>> |
fence
!!POey2hdozCZ
i read all the captions along with the pictures first, to evaluate the aesthetics. then, i went back and tried to figure out what photo was about without thinking about what you had written. this was to evaluate the documentary quality. i'll give you my quick thoughts on both for each photo, plus a totally arbitrary grade.
1- aesthetics: A- documentary: A-
obviously, a photo of niagara falls the place needs an artsy photo of niagara falls the.. thing. the close crop kind of makes the falls look tiny, though.
2- aesthetics: B+ documentary: B
I like the casino in the background, but i wonder if you couldn't have made better narrative use of this photo by including the falls in the composition. maybe it would be redundant, but i don't look at this photo and instantly think, "niagara falls!"
3- aesthetics: c documentary: A-
ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT. I'm sorry, dude, but you gave this girl the meanest case of horns. it's all i can see now when i look at the photo. but i like the little slice of working class niagara. gives a human touch to what could otherwise be a series of static scenery.
4- aesthetics: C documentary: A
i don't like the vertical composition in this one at all. it should have been horizontal, since it's basically a panorama of a failed street. i'm also a stickler for color choice, but this just a preference. i think if you decide to shoot a series in color, you have to stick with color the entire way through. otherwise, it really is just monochrome for mono's sake. on the other hand, i think this photo tells the strongest story out of the entire series.
5- aesthetics: c documentary: c
eh, you already know everything i could possibly say about this. should have been a border crossing, or tim horton's, or whatever.
6- aesthetics: a- documentary: a
not crazy about the composition, but i love the story it tells. plus, i totally had to look up brownfields.
good job on the whole series, man.
|