Is this a good photo? why?

yes, because you should do your own homework.

File: 1485736556566.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>3012213
>Implying I would bother wasting my time with some bullshit photography degree

File: 4UKyySj.jpg (634KB, 3000x2401px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 3000x2401px

>>3012211
much better

>>3012216

It sounds like you need one if you have to ask whether this photo is good or not and why.

>>3012211

That was my great-great-great-great grandpa

>>3012234
You liar

>>3012211
I think there's 2 kinds of great photos and I can't really describe it properly:

The first is the technically great ones, for example maybe Ansel Adams. They are good maybe because composition, technique, whatever.

The second is the ones that are hard to get. Like in this picture, the photographer had to climb all the way up to get this shot. (I think it's some shit in new york) To give another example, the pic of the first man on the moon, or the first frame filling shots of Saturn by voyager, those are gonna be great even if they fucked up everything in the photographer's manual. Similarly we can compare someone taking a pic of an animal in a zoo vs someone taking a pic of an animal in the artic or some rainforest. Though they may both follow all the rules I think the difficulty speaks through the image.

>>3012223
no your edit sucks

>>3012257
idiot

>>3012252
I realy like the way you think, I've never think about the effort behind

Contrast between hard edged modernity and human labour reminds us that it was all made by people - generally people living in shittier conditions than they are creating for others.

File: intredasting suggestions.png (563KB, 2212x1163px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 2212x1163px

>>3012211
Read at 3.

>>3012211
Simple it has content that does not need explaining.

>>3012211
fits the purpose of photography perfectly : to tell a story from different perspectives

>>3012211
Sigh... so: the photo works as a document of a certain time, it tells a full story in a single frame. You can guess several details from it, like the fact that it is set in NY (it has easily identifyable buildings), it allows you to question the man's situation and to some extent creates a relationship with you (as a human, and specially as a working class person). besides its historical value in terms of documentation, you could also say that it is technically good/aesthetically pleasing.

I personally like the way it is composed, a little loaded to the left, but well distributed from left to right, as the building is basically in the same position, mirroring the man.(we dont know if this is the original composition).

the photo also generates a sense of scale on several levels: the man and the building, the man's feet hand from the structure and they are cut in the right spot, wich allows you to understand he is actually hanging from a great height. the human and the city, etc.

While this is a digital reproduction, you can still argue that the black and white contrast is well acomplished, he is wearing dark clothes and is nicely separated form the background which looks kind of foggy.

in the end you have a pretty photo, with a certain historical value, which gives you just enough details to create a more complex reading from it, and that is why it is a good photo.

>>3012252
>>3013698
Also, damn boys, you have a very simplistic view of photography

Recommended reading:
Susan Sontag- Regarding the Pain of Others
Roland Barthes- Camera Lucida
Walter Benjamin-The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

and if you really fucking hate yourself

Guy Debord- The Society of the Spectacle
Jean Baudrillard- Simulacra and Simulation

There's also some decent reading regardint the idea of post photography by Joan Fontcuberta

>>3014535
You sound like you just got out of art theory 101, kid.

>>3012211
It's a bad photo of an interesting subject. Therefore it is a good photo.