner city life. How does that relate to the relatively in focus shot of some pros ass? If your whole thang is about the sexualisation of women in fashion etc, then atleast 7 of the 9 should relate to that, with perhaps 1 or 2 more abstract shots thrown in to keep the reader on their toes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 600D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:22 15:24:34
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: _MG_4443.jpg (502KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1000x667px

>>2920721
If its about the anonymity of humanity, why the fuck is one of them got a cat in? why are two obviously sexualized in nature?

This is gonna sound corny, but my advice would be to simplify, dont use theories as a crutch, and think about it less, feel it more. Like anon said before, the photography should more or less speak for itself, without your explanation this feels hollow and detatched.

I like your style, and i like many of the photos youve posted on here, but this style relys a lot on the entire essence, feeling and aesthetic as a whole. i think you just need to work on your curation to create something simpler with more nuance, as opposed to overly complicated with to many ingredients spread too thin

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 600D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:27 23:23:02
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2920444
This is very bad. This whole thread smells like unsuccessful art student

>>2920345
you only have 3 good photos.

i fucking hate how these college classes let technical skill go out the window.

like some dumb cunt i knew got top marks for a three by three of different pictures of hands all out of focus cropped weird and not even abstract in a good way.

for just letting it be arty. i hate the world.

Being a huge fan of Moriyama especially, and Nakahira plus the whole Provoke aesthetic, I think you got the style down very well. I think these photos are ok, but of course I do not think they compare to the masters so to speak.

To me, your strongest shots are these:
>>2920352
>>2920358

It's quite hard for me to choose more, if I had to I would pick >>2920363 which to me is an ok photo, not great but not bad. I really don't think the motion blur or underexposure works here, but the composition is nice and the subject is kind of interesting.

>>2920416
I get what you mean, I also don't think these really are that similar to the Provoke stuff when you look past the aesthetic choice. That's also your weakest point in my opinion - with this style, your photos have to be really strong so the look isn't just a gimmick and doesn't become the subject, sort of. And I appreciate your effort at going with this style, it's really hard.

But I also have to join other posters here, your explanations for the why and what you are trying to express are lame. >>2920721 and >>2920724 are very good critique, you should really think about what that anon wrote. Especially this line:
>I feel you use these highbrow art ideas of decontextualisation, but youve found yourself in this awkward middleground where you havent decontextualized enough but also by doing it the amount you have, youve told the viewer that any deeper meaning they could potentially read into it is immediately unjustified.
That was way better said than what I could come up with. What most appeals to me in Provoke is the fact that the photos leave it up to you to figure out what meaning they have, if any. You don't get an explanation. You have an intended message and a meaning in your photos which sets you apart from that, but you need to help the viewer see what it is and not make them feel stupid when you reveal the (currently obscured) message behind. Either way, work your way out of the middle ground.

>>2920345
So trite. Soooo soo trite and banal. Just banal in the age we're, and not enough to be a study in artistic banality. Just twee. Just...of a prior time, a bygone era. One where people would have called you out for trying and failing to shock them. But in this age, this is such a transparent low effort attempt at A E S T H E T I C. Obviously made by someone who's trying to find a voice, and hasn't experienced enough embarrassment to switch gears yet. Completely a product of the internet.

just zzzzzz

>>2920349
Snapshit. Can't tell if those are legs or not because they're too blurry and the tones are too similar to the ground.

>>2920352
Also snapshit. Personally, I'd want it to be in one point perspective, but I'm assuming you're not into it, so I would prefer this photograph but with much more repetition. That said, you might actually need a medium or even large format camera to capture the repetition without the rectilinear distortion being too pronounced.

>>2920354
Could've been an interesting photo, but being out of focus just makes it even less interesting than it already isn't. More negative space might actually bring contrast and attention to the subject, despite being blurry as shit.

>>2920356
It's sad that the most interesting part of the photo is the sign in the background instead of the face, given that the sign is brighter than him. Again, the camera shake is not working to your advantage.

>>2920358
So far the most interesting photo, but still far from being strong. It kind of baffles me to see motion blur being perpendicular to how I'm expecting the subjects to move, just saying. Also, an off-camera flash to maybe highlight one of the silhouettes for a focus point could've elevated the compositional complexity.

>>2920359
Barely being able to tell a person is composed dead center in the photograph doesn't make it any more interesting than the others. More importantly, the lack of resolution makes me even less tempted to stay longer to hopefully find something interesting to look at.

>>2920360
Something something animal behind chicken wire something abuse or imprison—little to no impact whatsoever.

To be continued....

>>2920361
I don't like the composition. Additionally, being the only one remotely sharp and isn't abstracted to oblivion, it doesn't fit in your collection of blurry snapshit.

>>2920363
I like this, but I think the photograph is underdeveloped, figuratively. The faces are blurred enough to be abstracted into "important figures," but the angle of the photograph is off. I would've left significantly less headroom and went for a more drastic vantage point, or even use a wider focal length like 35mm or 28mm.

>>2920416
>i have a thoroughly thought out backbone of critical theory that forms the basis for my work
That's your biggest fault in this project. Your "backbone" of critical theory isn't supporting your work, but rather becomes an excuse to your photographs not making sense at all.

I bet you dont own a single Daido book. You are an internet child with internet interests.