Am I just not getting these?

[shutterbud]

<p>Hi all<br>

This is an honest question. I am on The Inspired Eye mailing list and I clicked on this link and thought, "Eh?" then looked at some of the comments below. I would really like to know if there is something in these phtographs which I am missing, because apart from "Green Wall" I can't see why the photographer took these frames. </p>

<p>http://www.theinspiredeye.net/parramatta-road/</p>

 

[NetR]

<p>This is documentary type photography, with an eye for strong colours. It is a record of memorable sights along a major road at a certain time. The photos stand together as a collection. For me, anyway.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Although I wouldn't personally hang any of these photos on my wall, there are obviously many people who would. They are valueless to me and valuable to others. Such is art!</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>The shots are semi-abstract, and mostly about strong color. Yes, I like them.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think the work is interesting and not great. What strikes me is his consistency and ability to draw out themes. There's a certain geometry which works in counterpoint with the color. That seems to provide the main thrust of the work. Lacking a real narrative or particular photographic moments to play out against the color and geometry, it only takes me so far. The man looking in motorcycle shop window is, for me, just a bad photo and it's too bad because it could have provided some action and life, but doesn't. The photo of the guy eyeing the photographer from inside the white car, in another series or by itself might work well as a sort of suspicion/I caught you kind of shot, but within the series it doesn't quite make sense or add much.</p>

<p>I'm curious about why you chose Green Wall as the one shot that does work for you? It works for me about as well as most of the other shots. It seems to fit right in rather than standing out. I can see that these might be appealing shots to people and understand why the photographer took them even though they don't have terribly much appeal to me personally. They are relatively easy to digest and they're orderly and organized and color and geometry do appeal to many people. We're looking at obvious buildings and architectural subject matter but, through the compositions, juxtapositions, and color there is an abstraction taking place (at a fairly elementary level) that a general audience would often find appealing.</p>

<p>I don't know anything about the site they're on so I'm not sure how sophisticated or photographic the audience is. Were these posted to the PN critique and rating forum, I'd expect them to do OK, about average ratings or a bit above and they would stand out well in thumbnails and likely draw some attention.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>OK. Thanks for taking the time to look. I can connect the comments to the images. I'll put t down to stylistic differences. :-)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>He has a consistent eye for colors and mostly succeed his image compositions. I like them, not only as abstracts but also as a coherent commentson physical leftovers when humans have left !</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I see a strong eye for juxtaposition of color, shape, and light and shadow. Out of context some photos may appear mundane - a single dull word out of a coherent sentence - but within the context of other related photos each contributes to the whole experience. </p>

<p>The greatest challenge I've found to my own growth in photography is to learn - or at least try - to see the world as others do, and to see photographs as others do.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I rather like many of them. But it's true that without the context most of them are not about much but their own composition, so if you are looking for single images that tell a story, they're not going to be for you. I like that kind of stuff, but not everyone does.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>They give you a sense of outlook, don't they? - Ringo Starr<br>

Seriously, only one or two would stand by themselves.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>These strongly graphic color images are a type of style. My favorite photographer who is quite famous for this style, is Pete Turner, who has made quite a name for himself in the advertising as well as art world. Here's his website: http://www.peteturner.com/</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"They give you a sense of outlook, don't they? - Ringo Starr<br />Seriously, only one or two would stand by themselves."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the point of a photo essay or thematically related project is the whole, not the individual components. For example, if I omit the words and characters I don't like or don't understand from your comment, and keep only those that I like or which make sense to me, I get:<br>

<em>"You sense Ringo Starr would stand by the elves."</em><br>

<br>

And he probably would. But it isn't quite what you wrote or intended to be understood in complete context.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>They work as a collection and the sort of thing I might shoot if I got my A into G and had Parramatta in my backyard ... but I wouldn't expect anybody else to like them ... a very personal thing.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>More interesting to me was when I clicked on 'Gallery', particularly the works of <a href="http://www.theinspiredeye.net/my-account/gallery/page/2"><small>Fabio Balestra</small></a><br>

Particularly the bicycle fixed to chain with man hurrying in the rain held my interest if only for the means of attachment :-)</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I think the difference between the photos <em>I</em> linked to and those of Pete Turner, is that Mr Turner is good at what he does! :-)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the difference between the photos <em>I</em> linked to and those of Pete Turner, is that Mr Turner is good at what he does!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Given that other people like the linked photos, I'd say that you like what Mr. Turner does. Obviously, if people like what someone has produced, they are good at producing that some people, but not you, like and think are good. It's important to separate one's opinion from the idea that one is the final arbiter on what is "good."</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Looks an interesting project, well-delivered.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Sometimes it's not the picture, but "who" took that picture. Frankly I see maybe a couple(2) of pictures in that set that are pretty good and some that could have been better with a little help from Photoshop, but that's just my non-artistic opinion.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>For goodness sake Jeff.<br>

We're not allowed to say a photograph is good anymore, is that it? You're not Yoda. Give it a rest, eh?</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>I think Jeff is right in what he wrote at 9.20 ... I quite like them but that is just my personal view .. .</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Very interesting work, whether it comes within your circle of likes or circle of sensitivity or not. Altgough it is not all of interest to me I do I think it is an intentional and an honest personal view of this thoroughfare that has mutated often over its 200 year history. While the photographer is absorbed by colour and its harmonies and contrast he also has an eye for the context of place and some of his images are not unlike those of some (I think) over estimated photographers of post modern and other movements in the latter half of the 20th century. He allows his interest in colour and composition a certain freedom and it is interesting he used outdated film in his F6 and also sought the Kodachrome look of many digital M8 pictures. That way, and his slight underexposure in many images, gives him the colour and contrast of the slide film age without need to put any undue pressure on Photoshop sliders (I may be wrong, but think not). The style is more than just documentary, although the images work well as a series. The images raise questions in the viewer and I think more interesting than much of what is done in a Phototoshopped me too manner on Photo.Net and elsewhere.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>“I would really like to know if there is something in these photographs which I am missing. . . .”<br>

Simon, I think we all have this reaction from time to time as we look at photographs done by different people. I find a lot of photography you see in art galleries these days, which is “conceptual” rather boring to me. However, I am not steeped in modern art theory or conceptual anything. Curators of large modern art galleries know a lot more than I do about what is new and different and worthy of taking note of if you are in the business. The images you are referring to are, to me, very graphic in terms of lines and color, and as I pointed out earlier, reminiscent of the work of Pete Turner. For me these types of images can be appreciated from that standpoint: color, form, and graphics. They are not simply “random” images. You can see an intentional composition in them. Some people are just more stimulated by this style. I can see some of these images as decorative enhancements to an interior space, for instance. There is the Parramatta Road theme going on as well. <br>

Once in a while I see something very graphic that catches my eye and I photograph it, such as this one: <a href="/photo/4509773&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/4509773&size=lg</a> or this one: <a href="/photo/3604646&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/3604646&size=lg</a> for example. Both images are about lines, texture,color and graphics. They are not landscapes in the traditional sense. These things just “popped out” at me when I was out with the camera (as do all my images, actually). The one with the signs has some 6000 views, so somebody out there must be drawn to this style!</p>

 

[sjmurray]

<p>Sorry, I meant "Stephen" in the first sentence!</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>We're not allowed to say a photograph is good anymore, is that it? You're not Yoda. Give it a rest, eh?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Other people see value in these obviously. That means that they are "good." One person's taste does not translate into "good." Also, you posed this post as a question. It's obvious other people think you are "not getting" them and do like them. If you didn't want to have that question answered, it's better not to ask it.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Once again, you are [deliberately?] missing the point. Go back and try again Jeff.</p>