Another go at analyzing an anonymous "famous" photo (Page 8): I gave mine mine on the first page. I like the image and don’t think it’s a huge stretch to get the photographers intent.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

anotherview wrote:

Nope. I hold that a photograph must speak for itself. The provided photograph offers a weak visual message. It lacks cohesion. Etc.

I believe you called for evaluation of the photo. I submitted my critical view. Yes, a photo may inspire imagination or provoke thought. The provided photograph does neither.

What opinion do you have of the provided photograph?

I gave mine mine on the first page. I like the image and don’t think it’s a huge stretch to get the photographers intent. The problem seems to be that things that you consider flaws as technical deficiencies are either intentional, (the blurred taxis), or a product of the technical capabilities of the era, (colors). Your opinion is your opinion. I happen to disagree.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

anotherview wrote:

Not so. I merely applied my routine analysis for any photograph.

You invited others to have a say-so regarding the offered photograph. I've given mine.

I didn't invite anyone. Look to the OP.

anotherview Loc: California

The OP said this: "I think it will be great fun analyzing, dissecting, deconstructing this photo. Have at it!"

I commented in that spirit.

selmslie wrote:

I didn't invite anyone. Look to the OP.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

anotherview wrote:

The composition captures a jumble -- but if anythi... (show quote)

I think I get it. With a poor out of focus image taken by a run of the mill regular amateur photographer, the fault will lie with the incompentence of the photographer.

But with the same poor out of focus image taken by a well-known professional, say Ernst Haas, then the blames shifts from the failure of the image maker in producing a poor image to problem being with the viewer being too ordinary and incapable of doing the work necessary make sense of the image.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

anotherview wrote:

The OP said this: "I think it will be great fun analyzing, dissecting, deconstructing this photo. Have at it!"

I commented in that spirit.

I agree whole-heartedly, but I think people who disagree with the general tenor of the comments should not be skewered for going against the grain.

anotherview Loc: California

This essay by Thierry Maindrault speaks in general of the phenomenon of corrupted photography practice.

https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/the-photographic-knowledge-dv/

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Toment wrote:

An impressionist photographer!

I'm an unimpressionist viewer.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Linda From Maine wrote:

Maybe on UHH, based on the most vocal participants of main discussion forum, but universally (and even in little pockets of UHH), that isn't true.

I agree. I find myself enjoying the older, more grainy, not as sharp images often made with run of mill off the department store cameras that evoke a feeling of a different time and place. That being said, I also enjoy images from all eras, not necessarily this one by Mr. Haas.

anotherview Loc: California

Your analytical take on the subject covers the ground well. Thank you for deftly making the distinction between the two outlooks.

RodeoMan wrote:

I think I get it. With a poor out of focus image taken by a run of the mill regular amateur photographer, the fault will lie with the incompentence of the photographer.

But with the same poor out of focus image taken by a well-known professional, say Ernst Haas, then the blames shifts from the failure of the image maker in producing a poor image to problem being with the viewer being too ordinary and incapable of doing the work necessary make sense of the image.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

RodeoMan wrote:

I think I get it. With a poor out of focus image taken by a run of the mill regular amateur photographer, the fault will lie with the incompentence of the photographer.

But with the same poor out of focus image taken by a well-known professional, say Ernst Haas, then the blames shifts from the failure of the image maker in producing a poor image to problem being with the viewer being too ordinary and incapable of doing the work necessary make sense of the image.

You seem to be assuming everyone thinks it is a bad photo. I liked the photo when I first saw it, and without knowing who took it, I felt it was someone with a fairly sophisticated vision.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

JohnSwanda wrote:

You seem to be assuming everyone thinks it is a bad photo. I liked the photo when I first saw it, and without knowing who took it, I felt it was someone with a fairly sophisticated vision.

No John, I don't think everyone thinks that it is a bad photograph. I think I originally stated different people appreciate different images. Different strokes for different folks. My problem is with notion that if a person does find this image lacking, then the problem is with them being too "ordinary" and not smart enough to understand it or not willing to study art history to become conversant with the intricacies of the photographer's inner vision. I don't think that those of us who aren't impressed with the image, despite the fact that it was made by a known practioner, should be taken to the woodshed. The photograph was originally presented as a single image to be considered within its own four corners. Later when its creator, Ernst Haas, was disclosed it was discussed in light of that and the milieu in which was created.

anotherview Loc: California

Yep: " The photograph was originally presented as a single image to be considered within its own four corners."

RodeoMan wrote:

No John, I don't think everyone thinks that it is... (show quote)

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

It is the colors and the shapes that would be interesting to me about this scene were I in that time and place. What makes the '57 Chevy, or the Mack bus, or the people and their clothes interesting? I would say it is the colors and the shapes. Some observers may be looking at those colors and shapes for the purpose of making an identification, and for the purpose of analyzing the image from some imagined technical viewpoint - "oh, it is a '57 Chevy, and poorly captured! My car pictures are a lot better!" For me the interesting thing about the '57 Chevy in the photo - the only interesting thing about the car - is its shape and color, not the fact that it is a '57 Chevy. Does anyone really imagine that the photographer was a car buff, or did not know how to get sharp images from the camera?

What might have interested the photographer about what was at the time a prosaic street scene? I see soft light reflecting off of interesting shapes and colors, composed in a satisfying and meaningful way.

lukevaliant Loc: gloucester city,n. j.

Blenheim Orange wrote:

It is the colors and the shapes that would be inte... (show quote)

good point

Seabastes

[quote=Bill_de]Ernst Haas (1921-1986) New York City, NY

It is very interesting to me as Ernst Has has been very influential to me and my career.

Knowing who the photographer was explains the image to me and changes my opinion from I'd toss it out, to
knowing the photographer explains the image.

I wouldn't consider it his best image but understand what he was saying.

Haas was one of the most famous 35 MM photographers of our time in the 1950's -1960's. He is best known for his color photography. If this was shot in Kodachrome, the ISA back then would be 10 which would explain the motion on a street scene photo.