Alright, /p/. Last Friday we actually had a pretty decent discussion about ::gasp:: photography. We looked at a portrait of Queen Elizabeth by Annie Leibovitz. We discussed it in relation to her other work, and we even looked at it in comparison to another portrait of the queen by a very, very different photographer.
This week, let's change gears drastically. Let's look at a famous photograph by Stephen Shore, "Sambo's," from his Uncommon Places series.
What do you think of it? Do you love it? Do you hate it?
Most importantly, why do you love it? Why do you hate it? What technical elements do you enjoy? What technical elements do you hate? What are your thoughts on the content? What about the composition? What do you think of the lighting/decision to shoot at this time of day? What about the development/printing?
Now, maybe you hate Stephen Shore. Maybe you love him. That's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss this photo compared to other work of his, that's certainly acceptable, but this is not a thread for generalized love/bashing. Let's actually discussion, you know, the photograph.
And, as always, ignore the trolls. Y'all did great with that last week. Let's keep it up.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3984 Image Height 3166 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2010:06:07 13:35:01 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 795
>>2865206
I find it to be very bland, falling into the "Celebrating mediocrity for the sake of being able to say you're celebrating mediocrity" genre.
It has nice "retro" tones, and obviously unique "retro" cars, which will appeal to us in 2016, but knowing that it was taken back when those were just "tone" and "cars" suggests that those retro feelings were unplanned and unexpected when the photo was taken.
The only real information I'm getting here is that Sambo's was busy at the time the photo was taken, and I'm not sure why I should care about that.
There's a lot of variety in the types of cars present, which is... notable I guess. But is it interesting or visually/informationally pleasant? Sort of, I guess. Not really. To me.
My opinion is that mundane things are mundane, and since my life is mostly ignoring the mundane things because they don't really contain any useful or interesting information, photos of those mundane things are also massively forgettable, and a waste of my time.
The photograph is great, composition leads you around the photo nicely. A lot of interesting subjects that you can give each the same amount of time to.
Of course that coloring is very pleasing with that kind of washed out saturation that shore always had(what film was he using? kodachrome?)
But what I like about Shore is that hes a photobook artist. It becomes so much more powerful when you flip through this series. Its kind of strange and imo wrong to only focus on one image. I know you said to focus on this image, so sorry.
>>2865221
>(what film was he using? kodachrome?)
Looking around online, it seems like he switched films a few times, but he pretty consistently seemed to use Kodak C-41 films. So, probably not Kodachrome. This shot's definitely color negative. Some of his earlier stuff was a little more saturated, but it appears he was actually just using cheaper Kodacolor 35mm film.
>>2865221
>It becomes so much more powerful when you flip through this series. Its kind of strange and imo wrong to only focus on one image. I know you said to focus on this image, so sorry.
Discuss away. I did, after all, say:
>If you want to discuss this photo compared to other work of his, that's certainly acceptable,
I certainly think discussing a photographer's work as a whole can be helpful when analyzing a single shot. My suggestion was simply that we stay away from generalized love/hate.
That being said, I would tend to agree that viewing Shore's work in series makes a lot of sense. He certainly didn't shoot hardcore Becher-style typologies, but a lot of his work did fall into the broad (and, unfortunately, poorly defined) "New Topographics" style.
You know, just typing that out, it makes me realize that I've never much considered the relation between Shore's stuff and some of the Dusseldorf photographers. Certainly he's not doing massive, intricate Gurksy-style shots, but the focus on finding beauty and balance in banality is much in line with some of the stuff from Thomas Struth or Simone Nieweg. Pic related.
>>2865219
So what non-mundane things do you concern yourself with? What photography subjects interest you?
>>2865247
People doing interesting things, Places that contain unique things, like surprising pleasant (or unpleasant) colors, or forms. Places I'd like to visit, or stories from places I'd be afraid to go. Unique bold geometry, or surprisingly large swaths of the world without anything breaking up a pattern or texture, etc.
The exact opposite of "The stuff that nearly all of us see literally every day".
>>2865249
so in other words, you don't really have much taste for aesthetics, but you do know how to be taken aback by novelty
Kinda like how 5 year olds won't eat a chicken breast unless its shaped like a dinosaur.
>>2865249
but don't you think taking a well-composed photograph of things that we all see every day can force a new perspective/further examination of such things?
I wouldn't look twice really at the scene in this photo if I saw it in real life, but the photograph kind of urges you to stop and think about it
>>2865249
>The exact opposite of "The stuff that nearly all of us see literally every day".
>us
You mean, the exact opposite of the stuff *you* see every day.
I never see scenes like OP's pic. (Yes, I know it's from the 70's. Still, I don't see middle-America suburbs like this.) Just like I don't see jungles in South America, or Tibetan monks, or any other crazy shit I don't see.
Hell, even for stuff I see every day, a good photographer can force me to see it in a new, interesting light.
>>2865249
It's funny because where I live, there are things unique to the locale that I just happen to see every day. So people come here, and think "wow that's interesting, that's so unique" but to me it could just as easily be "something I see every day".
At the same time, when I travel to other places I can't get over how similar it feels to home. Even if there's loads of differences I still notice the similarities.
>>2865253
It can force that, sure, but when I'm forced to look intently at this photo, I see cars, and a diner. There's nothing in there that is unique or interesting to me at all. It's a lot of detail and information, but to me, it's like reading the phone book. To me, composition is a tool, to be used to shape a photo of an interesting or meaningful subject. Composition is rarely a subject in itself, to me.
>>2865257
I think you're missing the point of this photo. I'm not saying you have to like it at all, but it's not just composition for composition's sake. As you said, Shore uses composition as a tool. To him, this is an interesting, and perhaps important, scene. Maybe it's common, but that doesn't detract from its meaning. The composition is important, but only so that it forces the viewer to look at it and think about it.
>>2865255
>You mean, the exact opposite of the stuff *you* see every day.
A vast majority of people who are looking at photos see cars parked at a restaurant, regularly. Even in manhattan, you can see the modern version of this exact scene.
Yes, obviously there are places in the world where this many cars in one place would be crazy! Such wealth that the western world takes for granted! But a dramatic majority of people looking at this photo right now (and back then) were people who would consider this scene to be everyday life.
>>2865257
That's fair. Given one or the other, I usually prefer composition over subject. Obviously, using both is ideal, but to me a photograph with a neat subject but subpar composition, comes up shorter on the photographer's end than the other way around. Mainly, it's because composition - just like choice of light, exposure, and post processing - is a merit achieved by the photographer, whereas the subject is *usually* not.
>>2865259
Yeah, the path from the second photo is pretty much a traced line of where your eye is lead in the OP photo. Kind of interesting, in a meta sort of way.
>>2865264
When I'm trying to judge a photographer, I will certainly put a high value on composition, but when I'm just trying to look at a photo, my first and most important check is to see whether the photo has anything of value for me in the first place.
You can make the most amazing sushi on the planet, but if I'm trying to order pasta, your great craftsmanship doesn't really interest me. I'm all about content, and the organization of that content, to me, is secondary. Still important, but secondary.
>>2865265
I honestly can't remember the last time I had a "huh" moment on /p/. But that's pretty sweet.
>>2865267
So how do you ever find new things that you enjoy? I mean, are you just going to keep ordering spaghetti and meatballs for the rest of your life.
>well, fuck it. i like what i like. no need to try new things.
OP here. Y'all are great, even the guy who doesn't find the photo interesting. I really do mean that. I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation.
As a point of comparison, I'm throwing up another Stephen Shore photo as a point of comparison. While I certainly enjoy the balance and composition of the first shot, I think this one's a little harder to wrap your head around.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2013:10:17 11:23:56 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1589
>>2865267
That's totally fair. My argument isn't exactly bullet proof either. I would say though that just about anything could be considered a "tool" or, rather, a part of a whole image. Like, I think people "should" strive to make their images as best as they can. That means good composition *and* good light *and* a good subject etc. But my real experience has showed me that it's not easy at all to make truly great images. It's within the realm of many to make passable ones, or even solid ones that are useful or worth being printed, especially if you shoot for a paid client or newspaper etc. But making really exceptional stand out images that are strong all around is not easy at all, and with the democratization of photography will probably only get harder.
>>2865269
>So how do you ever find new things that you enjoy? I mean, are you just going to keep ordering spaghetti and meatballs for the rest of your life.
Well in this case, the metaphor doesn't fit, because I've "consumed" the photo of cars in a parking lot, and have found it much too bland and unfilling for me. I will continue to look at different styles of photos, but my core approach to photography hasn't showed any signs of changing over the years. I personally still come to photography to see interesting/beautiful/ugly/tragic but noteworthy things.
So no one is going to call attention to the fact that the restaurant is called Sambo's? Shore was a chronicler of his times. He had the prescience to know that including contemporary signifiers like cars, telephones, televisions as a way to lend a photograph a sense of time and place. This photograph is the exact opposite of mundane. It's a document of a time (probably the end of a time) when it was still acceptable to name your restaurant after a racial slur.
>>2865276
Sambo's is named after SAM Battistone, Sr. and Newell BOhnett. it's more of a litmus test for ones own presumptive racism. Kinda like using the word "niggardly" in conversation.
>>2865273
>because I've "consumed" the photo of cars in a parking lot, and have found it much too bland and unfilling for me
>i ate a piece of sushi once, and found it bland and unfilling for me, so i don't want to try jiro's sushi
>>2865272
>But making really exceptional stand out images that are strong all around is not easy at all
That I'll totally agree with. I think the part where I differ is that I think that if you can only have one, between subject, light, and composition, I will pick subject every time. The subject is my entire reason for looking at the photo, because of the way that I approach photography. I don't come to see technique, or processing, for technique or processing's sake. I come to get information, and have experiences.
>>2865283
>I think that if you can only have one
But why are you limiting it like that? "If you can only have one" but we don't have only one. That's not the way photos work. It's not an either/or type of thing. It's a package deal. The subject should inform the composition should inform the subject. A good photograph works both ways.
>I come to get information,
So read the newspaper and just consume run-of-the-mill bit of information.
>>2865283
Yeah I totally get that. I'll still appreciate a photo if it's of something I find interesting too. I just get a little concerned when it seems like people are learning more and more than composition and light don't really matter at all. When a "good photo" is good because of what you're supposed to be looking at, and not how well it was shot. Even in the digital era, it is very possible to take a bad photo.
One thing I'm just thinking of now though, is that often it's not a bad subject, but lack of obvious subject that puts me off. For example in >>2865270 the man's white shirt being lit by the sun is what catches my eye, even in the thumbnail. More or less, it's fairly obvious what I should be looking at. From there, my eye scans the remainder of the image, enjoying the details and how they relate to the subject. I think this is why this photo is so successful.
There's more than one way to execute a photograph, but I always like it when you've got something to look at, and it's surrounded by an environment that resonates out of it. Isolated subjects are just fine, though.
>>2865285
>but we don't have only one. That's not the way photos work. It's not an either/or type of thing. It's a package deal.
That's not always the case. Sometimes something interesting is happening, but the light is bad. Or sometimes you can only see the interesting thing happening from a place that won't allow you to compose well. The entire point was "If you can only have one" not "you can only ever have one" and ideally, you'd have a good subject, in good light, composed well. No need to purposefully misinterpret what I said.
>So read the newspaper and just consume run-of-the-mill bit of information.
So I should stop looking at photography that I like, simply because I don't share the same priorities as a random stranger on 4chan? I'm not sure that that's how this discussion is supposed to go.
>>2865288
I'm certainly not saying that a photo will be good, so long as it has an "interesting" Subject, I'm just saying that for me, that subject is the first building block. I've seen more bad photos of good subjects than the other way around. For me, it's not the end, but just the first step.
As to this point:
>but I always like it when you've got something to look at, and it's surrounded by an environment that resonates out of it. Isolated subjects are just fine, though.
I prefer my subjects to have a world to live in as well. For instance
>Pic related
I think is not the same framing as the OP, obviously, but it's a period photo, with an environment, lots to look at, good colors, good light, good composition, but most importantly to me, a supremely interesting subject.
I think if the photo were just of the monk, with no environment, it would be MUCH less powerful of a photo, and I don't know that I would call lit a success.
(I'm sorry for posting a non-Shore photo in a Shore photo discussion thread, but it really helped to explain my point)
>>2865294
*Can't believe I said "good color" in there. In my attention to the conversation, I completely forgot that this was originally a B&W photo. Feel free to judge.
>>2865290
>So I should stop looking at photography that I like, simply because I don't share the same priorities as a random stranger on 4chan?
Oh, come on bro. I didn't say anything even remotely like that. I just find the way you pick and chose content above and beyond the rest of photography a bit limiting. Like whatever the fuck you want to like.
>>2865294
I see bad photos of good subjects, more often than not because I frequent facebook and flickr. That isn't to say all of the photos on social media are bad - I've found many I really enjoy - but I feel like the average quality is lower compared to going to elsewhere.
>>2865296
>I didn't say anything even remotely like that.
That's exactly what you said.
>>2865294
>I'm sorry for posting a non-Shore photo in a Shore photo discussion thread, but it really helped to explain my point
No apologies for having an actual discussion about photography. That's the whole point of this thread. You're standing your ground for why you aren't blown away by the Shore photo. Using another point of reference is certainly helpful to the discussion.
>>2865295
>Feel free to judge.
You are hereby judged. Gif related.
>>2865283
>I don't come to see technique, or processing, for technique or processing's sake. I come to get information, and have experiences.
Me again, the guy from
>>2865272
>>2865288
Just wanted to point out that I spent the past half hour or so looking at images I saved in my /p/ folder and 'experiencing' them. Not being overly picky about technical faults, just enjoying them. I didn't mean to do it after this thread, I just found myself doing it and thought "ha, so that's what anon meant". So I'm stopping by to say I totally get what you mean, and appreciate you articulating that so well.
>>2865314
I'm really glad it made sense to you! Thanks for being part of one of the more civil and productive conversations I've ever had here.
I find that there's a lot of technical critique that goes on here, which can be frustrating to me at times. Someone can post a photo, and the only comments they'll get are about blown highlights, or depth of field choices, or other purely technical aspects, without any comment at all on the fact that the image itself is a lazy shot of a couch, taken because the person didn't feel like going outside, but wanted to test their new lens, or something. To be able to talk with someone who understands the idea of just looking at a photo and seeing what it is is cool.
>>2865278
>Kinda like using the word "niggardly" in conversation.
It's nothing like that. Niggardly is spelled and means something different altogether than "niggerly". A lack of familiarity with the word would lead to inference to racism, not a shared spelling meaning.
Sambo, whatever the fuck it may be a portmanteau of, is a verbatim racial slur. The fact that they only played up the connection to the book inside the store reinforces that point. It's like if a guy named Nigel and a guy named Gerald opened a restaurant, called it "Nigger", and put up a bunch of piccaninny paintings on the walls. Everyone except for a bunch of "muh heritage" Southerners would be able to spot it as racist from a mile away.
>>2865324
It's possibly to take advantage of racial imagery at a time when its acceptable without it meaning the initial name was chosen because of its similarity to the racial epithet they'd later come to use (which was interpreted differently at the time, no matter how you moralize backwards; you can say racism was fucked up without trying to demonize all associative actions)
The name was factually not chosen for that reason. They capitalized on it when they became aware, which is another matter; and not one particularly demonstrated by photos of the establishment without actually going indoors to show the wall decor. A singe Sambo's remains open today, btw.
The fact that you react so angrily toward nuance being expressed is a very sad indication about you as a person.
>>2865326
>the racial epithet they'd later come to use
Sambo was a racial slur long, long before the restaurant ever existed. Again, whatever the factual reason they chose the name, it's irrelevant as they chose poorly. If their idiocy adds an air of irony to Shore's image, all the better.
It's also weird how you immediately jump into personal attacks. You need to chill.
>>2865348
By your logic Niger is racist
>>2865354
No, that's not my logic.
>>2865206
As someone who knows next to nothing in the technical side of things, I've gotta say I see this as just a boring photo.
It's just a carpark with nothing interesting happening. Nothing you couldn't see every day of the week if you left your computer for an hour.
I'm sure some hipster will tell me that it's interesting BECAUSE it's so boring or whatever excuse /p/ runs with now.
>>2865281
it's more like I've seen Suchi 1000 times before. I don't really find it engaging when someone posts a photo of it.
I can't believe the same people who abuse anyone who posts a picture of their meals to facebook could possibly think this is an interesting photo.
>>2865231
Absolutely no way that is neg film.
Kodachrome seems like the obvious choice, but there were actually plenty of warm toned slide films around.
>>2865393
>As someone who knows next to nothing
you coulda stopped right there you know
>>2865267
>You can make the most amazing sushi on the planet, but if I'm trying to order pasta, your great craftsmanship doesn't really interest me
This is how the burger thinks, ladies and gentlemen.
>goes to bordeaux
>"what sort of fucking restaurant doesn't sell bud lite?!?!"
>"my wife prefers to use her own cup, just pour the wine into that. and lots of ice too."
>>2865393
Oh yeah? I can go there right now and it will look like that?
>>2865441
>>"my wife prefers to use her own cup, just pour the wine into that. and lots of ice too."
what sort of wild animal pours ice into wine? im literally blinded by rage right now.
>>2865267
>You can make the most amazing sushi on the planet, but if I'm trying to order pasta, your great craftsmanship doesn't really interest me.
would you reject a perfectly made 'go 'za just because you wanted something else?
>>2865316
True words. I think some folks here are pretty new, and likely got exposed to the technical side of photography before anything else, not to mention its much easier to critique those things vs going deeper.
My little journey through my /p/ folder was actually really refreshing. It reminded me why I got into this in the first place. The search of striking moments and unique perspectives, and challenging yourself to constantly look for new views of the world.
I find it difficult to get enthusiastic about either photo, though I do like the second one slightly more. They are both well enough composed in that they lead the eye into the picture. But they don't offer me enough to want to have my eye led around the photo. The first photo fails answer the first and most basic question that springs to mind. Where is this? The second one at least addresses this though I don't know if it is deliberate or not.
The next question that springs to mind is; Why were these taken? Were they commissioned by the El Paso municipal government to promote walking tours of the city? If it was something like that then it would probably be better to consider them in the context of the larger body of work from which they were taken. (At this point I have jumped to the conclusion that the first image is also El Paso though I can't actually see any evidence to support that.)
Did the photographer shoot them because it was his particular artistic vision? If this is the case I can respect their view without feeling the need to either like, dislike or even understand what they were trying to express.
But for the latter let's at least briefly try. These are not images of things that I see everyday though they are easy to recognise as images of America because, like most of the world, I have been looking at idealised images of America on TV and in magazines since I was a child.
These are not idealised so perhaps the photographer was trying to show America without the lip gloss and celebrity obsession, the America that Americans see everyday or saw back in the days when these shots were taken. I don't know if these images were well known or highly regarded back then but it does perhaps explain why they are so now, at least in America. Because they provide view of how things were in "the old days"
In this case they work not because they are great photos that stand alone as works of art but because the caption is written in America's collective memory
>>2865480
The same kind of people who put ketchup on steak
>>2865499
and pineapple on a pizza
>>2865505
Try to suppress that urge to call things "pretentious". It's usually just a euphemism for "makes me feel stupid".
>>2865505
That is the language of critics and gallery owners. I tend to regard it as sales talk. It flatters the wealthy art buying market into thinking they are more intellectual than they really are
>>2865480
>adds salt to a savoury meal before tasting
>drinks diet coke
>encourages wife to get breast implants
>>2865480
I've known plenty a Frenchman to do it to their table wine.
>>2865437
I don't need a high school photography course to know something is boring as fuck, you pretentious wanker
>>2865206
I have to say I can appreciate the first image - the composition works the way I see it. It lets the eye wander without actually leaving the frame. The green car at the bottom has some interest to it, it's a good starting point to view the image from. Your eyes are always contained within the bottom two thirds of the image - you might wander to the sky but you don't leave the frame because there's so much going on below. Then if you cut off from the wall on the left to the Sambo's building you're eye is basically constrained to that third of the frame.
If it weren't so well composed this would just be another boring photo someone took on vacation. The tones are pleasing but that would be about it.
vantage point you dumb cucks. its not an ordinary photo and will never be.
>>2865496
>I don't know if these images were well known or highly regarded back then
His images were just as controversial back then as they are in this thread right now, with the reactions to his work being just as divided. His photographs are part of a genre we now call new topography, and it's derived from the showing of New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape that was held at the George Eastman House in Rochester, New York.
"What I remember most clearly was that nobody liked it," Frank Gohlke, one of the participating photographers told the LA Times when the exhibition was restaged last year at the LA County Museum of Art. "I think it wouldn't be too strong to say that it was a vigorously hated show."
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/feb/08/new-topographics-photographs-american-landscapes
When I first found out about this I was floored because it was incredible to have found other photographers who took images similar to my own, and to have it titled and articulated so well. What these kinds of images are doing are challenging what's considered acceptable subject matter, and it does precisely that by creating landscape perspectives out of locales dominated by men. In any case, this kind of photography is far more common now, just look at your average urban minimalist photographer on Instagram to see it for yourself.
>>2865643
>challenging what's considered acceptable subject matter
I doubt whether any of the photographers went out with the intention of upsetting the art establishment with pictures of walls, parking lots and empty streets.
It's an interesting article but phrases like "a reaction to the tyranny of idealised landscape photography" is just critic-babble and "when a certain strand of theoretically driven photography began to permeate the wider contemporary art world" just means when it became marketable.
I think the photographers probably were moved by what they were seeing around them, felt uncomfortable about it and wanted to bring some attention to those changes. But I also think that the influence they had on subsequent generations of photographers is probably more striking than the images in the original exhibition.
>>2865689
>I doubt whether any of the photographers went out with the intention of upsetting the art establishment with pictures of walls, parking lots and empty streets.
Yeah, then you really don't know how art works. Whether or not Shore was trying to do so with this particular photo, subversion has been the de facto goal of a huge portion of artists for the last hundred years or more.
>>2865436
>Absolutely no way that is neg film.
>Kodachrome seems like the obvious choice, but there were actually plenty of warm toned slide films around.
Do you have any idea what Kodachrome slides looked like? If nothing else it was known for rich, bold colors. Absolutely nothing about this looks like Kodachrome, or slide film for that matter.
This just looks like classic, 8x10 Kodak negative film.
Here's an interview with Shore talking about this series. He doesn't say the exact film used for Uncommon Places, but he constantly refers to his "negatives."
http://www.aaronschuman.com/shoreinterview.html
>>2865744
lol, I don't know what the fuck you're responding to it certainly isn't the sentence you quoted. Let me try and make it a little easier for you:
1. Shore and his chums did NOT set out with the express intention of upsetting the art establishment. ie the network of galleries, periodicals and critics that they rely on to promote and market their work.
2. Shore and his chums probably DID set out to highlight their concerns and raise awareness amongst their audience about the deterioration of the environment and the American landscape.
>subversion has been the de facto goal of a huge portion of artists for the last hundred years or more
Yes, yes I know, I grew up in the era of the angry young man, civil rights, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, Vietnam, music and poetry will set the world free yadda yadda.
>>2865689
>I doubt whether any of the photographers went out with the intention of upsetting the art establishment with pictures of walls, parking lots and empty streets.
Guy you responded to here
Yeah I don't think they did, but their images ended up challenging traditional landscapes anyways because it was audacious to want to photograph various human developments as if they were natural monuments. People thought it was wrong to "idealize" such things because they were seen as invasive and destructive - landscape photography by contrast went out of its way to exclude any signs of man at all.
It's hard to say if they were photographing the 'decay' of the earth, or if they were developing a fondness for urban development. I think both could be true at the same time, if it was just straight documentation.
>>2865270
I like this picture because it messes with my mind, almost like that whole scene is painted on a cardboard
