Three chairs

[manaheim]

Absolutely no offense, but I'm not getting what you're all seeing here. Can you enlighten me? (Seriously)

 

[sleist]

Absolutely no offense, but I'm not getting what you're all seeing here. Can you enlighten me? (Seriously)

I've been wanting to ask the same thing.
I get the nostalgia thing, but I'm not really connecting with this in the same way others seem to be.

 

[Mike Lamb]

Too soft for me. More contrast definition with the chairs I think.

 

[limr]

So I'm going to bump this, because if manaheim and sleist want their questions answered, the thread should probably not be buried on page 3 or 4.

 

[jcdeboever]

Absolutely no offense, but I'm not getting what you're all seeing here. Can you enlighten me? (Seriously)

For me, I like the muted color and transient exposure. The composition is very good. There is a mysterious quality created by three empty chairs, textured porch shade, twisted focal point, and soft focus. The twisted framing also is in harmony with the rocker backs, making one believe something may be sitting in them. It is so far removed from digital, it presents a satisfying look and/or quality to it. I can understand it may not be everyone's cup of tea. However, for me, it has many interesting pieces. I like the concept and appearance that the artist/ hardware render.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Tim Tucker]

I shan't give any deconstructed analysis because I know this shot will be instinctive, though structure and focus is there in abundance.

1) It's a period piece, everything is 60's, nothing contradicts.

2) The composition draws you to the chairs and no further than the chairs. The slight downward tilt of the camera combined with the levelling of the left side only tilts the the chairs back to a "comfortable invitation".

You're invited to sit in the chairs and look outside the photo to what you know is there (because it's suggested by the photo). It doesn't show you what you should be looking at with super-real shadow detail and absolute sharpness.

It's not a picture of chairs but a reminder of when you sat in them and gazed at the beach.

 

[sleist]

I hear what you are saying. But ...

I'm not feeling this as strongly as others.
The problem I have with this photo - and let me be very clear that this is mostly my problem, not necessarily the photo's problem - is that I seem unable to judge this on it's own merits.

I suspect that if someone had posted this same photo and said they shot it with a cell phone and used instagram filters to create the same image, then the reaction to it may have been different. Not saying this is right, but it's part of my struggle here, so .... Maybe limr felt the same way. Maybe not consciously, but why post the the Polaroid framing and not just the photo? Why does it being film even matter?

I have mixed feelings about the composition to be honest. The porch is framed very well, but the chair arrangement is not complimentary IMO. I would not rearrange the chairs, so that is not what I'm suggesting. I just feel like this is missing something as a result. How would I define a better composition? I cant say. It struck me as problematic and hearing the opposite reaction is one thing that prompted me to pose my question.

I think film gets a free pass sometimes because it's film. I don't have anything against film. I never shot film because I could never afford photography when film was the only game in town. And I do truly see some amazing work done with film. I don't think I have a bias, but maybe I do. I just don't know. I try to judge an image by the image and not the medium.

I was listening to NPR this morning during drive time. There's an area of Boston near where I work that is facing changes due to a proposed hi-rise. They called it the hobby district and one of the businesses interviewed was the oldest camera shop in the city. They were talking about his business and that they still developed film. The discussion got around to hot trends and the Polaroids were mentioned. The shop owner was describing how several years ago he wouldn't pay a dollar for the cameras and know he can't keep them on the shelf. Trendy. [shrug]

I grew up with vinyl records. Still own a bunch. Don't miss them in the least. My son-in-law loves vinyl. Whatever makes you happy I guess.

But I digress. I can't fall all over this photo as others appear to. I can appreciate the nostalgia. Maybe I'm missing the art. Maybe because I have a draw full of these. I just don't feel the same about them. Kinda like my LP's.

Hope that wasn't to incoherent. Time to go back to lurking.

Hopefully no offense taken with this. None was intended. The photo made me think I suppose so I guess that's something.

 

[limr]

I hear what you are saying. But ...

I'm not feeling this as strongly as others.
The problem I have with this photo - and let me be very clear that this is mostly my problem, not necessarily the photo's problem - is that I seem unable to judge this on it's own merits.

I suspect that if someone had posted this same photo and said they shot it with a cell phone and used instagram filters to create the same image, then the reaction to it may have been different. Not saying this is right, but it's part of my struggle here, so .... Maybe limr felt the same way. Maybe not consciously, but why post the the Polaroid framing and not just the photo? Why does it being film even matter?

What do you mean by 'different'? Do you think people would have liked it less?

Why post the framing and not just the photo? Why should it matter that it's film? Well, why not? The print has a border and I posted the print just how it looks, but not out of any desire to try to impress anyone. Why does anyone post an image with a border? Or with any info about the gear or settings they used for an image? Some people who view the threads are interested in how the photo is made. They might be interested in knowing the gear or settings. Others do not care. They can ignore the information. But when faced with the info that an image was taken with a Canon or Nikon whatever with X lens, no one seems to ask, "Why does it matter if it's digital?" And yet if I post the camera and film, it's being seen as disingenuous, like I'm showing off.

I think film gets a free pass sometimes because it's film. I don't have anything against film. I never shot film because I could never afford photography when film was the only game in town. And I do truly see some amazing work done with film. I don't think I have a bias, but maybe I do. I just don't know. I try to judge an image by the image and not the medium.

I know you did not intend any offense and I don't take offense at you personally, but I have heard this argument so many times and feel like I have to address it now. I'm really really tired of people claiming that film gets a "free pass." The implication is that film images are almost never as good as digital images, and yet people like them, but only because they were shot on film. Not on their own merits. But why aren't these images "as good" and only praised because of the medium? Because they aren't sharp enough? Because the colors don't "pop"? Grainy? Bokeh not smooth enough? Are these the only criteria? One of the criticisms above of my image was that it is "too soft." The criteria that mattered most was how sharp the image is. Isn't that the "tyranny of sharpness" that @chuasam started a thread to discuss?

Perhaps it's true that some like an image simply because it was made with film, but then again, some might go in the opposite direction and dismiss an image in a knee-jerk reaction to something deemed trendy or ostentatious. You said yourself above that you can't seem to judge this image on its own merits. Isn't not liking something because it's on film just as bad as allegedly liking something just because it's on film.

The whole argument is patronizing. It is not giving any credit to either photographer ("you aren't very good, and probably some kind of hipster poseur because you shoot film") or viewer ("you're either very shallow or you don't really understand what a good image is.")

I was listening to NPR this morning during drive time. There's an area of Boston near where I work that is facing changes due to a proposed hi-rise. They called it the hobby district and one of the businesses interviewed was the oldest camera shop in the city. They were talking about his business and that they still developed film. The discussion got around to hot trends and the Polaroids were mentioned. The shop owner was describing how several years ago he wouldn't pay a dollar for the cameras and know he can't keep them on the shelf. Trendy. [shrug]

I grew up with vinyl records. Still own a bunch. Don't miss them in the least. My son-in-law loves vinyl. Whatever makes you happy I guess.

Yes, some have jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon. And retailers are riding the wave for as long as they can. I for one am grateful because it all means I still have a steady supply of the materials I love to work with. I can't speak to anyone else's reasons, but I didn't just start shooting film because it's suddenly popular again. I shoot film because I never stopped. I started 20+ years ago with film and it suits me. I'll continue to do so for as long as I prefer it to a digital process.

But I digress. I can't fall all over this photo as others appear to. I can appreciate the nostalgia. Maybe I'm missing the art. Maybe because I have a draw full of these. I just don't feel the same about them. Kinda like my LP's.

Again, I know it's not your intention, but the bolded comment does carry the implication that this kind of image is a dime-a-dozen throwaway image that anyone can make without even thinking, and that's not exactly flattering

Hope that wasn't to incoherent. Time to go back to lurking.

Hopefully no offense taken with this. None was intended. The photo made me think I suppose so I guess that's something.

Yes, it's something for sure! And I did appreciate your comments on the composition. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[sleist]

First, I would like to address this.

I did not mean to imply that the image was a dime a dozen. My statement was poorly worded and I tried to frame it with my analogy to the vinyl records as a way to explain what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that I was less inclined to attach significance to the media given that I had grown up with it. Much like the way I feel about vinyl records as opposed to how my son-in-law feels. There's no magic there for me based on the medium is all. I was not trying to compare your shot to my drawer full of family Polaroids. (God forbid)

The point of my post is an attempt to understand why I feel differently about this shot than others seem to. I'm trying to discern if I have a bias against film, or if others give it a pass or, if it's some combination of both. I thinks it's a combination.

Hell, maybe I just have bad taste.

I guess I just felt like this photo was a good opportunity to discuss why people like or dislike a photo. The fact that I disagree with almost everyone is something I want to explore as it will help me understand my own photography better. I'm not trying to say that I'm right, but if I feel a certain way, I want to understand why.

Well, it's getting late and I've offended enough people for one day.

I will come back to address some other points you made later. I need to go to bed.

 

[limr]

I guess I just felt like this photo was a good opportunity to discuss why people like or dislike a photo. The fact that I disagree with almost everyone is something I want to explore as it will help me understand my own photography better. I'm not trying to say that I'm right, but if I feel a certain way, I want to understand why.

Well, it's getting late and I've offended enough people for one day.

I will come back to address some other points you made later. I need to go to bed.

I agree that it's a good discussion to have. And just to be clear, my own tone was fairly frustrated at times, but I want to say again that it wasn't directed at you. I get that you were sort of thinking out loud and trying to explore your reaction, and I totally respect that. The frustration I felt was because of having heard or read the same things by people who are not putting nearly as much thought into their opinion about film as you are doing. You just offered me an opportunity to finally respond

Now go to bed!

 

[sleist]

I think it's the nature of forums to discourage dissent. At least that's how I see things. Not intentionally mind you. Just human nature.
My opinion is that I learn more when someone dislikes my photos - provided they can explain why of course.
So feel free to tell me how much I suck.

Keep in mind that you are talking to someone that just deleted 90% of his "keepers" from the last 7 years.
Going through a bit of a phase me thinks ...

Good night.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

you say stop....i say go
you say goodbye...i say hello

 

[manaheim]

I stared at the photo for a long time trying to find a reason to like it. I didn't find it. I then stared at it even longer trying to find a reason why it's a well composed photo. I still didn't find it.

I agree with sleist's comment that images taken with film are given a bit of a free pass. This is not to say that there are not excellent pictures taken on film, only that people give the image more points just because it is, and in some people's mind that makes up for whatever else it may lack.

Really and honestly, the image here is not a lot more than a snapshot of a nice scene. The scene itself isn't bad. It just isn't anything that interesting. I agree that the chairs are not lined up well in a way that makes a good composition. It's not a BAD image... it's just not a great one. It reminds me most of the shots that my father in law took of their vacation homes in New Hampshire and stuff. Not a bad thing... just not something I expect a bunch of photographers to fawn over.

And, yeah, I honestly think posting the image with the polaroid-style border is totally saying "hey! look at me! I'm an old-timey photo!" I really don't think there's any getting around that, and arguing that other have borders on their pictures and stuff and how is that any different... is just intellectually dishonest.

No offense intended, but I think sleists's comment was spot on. If this was an iphone picture, either it wouldn't have gotten a single comment, or it would have been panned.

 

[limr]

I stared at the photo for a long time trying to find a reason to like it. I didn't find it. I then stared at it even longer trying to find a reason why it's a well composed photo. I still didn't find it.

I agree with sleist's comment that images taken with film are given a bit of a free pass. This is not to say that there are not excellent pictures taken on film, only that people give the image more points just because it is, and in some people's mind that makes up for whatever else it may lack.

Really and honestly, the image here is not a lot more than a snapshot of a nice scene. The scene itself isn't bad. It just isn't anything that interesting. I agree that the chairs are not lined up well in a way that makes a good composition. It's not a BAD image... it's just not a great one. It reminds me most of the shots that my father in law took of their vacation homes in New Hampshire and stuff. Not a bad thing... just not something I expect a bunch of photographers to fawn over.

And, yeah, I honestly think posting the image with the polaroid-style border is totally saying "hey! look at me! I'm an old-timey photo!" I really don't think there's any getting around that, and arguing that other have borders on their pictures and stuff and how is that any different... is just intellectually dishonest.

No offense intended, but I think sleists's comment was spot on. If this was an iphone picture, either it wouldn't have gotten a single comment, or it would have been panned.

"No offense intended, but you were totally lying about your reasons for posting an image with a Polaroid border."

I'm sorry, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, and I am not reacting simply because you didn't like my image. But yours is the exact patronizing, arrogant attitude that I was talking about. You claim to know my motivations better than I do and you've essentially called me a liar.

I will continue this discussion with sleist, but you and I are done.

 

[chuasam]

NO, the softness works here.
It adds this sense of nostalgia. Of memories long gone.
it's like we remember the past but we forget the sharp details.
What would work more is a whole series of these images.
From ice cream stand on the beach to an abandoned scene.