Mr Bill 2011 Loc: southern Indiana

The photo reminds me of a mid '50's Norman Rockwell painting if he accidentally brushed against it while it was still wet. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; if I had taken it, I would delete it without a second thought! Just my opinion.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Liked it "enough" to include in a book? OK, sure

Yes, it seems evident to me (without knowing anything about the photographer or his book) that he was attempting to capture the city's hustle and bustle. That is the message as I interpret the photo. How did he achieve that? With blur and tight framing. For me there's no doubt of what his intent was. So, reactions from viewers could be like/dislike, or dislike but understand the why of the presentation.

"Does an artist always know what his/her intent is?" My gut reaction is surely they must! I'd be happy to be educated further on that subject, however. Different thread?

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

I think you're spot on with both points. I agree with your thumbnail of the photographer's intention. I also agree that the really good ones (like Haas) are wholly intentional. This is film, not digital photography, after all. "Spray and pray" wasn't much use in those days. Looking for gold in a haystack is what amateurs like us do when we get home from a shoot. The pros in the film days worked differently (and most still do, I suspect).

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I believe that lack of intentionality is very much a hallmark of a vast majority of the members here. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but precious few. Most here are not artists, but technicians hung up on equipment specifications, image sharpness, and "workflow." The invitation to an intelligent conversation about an image is totally lost on most here. In fact, it can be frightening. I am still learning how, but I realized long ago that this is a pretty poor place to do the learning. Too much opinion, too much masquerading, and too much dismissal.

I've been a photographic documentarian for a long time. Even after taking a couple of college-level photography classes many years ago, there was no ongoing support system to help me transition. But now I do have one, and photography is incredibly more fun. I've quit worrying and lusting about what next lens to buy. My last two new lenses were a lit more about ease and convenience than sharpness or distortion, and there are no more lens or camera purchases on the horizon (any horizon). It's been over two years since I've fired up Photoshop, and LightRoom only serves to make minor adjustments.

To me, the snide responses to discussions like this serve simply as an indication of cluelessness. There is no requirement to like the image presented here or any other image. But not being able to see beyond technique is simply an indication that the viewer or reviewer is not very far from the starting gate on their photographic journey.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

So there’s a flip side to this. It’s one thing when a photographer asks for a critique of their own work. We can certainly ask their intent and advise on whether we think the intent comes through or make suggestions to make their intent more clear to the viewer, but the truth is that most of the time we view an image we can’t really know the photographer’s intent. If we enter photos in a competition the judges can’t know our intent, so really an image needs to stand on its own. I think a strong image can impact viewers differently. Sometimes there’s a more obvious story but often not. Sometimes the story or intent may be obvious but the image is still lacking impact. Many times when we offer critique we can only go by the visual impact. If I say I would crop something a certain way or open the shadows more in a certain section or adjust white balance I’m only doing it in relation to how o think the image might achieve more balance and look better and I think there’s validity in that. If I know their intent I might give different advice.

srt101fan

You're responding to Linda but it appears that you're addressing my post. Yes, as I said, Haas set out to capture the hustle and bustle of the big city. I think the photo you posted was part of a book project.

Your "spray and pray" comments puzzle me. I never said or alluded to Haas resorting to that practice. But it's ludicrous to believe that he had this image perfectly visualized in his mind, including the track of the vehicles and how to achieve the blur for this particular image.

If you think film photographers like Haas, the Nat Geo guys, fashion photographers, photojournalists and others always nailed it with each film shot you have apparently never seen their contact sheets.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

No, I wasn't addressing your comment, and I'm not clear where you inferred all of this. My pray-spray comment addressed present-day, digital camera technique in the hands of amateurs like us. And what in the world would lead you to infer that I thought anyone (Anyone!) shoots 100%. Let's don't be quarrelsome (which is the UHH standard). Let's instead address the OP, whaddaya say?

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

You mention having a support system to help you transition. Would you and/or any of the other more advanced/professional/artistic photographers consider doing the same for those looking to advance their photography? E. L. Shapiro set up a nice section for those wanting to learn about lighting.

You mentioned that this site is a poor place to learn so why not help change that? There would need to be more than one platform. One to help beginners who want to advance to an intermediate stage as well as a one for intermediates wanting to up their knowledge and technique.

In your Aug 17, 2017 post you encouraged helping others with their photography and as an educator, you know the importance of educating those who seek knowledge and the satisfaction of seeing the results of your guidance.

Dodie

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I know of the photographer. I'm not overly impressed with the lack of sharpness throughout. Questions others posed such as subject, etc. I tend to be in agreement.

However, if one looks at these with the concept that the objects were transformed from what they are to what the photographer wanted them to be, it is an interesting photograph.
--Bob

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Well, of course, your own would be better.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Here is my take on this image.
Option one This image taken and posted by Rodeoman: Verdict. Why you wasting our time with this
gelatinous piece of crap.

Option two This exact same image made by Ernest Haas and posted to UHH: Verdict. What an interesting
juxtaposition of the myriad components describing the anxieties of the modern age we live in
with all its admixtures of color and form hurtling us toward our uncertain but nervous future. And
continued blather.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Is that your opinion of your own images? You have never posted any.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Yes, the ask/give is what I was referencing about folks who are interested in having a conversation. I did confuse the original intent of Critique Forum vs. the later creation of For Your Consideration. In Critique Forum viewers were supposed to offer critique as you pointed out about competitions: with no background information. And with a finished product to be judged as presented.

Good points you've made, thanks!

vungtau557 Loc: NC

i like the photo its thought provoking it stirs memories for some.

Stephan G

Sorry, the trials of multiple points in comments. And timing of postings. I was just addressing your statement about "cringing".

I was just implying that interpretations will be as varied as the people making them. Present image and ask for views and interpretations. And that is what one gets, views and interpretations. And in this medium, we can expect ourselves to plunge into that spirit. With the time I have spent at the Chicago Art Institute halls, I learned a lot when it comes to viewing artwork. The best advice I got is "Ask yourself what is the story in what you are looking." And each time I came back to the work, I always found myself with a modified story. Sometimes, even a completely new story. (FWIW, the last thing I looked at was the blurb to the side of the work. I tried not to look at the numbers following the dollar sign.)

Many times, a photographer will not fully realize what they have shot until they are looking at an actual print. This is where the "story" gets redeveloped. (This does not include those photographers who are shooting to meet a "story".)

In my mind, the image is a starting point of the discussion. Whether the question is "Why did you do this?" or "Why I would do this?", it does begin the discussion to comprehend and understand both.

Too often, "Can't you see?" overpowers the more salient question "What do I see?"

I do have a problem with the thread header using the term, "analyzing". I lost my lab coat a long time ago.