RF aesthetic - picture of the year...

[porktaco]

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/through-my-eye-not-hipstamatics/

also, he loves taking cat pictures.

[RayPA]

"Using the phone is discreet and casual and unintimidating. ...

...The image of the men resting together on a rusted bed frame could never have been made with my regular camera. They would have scattered the moment I raised my 5D with a big 24-70 lens attached. But with the phone, the men were very comfortable. They always laughed when they saw me shooting with it while professional cameras hung from my shoulders."

Sounds familiar! Is the camera phone the new RF?? :p




/

[GSNfan]

I don't care how that picture was taken, but how it has won third place in any photography competition is beyond me.

Maybe I'm no good judge of PJ pictures but if someone else can elaborate I'd be glad to read it.

[mabelsound]

I quite like it, and Hipstamatic, too.

[sonofdanang]

He does good work. And, his rebuttal is sound.
It is sad to see "amateur fetishists" with their sloppy logic and lazy reactionary conflation of content and aesthetic seeping into the ranks of so-called professional critics, but I suppose it always has been the case.
The photographs have depth, pose questions, and obviously elicit reactions on several levels.
Mr. Winter is to be congratulated.

As to why he won, perhaps it is important to remember that photography didn't begin with Daguerre or Niepce, it started with something thousands of years earlier - the first glimpse in a reflecting pool perhaps, where someone was struck with the desire to reproduce something that they saw. The rules about what constituted valid formalism came later. Much, much, later, and at the hands of those who sought to codify what had already been produced.

It may help to look at it as a picture rather than a photograph.

[cosmonaut]

I didn't think much of them myself, good but to much like a holga. Just different. That's why it placed.

[GSNfan]

He does good work. And, his rebuttal is sound.
It is sad to see "amateur fetishists" with their sloppy logic and lazy reactionary conflation of content and aesthetic seeping into the ranks of so-called professional critics, but I suppose it always has been the case.
The photographs have depth, pose questions, and obviously elicit reactions on several levels.
Mr. Winter is to be congratulated.

As to why he won, perhaps it is important to remember that photography didn't begin with Daguerre or Niepce, it started with something thousands of years earlier - the first glimpse in a reflecting pool perhaps, where someone was struck with the desire to reproduce something that they saw. The rules about what constituted valid formalism came later. Much, much, later, and at the hands of those who sought to codify what had already been produced.

It may help to look at it as a picture rather than a photograph.

Flowery inflated fluff does not make for a persuasive argument. Maybe if you cut the nonsense about amateurs having no right to critique "Pros" and offer a reasonable assessment of the picture, some of that godly "pro wisdom" might trickle down to us, the unwashed masses.

That picture is boring, detached and too green. Secondly, its claim to fame is because its a phone photo, thats all.

[sonofdanang]

Flowery inflated fluff does not make for a persuasive argument. Maybe if you cut the nonsense about amateurs having no right to critique "Pros" and offer a reasonable assessment of the picture, some of that godly "pro wisdom" might trickle down to us, the unwashed masses.

That picture is boring, detached and too green. Secondly, its claim to fame is because its a phone photo, thats all.

Easy, big fella.

I was making suggestions using the English language as best as I could. I'm sorry if you've chosen to be offended.

I most certainly did not say that amateurs have no right to criticize. Quite the opposite. I said that the professionals criticizing him should at least be clear in their logic and not carry the fetish that pros necessarily hold dear the same things that amateurs do (some do, some don't - that's the point!). Additionally, so-called professional critics (the ones lambasting him in the press) should be a little more supple in their thinking and not trot out some projected aesthetic rule set that may or may not be relevant to the separate ethics argument and most certainly wasn't clearly thought out. But that's their choice.

Quite apart from the ethical non-event, is your decision regarding the picture as a non-reward-worthy item.

If you think the picture is boring, detached, and too green, that is surely your right, which I defend, by the way. However, you asked the question and I attempted a suggestion as to a method by which you might see the picture differently, not to convince you to like it. Again, you asked.

My assessment of the picture will have little or no relationship to yours as we are different persons with different misprision regarding influences and the anxiety associated with those conditioning factors. Ie, your background and thus response is different from mine. Ergo, there is no argument for or against the picture that could ever be persuasive.

I speak from no high ground here, sir. Only a willingness to try and see another perspective. I do not always succeed. But I try. I can see how you, applying the criteria of quantity of green, may find it to be exceeded in reasonable limit. I can see how you, applying a different standard for determining attachment vs detachment, might find the latter to be the case. I can see how, despite the furor of your post, you might find the picture boring.

But I won't trouble you further.

Enjoy your day.

S

[Keith]

I like the photographs and I have zero issues with what was used to produce them ... the intimacy shown would be hard to capture with much more than a phone camera IMO.

[Brian Sweeney]

Hipstamatic is the ultimate "Digital vs Film" application. Make your Digital IPhone images look like Analog. The photographer did not use a rangefinder camera, film or digital, for the image.

[dave lackey]

Hmmm... I clicked the link and saw the grunt's pictures. Nothing special.:(

Then I went to the First Place photo and I have seen better images with almost every image ever posted on RFF using every kind of camera imaginable. IMO, there was nothing to the photograph.:(

This is why I detest these kinds of threads. Sorry I wasted my time on this particular one.:angel:

[sonofdanang]

Hmmm... I clicked the link and saw the grunt's pictures. Nothing special.:(

Then I went to the First Place photo and I have seen better images with almost every image ever posted on RFF using every kind of camera imaginable. IMO, there was nothing to the photograph.:(

This is why I detest these kinds of threads. Sorry I wasted my time on this particular one.:angel:

Yes, I see work here, on this site, that is excellent. Everyday. The thing that actually prompted me to sign up was the Gallery Picks of the Week thread. Outstanding work. As one mod put it, and I paraphrase, some of these guys could make a stunning image with a stone tablet and a chisel. Never mind a camera.
However.
That never, never, excuses poor logic or specious argument when it comes to the validity of work. Particularly with regard to the work of others. If you're going to criticize, fine. But do it on the basis of what is in front of you and examine not the technical metrics, but the impact of the work. And that requires that you take a view that is at once broader and deeper.

"I don't like it." "There is nothing to it." are indications of preference and should not be considered criticism. You want criticism? Read Harold Bloom. If you're not prepared to then content yourself with expression of preference and don't call it criticism. And this is the charge that I level at Mr. Winter's detractors: they have confused the aesthetic with the ethic.

To those who do not like the work, I say fine. That, as previously stated, is your right. But don't tell me it's not serious, or done in a serious mien. Because it is being done, and, believe me, these people are risking their lives to do this work. I don't do this kind of work, but I know that it must be done, and, being somewhat acquainted with the risks involved, and with knowledge of the miserly sums they earn for this work, I can assure you they do not do it for the paycheque, or the (none here) esteem, or the glamour.

As to wasting your time, Dave, I understand that you are being somewhat facetious. But something kept you reading. Something kept you typing. I wonder what?

Sleep well, my lovelies....

[sonofdanang]

I like the photographs and I have zero issues with what was used to produce them ... the intimacy shown would be hard to capture with much more than a phone camera IMO.

Exactly my thoughts, Keith. Especially after reading the photographer's comments about the demeanor change when he used his cellphone camera.