paris
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
hey
10 pics
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 284 dpi Vertical Resolution 284 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 284 dpi Vertical Resolution 284 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 284 dpi Vertical Resolution 284 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 285 dpi Vertical Resolution 285 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 286 dpi Vertical Resolution 286 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 570 dpi Vertical Resolution 570 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 284 dpi Vertical Resolution 284 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 298 dpi Vertical Resolution 298 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 282 dpi Vertical Resolution 282 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 288 dpi Vertical Resolution 288 dpi
oh wait actually more than 10 i guess
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 283 dpi Vertical Resolution 283 dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 282 dpi Vertical Resolution 282 dpi
please respond guys, did the whole board block me or smth
>>2869345
this is paris?
>>2869355
oops i forgot i was in incognito mode & didnt put my name on
i also have this pic which im not in love with, but i guess the point of posting shit on /p/ is to get criticism and advice (supposedly). so tell me what u think my friends
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 367 dpi Vertical Resolution 367 dpi
>>2869355
well i like the vagueness. this could be any country except for maybe when there are words. its a globalized world and these pictures speak to that
>>2869273
I think you invented a whole new genre ...
we should name it Crap Noir
>>2869376
lol dont worry chief this is not the first thread ive posted of pix in this style, what u lovingly call ``crap noir'' is not even close to a new invention :+)
>>2869376
>>2869378
literally mfw
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Mark II Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 281 dpi Vertical Resolution 281 dpi
>>2869273
honestly to me it looks like you are jocking off Moriyama's steeze, but with none of the social context, or aesthetic skill. It looks like youve pushed up to 1600, pointed your camera at what you think could come out surreal and trippy, but instead of capturing anything of interest, we get these somewhat boring experiments in light and chemistry. this series just doesnt work for me.
I am unsure whether you are trying to capture a feeling by using this aesthetic, or you are just experimenting, but these pictures need context. Are, Bure Bokeh is not a theme within itself, but instead more of a methodology, you are succesfully blurring, graining and outfocusing, but the end product is just a celebration of the method and thus contrived.
In terms of advice, i think you should chill out on the clarity slider a bit, pull your frame out wider to capture more of a scene and feeling of what it was like to be there. I have a similar style to this myself, but i think your photos would do better brought closer back to reality.
P/s, include some people in your photos. people always make photos better, these photos would look much better and surreal with spooky silhouettes of people throughout them
lrn 2 read light.
>>2869405
hey, thanks a lot! this is actually a shockingly well thought out crit for /p/.
actually, i'm not a big fan of moriyama - some of his work is good but the vast majority is dull imo. if anyone i am more ripping off eugene atget, robert frank, walker evans... or if you want to look at provoke i think takuma nakahira was about a million times more brilliant than moriyama
what you're responding to in your concerns that I need to "pull back" etc is my exploration of some concepts of french theory as well as the work of benjamin and some other early trailblazers in critical theory of photography. in particular the closeness is designed to isolate tthe subject & remove context from the image in order to strip the picture of everything but representation of the object. its sort of like a deliberate creation of the hyperreal a la baudrillard, like nouveau roman in picture form - these are the sort of things that im aiming for.i'm not terribly concerned about things like light & shadows, since the "point" of the pictures is more their own structure than the actual object being replicated, and "captur[ing] more of a scene and feeling of what it was like to be there" is actually the antithesis of what im aiming for.
i've taken plenty of images of people before ofc (attached image is an example) but i've been moving away from it lately for some reason. i guess when you deliberately anonymize people in your photos and strip them of context and scene, after a while the pictures you take of them start to look samey and boring. something like that.
PS another thing - these are really quick and dirty film scans, i just threw em up here so i could discuss them with some people while I wait to have the time to bop over to the darkroom to make and scan some actual prints. so don't consider these a "final product" of any sort, especially as far as things like contrast and shit goes.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 199 dpi Vertical Resolution 199 dpi Image Created 2014:06:05 22:06:20 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 659
>>2869405
PS i took a bike picture too, you want to see it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2014:05:28 00:13:05 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 659
>>2869421
btw yes, i knwo this sounds pretentious af or something.
im sure somebody will trumpet loudly about that fact: "lol u tryin to make excuses while everybody can tell ur pics are just shit lmao." thats cool, but this really is a major factor in the way i approach photography. i read a lot of critical theory shit lel. muh structuralism
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Created 2014:04:30 15:12:36 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 659
>>2869273
i enjoy your style, but there is nothing interesting in these photos
>>2869426
better
>>2869431
why you say that you like my style? is that based on previous work i posted on /p/ in the past year or two? or just extrapolating from this thread
if its the former what do you think changed to make this work fail to catch your interest? not enough people/action? something about composition? desu not being able to speak the language & not being confident in my accurate reading of social cues &c made me a little more wary of getting in people's faces with the camera... so i admit that these pictures are weaker than they really should have been.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.10 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Horizontal Resolution 600 dp Vertical Resolution 600 dp Image Created 2014:03:27 02:06:46 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 659
>>2869421
Okay, Interesting response, I am a big fan of Frank and Nakahira and i remember previous posts of yours, this one and the girl with the Eye bag spring to mind, i remember a video of your prints on some naked chick with nip peircings, I think i even checked out your portfolio. Not often that you remember somebody's work on /p/
I see where you are coming from with the contextless hyper-real, however i just dont feel as though it was achieved in this.
If i am thinking along the lines that i think you want me too, i should be ignoring the context of any preconcieved notion of what the subject could be to just absorb the play of light and dark on developed film. aka fuck the plot fuck the charachters, enjoy only the style and experience of looking at the photograph?
If thats the case, I feel a much more prethought needed to be put into the composition. None of these really excite the eye that hard with a unique pattern or image that keeps you looking, all subjects are somewhat easily discernable and unexciting in their own right.
I hate to offend because i really enjoy this type of shit over the usual /p/ street vomit, but most of these look like heavily edited snapshits, that you would have posted regardless of the quality of the photo purely on the basis that taking the photo the way you did fills the brief.
Either i seriously just dont get it, or you could do better. Its a tricky path to go down toeing the line between whats great to look at and what fits your confirmation bias brief
Either way, keep posting photos man, i dig it
>>2869471
re reading this, i guess what im trying to say is I understand you are going down this deconstructive path with your photography, which really jumbles up the rules and says fuck you to preconcieved notions of composition subject etc.
But in terms of confirmation bias, i mean it can be easy to think the photo matches the style you set out to succeed, but at the end of the day, is it a good photograph to look at? I think thats important and even though you poo pooed him because of exesive mainstreamness, looking at what your doing hear in relation to Moriyama's 'Farewell Photography' you can draw parallels where he did the same thing but at the time game changing, and id say standalone per photo more aesthetically pleasing way.
In some respects i agree that this type of photography requires a good sharp scan of the negative denoting the film grain betraying the chemical and mechanical aspects of photography. These scans you have done are like you said very haphazard. I will have to wait to see the finished product.
>>2869471
like I said, I think part of the problem is that these * are* basically heavily edited snapshits. i'm doing film scans on a really cheap scanner so they turn out looking like shit; these images are the ones that looked like they had potential to me based on the negatives, and so I just threw em in the scanner and churned out jpegs as fast as possible by being real heavy handed with the brightness and contrast. now that i've seen these scans, I have a better idea of what they'll look like and I can narrow it down to only the images I like best when making high quality prints which I won't have to mutilate in the scanner.
another thing is that I think maybe I'm communicating my intent poorly, because this isn't quite what im trying to say:
>i should be ignoring the context of any preconcieved notion of what the subject could be to just absorb the play of light and dark on developed film. aka fuck the plot fuck the charachters, enjoy only the style and experience of looking at the photograph?
its less like "ignore the object of the photo and look at it as a beautiful image, look at how the light transfer to the film stock" and more like "the way i've composed these images is supposed to disorient the viewer and, by stripping the images of context that indicates place or time, turn the object it depicts into some sort of platonic ideal which - because it exists outside space and time - is more real than real since it can take the place of any instance of similar objects throughout the world."
that's not exactly a perfect way to describe it, but it's early morning and i got no sleep all night so give me a little benefit of the doubt. i guess what i'm saying is that it's not a statement about the technical function of the format but rather one about the format's philosophical implications.
but I agree i could have done better with these, they're not my best work. im just posting my vacation album lol
>>2869476
I just want to reiterate that I really appreciate that amount of work you are putting into engaging with me in this thread, it's really refreshing to get into a meaty back-and-forth critique like this on /p/. It's been a long time since this has happened to me on here and the other guy didn't dip out after my first reply.
The thing is that I agree with you, I think that a lot of these are quite bad and quite a few even fail in doing what I'm saying I set out to do. But I want to point out that the reason I'm putting them here on /p/ rather than on my website or portfolio is because this is a site where I can (potentially) get a couple critiques and, if i'm lucky, get into a conversation like this where I'm forced to take a good, long look at my work & where I'm trying to go with it.I'm not throwing this up because it's a finished product or because I think it's anything fantastic or groundbreaking, I'm uploading it because I want to talk about it with people like you. And in that respect I've certainly succeeded far better than I had dreamed, so thanks dogg
>>2869421
>what you're responding to in your concerns that I need to "pull back" etc is my exploration of some concepts of french theory as well as the work of benjamin and some other early trailblazers in critical theory of photography. in particular the closeness is designed to isolate tthe subject & remove context from the image in order to strip the picture of everything but representation of the object. its sort of like a deliberate creation of the hyperreal a la baudrillard, like nouveau roman in picture form - these are the sort of things that im aiming for.i'm not terribly concerned about things like light & shadows, since the "point" of the pictures is more their own structure than the actual object being replicated, and "captur[ing] more of a scene and feeling of what it was like to be there" is actually the antithesis of what im aiming for.
You aren't exploring shit. You are aping the japs and that's all. Stop bullshitting.
>>2869522
hey chief, note how the level of discourse in this thread up til now has been up *here,* and then after you got here it went wayyy down to *here.*
Maybe you are just ignorant of the history of photography and you genuinely believe that the nips invented high contrast, blurry photos, and have since been their exclusive users. In that case, maybe do a bit of reading, and don't pretend you know what you're talking about based on reading third-hand information posted by some anon on /p/.
or maybe you're being malicious and deliberately acting like an ignoramus. that'd make me feel better because at least it means the anons i'm talking to in other threads maybe aren't just pretending they know who Kracauer is.
either way, maybe consider making a more deliberate and better thought out post next time. writing more seriously instead of just dashing something out in two seconds makes for a better experience for everyone.
Better than that cunt isi
>>2869279
>>2869274
>>2869277
>>2869286
good
>>2869281
>>2869282
solid diptych, great
>>2869283
>>2869284
neat but out of context
>>2869382
eyyy
>>2869477
>the way i've composed these images is supposed to disorient the viewer and, by stripping the images of context that indicates place or time, turn the object it depicts into some sort of platonic ideal
So, gonna chime in here -- in terms of pure interest, I agree with the other anon critique -- I don't see much of Paris in here, but clearly that's intentional.
I think part of the issue with this kind of postmodern style is that the conceptual "point" is heavily dependent on the medium -- viewing solid fiber prints of these photos in a gallery, on a wall is a completely different experience to viewing them digitally like this. We're already viewing these images through the hyperreal lens (would you say this is a valid description?) of the internet, so in a way, the magic is lost. It's almost impossible to critique without seeing the final printed product. But I guess I'm critiquing the internet at this point rather than your photos.
Some of these would be solid pieces in the context of a larger body of work, which I know you have because I've seen it.
My least favorite is >>2869284 and then >>2869300 because they're so obviously representational and offer a somewhat crisp view of reality despite the grain/etc. It feels out of left field.
>>2869283 is more reminiscent of other work of yours I've seen, probably because of the human figures as mentioned by anon.
>>2869276 is kind-of weak, feels like an exercise in composition.
>>2869279 and >>2869286 and >>2869275 and maybe >>2869273 are the most successful in terms of disorientation -- these are the ones where, for me, the subject takes the longest to resolve, and when it does it's most interesting. >>2869277 and >>2869274 though perhaps more visually interesting off the bat lose my interest when I try to figure out what the subject is.
Fantastic shots of nothing
oh im late to the party :(
>>2869977
I still have another roll to develop so there'll be a couple more shots in a day or two
>>2869421
>>2869477
i'd argue that while you're diverging from (abnegation) traditional technical photography practices and embracing experimental ones you aren't achieving any further philosophical impact beyond some flickr dude's bird photography and you're probably aware of that which i guess makes this point rather moot (praise be). the distinction here being that you're making images that obviate and explore this quality of photography which may only be criticized for being masturbatory and academic or even best left to writing (because it's inherent to the action of photography).
these images have a lot of technical interest: camera shake visualizes the interaction between the photographer and time and development "errors" and dust further break the fourth wall for lack of a better term. your hand is super apparent and that's great.
>>2869273
>>2869274
>>2869276
>>2869279
>>2869281
>>2869282
plus these are nice designs
in short, i thought they were compositionally dull.
then I read your posts, and saw that these weren't final images. now I see a lot of potential, actually. if you make some sharp and really good crops you could pull some beautiful abstractions out of these
I will say that if your goal is to disorient the viewer, though, you may have strayed too far into the territory of abstraction. you need to obscure the figure or scene, but not totally abandon it, otherwise there will be no reality to grasp on to. some of them look like a combination of missed focus and motion blur, I think that if you only did one of these two things, they would be ever so slightly more grounded in representation which would increase the disorienting feeling.
I think overall even though there is a style or theme present in the set as a whole it comes across as impersonal and at times disjointed.
To me it's coming across more as a study of form and light in the opening images and then slowly devolves into more of a warped view on every day life but the images aren't solid enough to reinforce any ideas I think you are trying to put across with them.
>>2869273
>>2869274
>>2869275
>>2869276
>>2869279
I get this feeling of this set or maybe your current style being more about form and light by these opening images.
There is barely anything human in here, they're almost clinical in how little of humanity you've included in them. Which is fine, and cool. They have an aesthetic but they feel like they're lacking something. They couldn't be any more distorted without making them practically illegible so I'm not sure what you can add to them but if you want them to come across like I said they do for me. That is an isolated study of form than they work for that
>>2869277
>>2869281
>>2869282
In these images you start teasing at humanity and including them. Distorted and barely visible but I'm struggling to see a theme to it. Are these the views of.. a sheltered person or a confused person? Someone who is socially inept or something I guess. I want to avoid the moriyama references but your work begs for them. Are these the views of some stray animal?
>>2869300
>>2869286
>>2869283
I don't think these work when put in with the rest of the set and they feel like filler. There is an aura about the rest of the images so far that these do not carry. They are too clear. They are actually photographs of things which the other images aren't. The rest of the set is more of an image describing some sort of confusion but these are literal photographs of boring things
>>2869421
Like I said before, Ive been working in developing a similar style. pushing the obscurity of scenes and my reality in general, also observing the hypereality of looking at the product of someone elses camera. second hand scenes.
If you dont mind il post a few, ask for some CC and keep this thread alive.
1/?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:27 23:16:43 Exposure Time 1/100 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2871101
2/$
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:27 23:18:25 Exposure Time 1/50 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2871101
3/&
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:27 23:18:36 Exposure Time 1/30 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
4/X
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:27 23:25:20 Exposure Time 1/200 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
5/3X
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:27 23:24:07 Exposure Time 1/200 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
Do you have a website or something you can link? I'm digging these shots and would like to see what you consider your 'final' work.
>>2871101
i like this picture, though i might have pulled back a bit depending on what it is that you're cutting out by getting only the face. is it some sort of statue/art project? runway show/other fashion photo?
>>2871102
funny enough I have a pic (attached) of objects similar to these as well.
>>2871103
this one feels like an advertising shot from the 70s to me, it's a little too saccharine and "tropical paradise" feeling for my taste I guess
>>2871110
the car in the background is a little unfortunate, since it's right by where your eyes are drawn to the guy's head & ends up feeling distracting
>>2871111
cool. im sure you have seen moriyama's series where he takes photos of photos (mostly posters, advertising materials, etc). what about richard prince? have you seen his "rephotographing" stuff?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 208 dpi Vertical Resolution 208 dpi Image Created 2015:01:30 14:59:22 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 740
by the way, since we are talking about my work beyond this Paris series anyway I may as well share this.
I submitted something to that lensculture magnum 2016 contest thing and just got my submission review back, if anyone is interested in it.
this is my submission: http://imgur.com/a/ug2zW
and here is the submission review: http://pastebin.com/5jnh05h5
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2869421
>if anyone i am more ripping off eugene atget, robert frank, walker evans
how fucking delusional can one person be lmao
>>2871251
i recently started a tumblr where im going to exclusively post print scans. there's an extremely small amount of work on there right now, but you can see it here: http://nouveau-roman.tumblr.com/
>>2871421
i'm not saying my work looks like theirs, champ, I'm saying that I've read critical analyses of their work and interviews with the artists (in the case of frank & evans) and have tried to apply the theories and techniques that I find interesting & useful.
for example my photos are obviously an extremely far cry from atget's, like they look nothing alike. but atget consistently did with a great deal of sophistication what i talk about earlier in the thread:
>what you're responding to in your concerns that I need to "pull back" etc is my exploration of some concepts of french theory as well as the work of benjamin and some other early trailblazers in critical theory of photography. in particular the closeness is designed to isolate tthe subject & remove context from the image in order to strip the picture of everything but representation of the object. its sort of like a deliberate creation of the hyperreal a la baudrillard, like nouveau roman in picture form - these are the sort of things that im aiming for.
>>2871417
>all that pretentious art talk
fucking shameful
DUDE NAMEDROPPING MAKES UP FOR SHIT PICS LMAO
>>2871443
if you continue to bully me i will kill my self and i wil write in my suicide note that anon was responsible, and my last wish is that my family hires a private investigator to track you down and bring you 2 justice for youre crimes
>>2871417
>Submitting your work to JewCulture
>Believing anything JewCulture says about your work
That guy is probably a photography undergraduate intern. He is doing a fidelization strategy with you, giving you hope and encouraging future submits ("I have enjoyed viewing your work, and I hope to see more in the future"), so when they launch their next paid entry contest, you pay the fees believing you have a chance. They do this all the time and have a whole bussiness running through this practice.
>>2871422
What the fuck is with your disgusting fucking website. Jesus fuck I thought your photos were kinda neat but I just lost all respect for you.
>>2871459
yeah lol it's pretty transparent that they are using encouraging-sounding language to entice you into submitting again. honestly i thought it wasn't a very useful critique, mostly since it talked about writing an artist statement so much that it never actually gave me advice on my photos themselves.
i'm glad i did it once though, if only so I can see what they claim is the *most* pertinent criticism of my work. the fact that they say "explain your work better, since it's somewhat obscure & confusing" rather than "take clearer photos with better lighting, since your current work is too obscure & confusing" is at least somewhat useful to know.
>>2871462
hahaha
