|
This thread is for photos you think about a lot. It might be your photo, or it could be someone elses. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. Possibly it could be from another goon, or you might not know where it came from at all. It might not even exist. All that matters is that you think about this photo. Cerious posted this one:  I love the colour palette. I love thinking about sitting there, my feet in the warm water, basking in the midday sun. This photo is a soothing balm to me. This from Manuel van Dyck  The green in the floor and carpet put me in the mind of decay, the haphazard keys make me think about why they're there, who put them there, what was the purpose? The whole series brings it all together, but I can't stop thinking about this photo. There are more photos I think about a lot, but these are two of them. What photos do you think of?
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2021 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Cool thread idea. Probably this image by Joel Meyerowitz - I used to think "street photography" was kinda lame but I saw this picture and it convinced me that it can be cool. Love the shadows, the beige jackets, the Gucci sign and of course the steam. I guess I don't think about this photo that often now but after I saw it it definitely stuck in my head for awhile. My favorite 'tog at the moment has got to be Eggleston, but I love so many of his pictures that there's not really a singular one I think about that often. But maybe one is eluding me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
 This is The Pine on the Corner by Jeff Wall. I grew up in Vancouver where this picture was taken and I am just a little bit older than the photograph itself. I’m always a little transfixed by media that includes representations of places that I am familiar with. I think there is an interesting interaction that occurs between someone looking at a photograph and the places they depict. A lot of photographs avoid being placeable. The fewer place making symbols there are in an image, the harder it is to identify its location with any precision. Whatever preconceived notions someone may have about a place will not be inspired or affected if they don’t draw the connection in the first place. This photo to me is highly placeable. In fact I know precisely where it is and what it’s like to be there. Other people might see the trees, houses, and mountains and realise that it is in Vancouver and perhaps hold a vague imaginary representing a typical Vancouver neighbourhood in their minds. Some may only place this somewhere in North America and be done with it. You can find the location on Google Maps here: https://goo.gl/maps/yJ4JrXaS5d8oG6jPA Here’s an inprocess photo of the pines falling in 2007:  no more pine on the corner by Sharla Sava, on Flickr If you went on the street view you can see that since then the neighbouring Vancouver special was knocked down and that the house has been painted blue. Here is a little time lapse:  At this point it’s easy to walk past and miss this spot even if you are familiar with the photo. To me the less it looks like The Pine on the Corner the more placeless it becomes, I start to mistake it for the prototype Vancouver neighbourhood in my mind. The tree was already gone by the time I started to take photography more seriously. I don’t know if I ever saw the tree before it was taken down but I doubt it. For me though this street corner is marked by a flag in time when the photo was taken. I think change and place are some of photography’s most interesting themes and over time this photo has spoken volumes to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
I don't think this photo is necessarily in keeping with the spirit of the thread, but I think about it at least once a week, and it always makes me chuckle. I do not know who took it, or what it is called. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
That's absolutely in the spirit of the thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
If its a photo, and you think about it, it goes here. Thank you for your contribution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
I... don't remember that
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
I do and frankly it still makes me laugh out loud
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
I think a lot about a flash photo of sheep at night, with rows of glowing eyes showing the presence of many more sheep than can otherwise be seen. It's by Liam Sparkes, better known as a tattooist, but who also self-publishes photos. He posted it to flickr about fifteen years ago. The negative was dusty, an aspect which I also think about, but far less frequently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
 Serious content: I have been exclusively shooting film the last couple of months. I was hoping I could get away with lab scans for a few months, but that turned out to be false, and so I bought a scanner literally after my second roll of film. Dust was a major "perceived" issue. But as I was looking at pictures online, I realized that sometimes (but only in moderation) dust and scratches do not ruin images. I still try to clean my negatives, but I am less spergy about it. Low contrast images. Wildo had a great submission in this thread, and I had seen similar images in one of the other threads. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
so this photo has been online since 2011 or 2012 and (maybe) a photographer named Todd Hido took it  it seemingly gets posted on Reddit every few months and is probably heavily photoshopped for the cyan and orange but it works so well, and remains one of the sharpest looking compositions of a building and parking lot I’ve ever seen? whenever I see litter at a gas station at night I think about it, even though that’s not a gas station likewise neon reflected on asphalt after rain or through mist evokes this image and like Silent Hill in my mind wolfs fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
yessss lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
wolfs posted:so this photo has been online since 2011 or 2012 and (maybe) a photographer named Todd Hido took it justin broadway, not todd hido
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
i guess i missed this thread when it was posted, but here are some of mine robert adams  william christenberry   lewis baltz 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:i guess i missed this thread when it was posted, but here are some of mine I haven't posted here in ages but these two live rent free in my mind too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
I wanna make photos like these Lee Friedlander photos 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
i need to get a friedlander book
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 07:11
|
|
|
It's incomprehensible to me how people can take photos like that in that kind of light and make them work. And yet they do. And when I try the results are complete garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
IDGI. What makes those two pictures work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
I don't know, I just find my eyes get stuck to it. Maybe the fact that it's printed in a book from someone famous means it's more "important" and I give it more weight? I've been rolling it around in my head since last night and I can't figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
have a look at other work by lee friedlander heres one of the first links on google: https://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/lee-friedlander take a look especially through this gallery https://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/lee-friedlander#friedlander-lee_Landscapes-0 maybe youll find some similar themes or even what seems like more direct iterations on a concept. do some of these work better in your mind? why? what about the ones in that book doesn't "work" for you compared to (possibly) the ones at the link above? most of his urban scenes are playful explorations of photographies core concepts namely things like projection, reflection, and imagery. in urban spaces we are surrounded by discrete images or objects created with intent and placed purposefully. I think there is a lot of fun to be had with finding scenes with unintended semantic or semiotic consequences. objects may be placed with (independant) conceptual boundaries in mind but the photographer can change those boundaries and illustrate connections by forcing a frame around a scene in a way that wasnt considered. nature obviously has different ways of being understood than urban scenes since the form and placement of a thing are determined by processes that are usually not so easy to fully enclose. my feeling on the photos in the book megabound posted and then particularly in images like these ones: https://i0.wp.com/fraenkelgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LF-1575-26.jpg https://i1.wp.com/fraenkelgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Friedlander_Apples-and-Olives-5.jpg i think these photos present views of incomplete objects interacting. trees with chaotically splayed branches obscured by leaves, flowers, snow, other branches perhaps from other trees layered over top of one another, etc. i think they embrace the continuous nature of uh nature by avoiding enclosure. i think at best they can be stunning like the snow photograph and otherwise cool and unusual explorations of the emergent interactions between things in the world which by compliment suggests the unknown expansiveness and non-discrete nature of things in the world
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
i dont think you need to think about all that conceptual crap to enjoy the images however i find them compelling for the (un)bounded noisiness and the different elements all related to subjects thingyness. why do they work? because friedlander could have taken a dozen steps back and you would have seen a boring tree sitting by itself but up close theres no telling how far the tree extends
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:have a look at other work by lee friedlander heres one of the first links on google: https://fraenkelgallery.com/artists/lee-friedlander These are cool and good, I am engaged, my eyes go back and forth. Haverstraw and Banff in particular are outstanding. The two from the picture book made me yawn, but perhaps there is a context I was missing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Mostly what Twenties has said. I enjoy these as they show nature how I experience it. It's chaotic, confusing, and unable to be constrained. Making the tree fill the entire frame makes it more of a portrait of a plant instead of a photo of a boring photo of a tree over there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Mostly what Twenties has said. I enjoy these as they show nature how I experience it. It's chaotic, confusing, and unable to be constrained. Making the tree fill the entire frame makes it more of a portrait of a plant instead of a photo of a boring photo of a tree over there. How would you compare it to something like this?  (Adam Gibbs) Because it's absolutely an image I think about all the drat time and I bought a print of it. This I can pretty easily explain why I like it.. the light (which is reflecting off snow, is why it looks like it's coming from everywhere) makes it look like a ghost and the blurred aspens in the background make it even more ghostly. It's a lovely, unique aesthetic and only specific conditions could create it, I think it's super impressive. And definitely not how I see nature when I'm out walking around, it's fake looking. I don't want to draw comparisons between two people's work, but in broad strokes it has that same "making a tree fill the frame" approach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
That one doesn't do it for me in the same way. In the Friedlander he's practically standing inside the tree with a wide lens. There's elements coming straight at the camera enveloping and attacking you. Gibbs is still observing nature, Friedlander is subsumed by nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
here's a good article about Friedlander / about his new retrospective book which I bought but haven't got yet and am very excited about https://americansuburbx.com/2021/11/lee-friedlander-fundacion-mapfre.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Mostly what Twenties has said. I enjoy these as they show nature how I experience it. It's chaotic, confusing, and unable to be constrained. Making the tree fill the entire frame makes it more of a portrait of a plant instead of a photo of a boring photo of a tree over there. Ok, I get this argument. This gave me an idea for this month's challenge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
This image has always amazed me due to the amount of planning etc. https://reubenkrabbe.com/svalbard-eclipse/aftkwx1qqzzl98dq244gcw723zqdg5
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
Yeah, that's pretty crazy. It's not a photo I'd want myself but you gotta respect the planning for it. When I did the 2017 eclipse I was writing python scripts to configure a raspberry pi to take images coordinated to sub-second accuracy. That was tough enough, but to plan the sun lined up on a ridge and have a skier going down the slope at exactly the right spot and time is insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
 This is one that sticks in my mind constantly. Crossing Powell 2 by Fred Herzog. I just love the contrast and the warmth of the light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
My own photo: Back when the pandemic started, the city streets were empty every day and night. All things aside, it was bliss. It was eerily quiet every night; the streets looked amazing untouched; every spotless footpath and empty road looked like a moody album cover waiting to happen. This street is getting super busy again and I hate it because I know I’ll never see it like this ever again, but I’m glad I caught this when I did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 04:33
|
|
