What is /p/'s opinion about this Angry Photographer video?
I'll sum it up if you don't want to spend 30 minutes watching it. His main ideas are:
1) There are only three ways to be drawn into a photo: Geometrically, compositionally, or emotionally. (Light is defined as being = emotion. Also, rule of third sucks for composition compared to vortex, funnel, or golden ratio.)
2) Each photo you take is a complete one-page novel. Your ability to take a one-page novel will distinguish an amateur from an advanced amateur from a professional Thematically, a good photo falls within categories of "one-page novels" like these:
* Fantastical
* Mystery
* Sensual
* Shocking
* Juxtaposition
* Other storytelling
Also, the usual "don't matrix meter, spot meter" — but ALSO "fuck even lighting, just meter for the thing that gets the point across in terms of the above and to hell with under- or overexposing the rest" [paraphrasing].
>>2724659
Sounds pretty accurate.
My God what a load of horse-shit. You know what makes a good photo? The fucking photo. You'll either like it or you fucking won't and you'll know it when you see it.
I'm so tired of the "but it's aaaaart" types pushing this storytelling bullshit. You know who makes up the story? THE VIEWER. It's all in the viewer's fucking head. You know why? because it's a picture and not a book. It doesn't have words in it that can TELL a story.
Controlling lighting and composition to get the image you want is real. This "fantastical mystery shocking" shit is limp-wristed psuedo-art bullshit and you're a moron if you believe it
>>2724659
I divide photos into two groups.
Documentation/Evidence and Art
Angry Photog is all about the art aspect of photography.
![pbox1[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/9Ma6Uas.gif "pbox1[1].gif")
Didn't he do a two-part special about how the works of the great early 20th century physicists were misunderstood and basically electrons don't exist?
>>2724696
>I'm so tired of the "but it's aaaaart" types pushing this storytelling bullshit. You know who makes up the story? THE VIEWER. It's all in the viewer's fucking head. You know why? because it's a picture and not a book. It doesn't have words in it that can TELL a story.
You're wrong. Saying that a landscape or still life should tell a story is dumb, but saying that photos can't tell a story is much more dumb.
It sounds like you've gotten some critique that you disagree with, and then went /p/ mode and sarcastically applied that critique to every photo ever taken to make it sound more ridiculous.
A photo can tell a story in much the same way that a book can give imagery. yes, it's up to you to imagine the room from a book, but with certain details and words, you can be guided to more or less the "correct" image, because the writer took you there.
You'd be hard pressed to come up with much a "wrong" story from pic related, and you'd be hard pressed to say that any story that IS inferred is "made up in the viewer's head".
It's also worth mentioning that whether or not you like a photo is not in any way related to whether a photo is good or not. I personally hate landscape photography, but that doesn't mean that I believe that all landscape photography is bad.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 1392
>>2724696
>My God what a load of horse-shit. You know what makes a good photo? The fucking photo. You'll either like it or you fucking won't and you'll know it when you see it.
"Phaenomena take place and there is no reason to even TRY to understand them."
>You know why? because it's a picture and not a book. It doesn't have words in it that can TELL a story.
Words are just pathways to cognitive elements. They are abstract phonological or orthographic elements that carry a semantic.
...as are shapes, colors, lines, and EVERYTHING YOU FUCKING SEE IN A PHOTO. Pathways to cognitive elements, abstract things that do indeed carry a semantic.
This shit should be obvious to everyone including you. This shit also shows that you either didn't actually watch the video, or that you missed the entire point of his whole "lies vs reality" theme going through the presentation.
>>2724706
True, he is. But abductively speaking, the same principles probably apply to documentary/evidence stuff too. There might be less emphasis on those thematic storytelling elements in evidence/documentary photography, but you can also find literally endless examples of storytelling and the exact same elements being used in, say, war photography, photojournalism, or documentaries about animals. It never REALLY leaves entirely, maybe except for scans of historical documents where the document and not the photo tells the story. You know what I mean?
