Behind closed doors

_DSC8031-1 by tom.dinning, on Flickr


_DSC8036 by tom.dinning, on Flickr

The second shot does it for me Tom, I prefer the framing and the contrasting colour of the sign.

Really !!! ... It must be really boring in Aus Tom .

I knew I was right when I decided no to emigrate to Brisbane ,where my mother lives .

No offence meant .

looks like a great background for some portraits.

I rather like the second, reckon it'd work well in high contrast mono perhaps

xx

No offence taken, Otta. I was hoping it would have that effect so you'll stay where you are.
You can take as much offence as you like from that.

Hi Laura. It works perfectly well as it is but feel free to do what you like with it. Just don't tell me.
I'm always amused and a bit perplexed by what people mean when they say 'it works for me'. Does that mean you like it, understand it, agree with the way it has been taken, would buy it, taken it like this, taken it in the first place.
Do we assume that every photo must have public and general appeal to be a good photo. Does the photo need to follow some general rules set down by current cultural norms and conform to the tastes of the time? Is it necessary for a phot to be 'nice' to look at before we stop and consider what it's function is? And if the photo fulfills it's function can we say it is a 'good' photo? What about technical proficiency? Is that necessary and if that is fulfilled, is that enough? Is it necessary we only photograph beautiful things or photograph ordinary things so they look beautiful?

Here's another for you to contemplate.


_DSC8035 by tom.dinning, on Flickr

Fair enough! Each to their own... but if I'm going to be totally honest I just don't think 'they work for me' because I find them boring, flat and not very nice to hang on a wall etc. Just me, I'm sure there are others who'd find merit - but for me there's nothing in them

xx

So is that the photograph or you? What if they weren't meant to hang on a wall? What if they were taken so that they looked flat? What if this was the purpose of the photographer? The photo is just a photo. If there is nothing there for you it may be that you don't have enough information, skills, knowledge or insight to 'read' the photo as it should be read. If someone else looks at the photo and sees something different, does that change the photo? Of cause not. Does it change the value of the photo? Maybe. Does it raise questions in your mind as to what it might be that you don't see? That would be nice if it did because what you would then be doing is expanding your own knowledge on what 'makes' a photo. Taking pictures is part of photography. Looking at pictures is the other part. We learn to take them but forget how to look at other
Expels photos.
It is 'just you', Laura. That's the point. How does a person expand their knowledge and become better at what they do if they stay 'just me'? You can learn from the intentions of others as much as your own intentions. There is a world of photogrhy out there you haven't even begun to 'like'. Learn to. It will make you a better photographer.
Cheers
Tom

I don't think there's any need to be quite so personal and confrontational to be honest Tom especially when I am quite sure you don't mean to be.

How about we try this a different way - fine, it *is* me, and I don't know how to look at these photos... same as most other people on here I'd wager... so how about instead of belittling us for not understanding the photo, you explain it to us and educate us a bit?

Of course, there's always the other argument that if a photo needs an explanation, then it's not *quite* doing its job!

xx