Post awesome photos from other photographers

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post awesome photos from other photographers

«‹›3 »

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Really loving Matthew Monteith's stuff

# ¿ Nov 12, 2011 05:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:01

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Missy Prince always makes me feel bad, we haunt the same back roads and she always does it better.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2011 18:29

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Kodachrome is not the "art look".

# ¿ Dec 21, 2011 00:56

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Let me restate: choice of film stock, contrast, and saturation are not what make the "art look".

# ¿ Dec 21, 2011 00:57

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Todd Hido

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 22:30

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

This forum seems to love pointing out terrible photos, let's get some love for good work

Julia Peirone

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 23:12

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

What's not awesome about them?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 23:27

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Don't Herman Cain me and ask me my question back so you can get your answer.

They're 'awesome' because they're non-typical portraits of teenagers. Rolling eyes, hair twirling, gum popping. Having the intent to go and take a photo of something most people would usually throw out is what makes it special.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 23:49

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Reichstag posted:

I'm a huge fan of Rafael Alcacer's portraits, expecially of his family. Unfortunately, he has no website, and keeps very little up for long on his flickr.

Those are rad awesome

Reichstag posted:

This one in particular is fantastic, I'm not crazy about the rest.

I'm staring at Aperture #205 where there are a few more prints of shots as strong as the linked one (IMO) that aren't posted on her website. I think they fall more into the scoffing teenager style than the ones on her website, which seem to be more 'off'. But maybe it's just because everything looks better in print...

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 00:43

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

(likely a repost, but this is a big thread)

Larry Sultan

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 19:57

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

And another classic, Joel Meyerowitz

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 20:33

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Demon_Corsair posted:

You are going to have to walk me through why these are awesome. They strike me as technically good snapshots. Especially the last one.

What makes a snapshot? What differentiates a haphazard glance and a shutter press from a deliberate, thought-out landscape? Look at the way things are structured in each image - the vanishing point on the horizon, the verticals along frame edges that 'fence' the viewer in, the way different temperatures of light are used to paint splashes of color.

Spedman has a point re: the last image. I tend to like images that are 'portraits' of something that we tend to ignore.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 22:23

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Many places exist that still look the same

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 23:21

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

One thing to remember about the old color 'art' photos is that they're not usually nostalgic - how can you be nostalgic about the present?

# ¿ Jan 11, 2012 00:06

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Alessandra Sanguinetti

All of the images were taken from the gallery link on her website.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2012 19:09

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Here are some quotes from Stephen Shore interviews where he addresses the nostalgia point:

quote:

AS: Walker Evans would often say that he wanted to �photograph the present as it would be seen as the past�. But at the same time, when he got into his older age, and people would say, �I love your pictures. I remember those old Model T�s!� and so on, that it would drive him up the wall, because he didn�t want his pictures to be seen as kitchy or old fashioned; he saw them as very modern, relevant, contemporary images. And I know that this work evokes similar responses today. People say, �Awe, the �70s. Look at those great classic cars, look at those shag carpets, look at the great old signs, and all the bright colors!� Does that ever frustrate you, that people see this work as, in a sense, �kitchy� or �retro�?

SS: No. It�s funny you said that. I didn�t know Walker Evans said this, but that was done intentionally in my work. I realized in Evan�s work, that the time marker in his pictures were the cars. That a building is not a time marker, because you could have a black and white picture across Madison Square and, �Was that picture taken in the twenties, or was it taken in 2003?� But the cars were the little time markers, which I found fascinating. It didn�t make his work nostalgic for me. It put it in a time perspective. And so, I would often include cars for that reason, because I understood that they were going to be time markers in the picture. So I was intentionally putting a tag in for a general era�That�s how I saw the cars in Evans� pictures.

(via)

quote:

RJ: To me, if we look at the photos in the first edition of �Uncommon Places�, they really make me feel very nostalgic, even though the color is dated. They really remind me of the so-called �good old days� in 1970s. But the ones I saw at ICP may have a fresh look when you saw them, they really look very contemporary.

SS: But you also can�t go by the book, because the reproductions in the book don�t look like the photos that were being shown at the time. You have to understand there is nothing particularly nostalgic about these pictures. This is something that inevitably comes with age. It�s not to my credit, other than I�ve lived long enough. And I keep showing the works. But when the works were first shown, people didn�t feel any nostalgia in it.

(via)

He's clearly aware that he's dating his images by including cars (which do seem to be a big point of nostalgia for people), but that the nostalgia is only a result of time passing, not of intent at the time of the shutter moving.

Look at this image on La Brea/Beverly Blvd in LA, 1975:

Imagine standing on the corner, framing the shot. What in that photo is nostalgic? There's modern gas stations, modern cars, modern advertising. It's the present. Nothing about the framing is nostalgic, nothing about the colors are nostalgic. It's nostalgic now because we see a normal picture of the past - all of these things are gone now. I guess I just don't see how someone could have enough forethought to think "this image I'm taking now is nostalgic, but we won't know it for 20 years."

# ¿ Jan 11, 2012 23:05

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

OOPRCT posted:

Okay these are not awesome.

(In seriousness I'd like to have a discussion for every link that is posted about the merits of the photos so that we could see what kind of critique we could give to these photographers)

Why don't you say what you don't like about them?

# ¿ Jan 11, 2012 23:05

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

I feel bad basically copying these from ASX (they're not on the artist's website) but it's a good read especially if you already like "art". Here are some non-awesome images that are sure to be terrible and shouldn't be posted in the thread

Allison Sexton

# ¿ Jan 11, 2012 23:34

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Some classy old ones from Andrew Bush. These may have been posted before, but they deserve to be shown again.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2012 19:25

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Those were my first exposure to photography "as art" and I've always wanted to do my own version. But when it's been done so well once before...

# ¿ Jan 13, 2012 19:32

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

I think he had a flash taped to the side of his car for fill.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2012 20:06

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

JeongMee Yoon

# ¿ Jan 14, 2012 23:38

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Joel Sternfeld

# ¿ Jan 15, 2012 21:13

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Carrie M. Becker

# ¿ Jan 17, 2012 19:33

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Some k-rad landscapes from Daniel Gustav Cramer

# ¿ Jan 17, 2012 22:52

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

These are from a series called An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar by Taryn Simon. I highly suggest you click through and read the captions, these are spectacular:

# ¿ Jan 19, 2012 18:33

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Noemie Goudal

# ¿ Jan 24, 2012 07:04

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Richard Prince

# ¿ Jan 30, 2012 22:11

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Paul Graham

# ¿ Feb 8, 2012 06:44

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

There's a nice contrast between images of beautiful, large houses and washed out photos of people walking in poor areas. I figured it was pretty obvious.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2012 06:55

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

I don't think you're over-analyzing at all.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2012 07:10

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Some awesome stuff on ASX from Lise Sarfati:

# ¿ Feb 23, 2012 23:28

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Some sweet stuff on American Elegy from Charles Henry:

# ¿ Mar 5, 2012 18:56

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Axel Serenity posted:

(if only there wasn't so much green, but lovely otherwise)

I'm with Bottom Liner on this one. I think they are great examples of National Geographic Travel Photography, but I just don't find them very interesting. I like photos that tell a story, and aside from the smoke in the air, I really don't get much out of these aside from the tourism, and the Southeast Asian look isn't my favorite. I also think this is why I am terrible at trust fund photography. I can see why others like them, though, and since they seem to be popular with a few goons here, they probably deserve to be in here.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2012 05:38

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Bottom Liner posted:

I don't think those are banal at all. Gursky is banal. A photo of a random wall is banal. Those are well executed landscapes of an exotic location. That is not banal. Don't assume, and don't tell people not to post based on those assumptions.

They're not landscapes, nor are they trying to be exotic. Given that you think Gurksy is 'banal', all signs point towards you being unable to comprehend a photograph beyond the obvious.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2012 17:55

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Bottom Liner posted:

I love how you guys just post snide remarks instead of putting effort into coversation and a good discussion environment here. Why not contribute instead of being assholes about it? Get off your high horses.