Is this a good photo?

[VoidoidRamone]

I am curious to see what the general consensus is about this photo. I know this is a totally opinionated question and there is no right or wrong answer. I am interested in seeing why some people like this photo and why some do not. I am sure some people have seen this photo before, probably some haven't. I am not going to say who took the photo yet because I feel I will get more honest answers if some people don't know who took this. I will give my opinion later assuming there is interest in this thread. Thanks.
-Grant

 

[tim atherton]

kneejerk time? colour me cynical and maybe I can be proved wrong....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I see it as a well composed record shot of an, otherwise, rather boring scene.

 

[clogz]

If the red car had not been there it would have been a bit of a boring picture.

Hans

 

[Lee Shively]

It's okay. It's mundane subject matter but even mundane subject matter can be elevated to artistic value. Looks a lot like Eggleston (and the autos look like his period). Looks a lot like Robert Adams except he only does black and white.

 

[Dave Parker]

My biggest concern Grant is if you didn't take it, then you should not post it..but that said, as Ralph said, good comp of an otherwise mundane scene.

Dave

 

[naaldvoerder]

Does nothing for me....

 

[roteague]

No, I don't see it as a good image, either topically or compositionaly. The primary reason is because there is no center of interest - nothing that captures the eye. Secondly, the natural lines in the image - the roads - both lead the eyes outside the image, making this a difficult image to maintain eye contact with. Third, the road in the foreground, looks like just a mass, there is very little texture that would give a sense of depth. I could go on, there are a number of other problems with the image, but these three are enough to discourage contemplating the image any further.

 

[Sjixxxy]

Here is my take.

I've seen plenty of very similar subject photos taken in say the 1910's & 20's, and been fascinated. Why? It shows the world I'll never have known it. Now this one, taken within our lifespans, isn't all that interesting, yet. It still shows stuff we see every day and is pretty ho-hum.

Pull this one out the box again in 2100 and I bet it will be a hell of a lot more better. Some subject require aging.

 

[Flotsam]

I'm surprised by the comments on composition. To my eye it is terribly unbalanced with lots of conflicting, distracting elements.

I'm sure that it is meaningful and says something that the person who made it considers important. (See the "Dearest APUG" thread)

 

[removed account4]

as a documentary/ surveillance photograph this is good. composition, color, balance - doesn't really matter to me.

the subject is the streetcorner/intersection and that is what it shows.
it doesn't matter to me who took it.

the lawn on the right is perfect. shaggy so the root system is long in case there is a dry spell.

 

[DKT]

that's funny john--I was thinking the same thing, if the image was in b&w, you'd think it came from the historic register.

 

[BradS]

I think you have to see this one in person (hint, think 8x10 contact print). The presentation here does not do it justice.

I like it a lot. I don't know enough art-speak to explain why. I'm not sure I even know why I like it. I just do. I guess it's one of those things...you either get it or, you don't. Either way, it's no big deal.

I have even tried on occasion to immitate this particular person's style (see my gallery postings).

 

[Christopher Colley]

yep

 

[MurrayMinchin]

It's like showing us one word out of a poem, and asking what we thought of the poem. With no context, that puppy is one pathetic lame duck! Just goes to show that an image should stand on its own merits without the artist, gallery owner, or curator there to tell us why we should see it as good.

Murray

 

[BradS]

It's like showing us one word out of a poem, and asking what we thought of the poem. With no context, that puppy is one pathetic lame duck! Just goes to show that an image should stand on its own merits without the artist, gallery owner, or curator there to tell us why we should see it as good.

Murray

Hmmm, yeah. I think you've completely missed it. It is good precicely because it is so completely unpretentious. It is the ordinary. The everyday. There is subtle beauty everywhere - even in these mundane scenes that we are surrounded by. We just don't see it because...well, our hearts are hardened against it. We are numb.

 

[matt miller]

I want to say it's boring and uninteresting, because that's my first reaction to the subject matter presented here. I am drawn in though; up the street, around the corner, and back over the roof tops. I can see myself riding my bike down a street like this in my childhood. Life was simple then.

I like this photograph

 

[anyte]

I'm replying without having read the replies of anyone else.

Good? As far as I can discern it is an accurate representation of some locale, so in that sense it's good. The colors appear "good". The photo doesn't interest me in any way, which doesn't make it bad, it just isn't my thing.

It doesn't matter who shot it, a pro, a master, a photographic genius. A name doesn't make something better or worse.

 

[Charles Webb]

I see nothing of interest, personally feel the composition is very poor, it looks very much like a police surveillance image made to show everything with nothing important included. I really don't car who actually made the image, as it says very little to me.


Charlie........................
Who's opinion is worth ZERO!

 

[donbga]

I am curious to see what the general consensus is about this photo.
-Grant

I don't think the premise of your question stated in the subject line is valid. IMO, there are no good or bad photos. The question should be perhaps, "How will the viewer of this photograph react?" or "How do you react to this this photograph?"

I think judging photos based on a set of rules like often used in cameras clubs doesn't work for me so I try to be open minded about assessing a photo. Never the less we all have our own bias when we look at photos.

For me personally the subject here has no context, so my reaction to it is as a viewer is nil. As simply a photograhic object I'm not engaged visually here either.

 

[tim atherton]

I'm sure that it is meaningful and says something that the person who made it considers important. (See the "Dearest APUG" thread)

a lot more people than just the guy who made it

 

[tim atherton]

It's like showing us one word out of a poem, and asking what we thought of the poem. With no context, that puppy is one pathetic lame duck! Just goes to show that an image should stand on its own merits without the artist, gallery owner, or curator there to tell us why we should see it as good.

Murray

we don't always understand everything we see

 

[tim atherton]

btw - I happen to like it for precisely the reason Brad sets out (and more).

 

[Markok765]

no

 

[CraigK]

I kinda like it.

I'd like to see the actual print though. I've seen a lot of this type of photography, particularly from a few teachers and lots of students at variuos fine art faculties. The prints are invariably in colour and typically very big (as big as the Kreonite at the school will go) and usually have suburban homes/streets, cars, gas stations, power plants and fluffy white clouds in them.

The better ones are clever, with a keen eye for things that we take for granted today but in the grand scheme of things will capture a certain feel for the era in which they were taken. The good ones are well executed technically, with top knotch gear and excellent printing.

The lousy ones, by far the great majority, are sloppy copies of the good ones done in an effort to fit in and/or get a good mark on an assignment about the evils of our man-made world.