I read the news today, oh boy...
by Bear_Music

Comment:
I'm in the tnun corner here: so beautiful. And so admirable that you could gaze with such a transformative eye on this spare material. Thank you.

Playtime
by LinMalAng

Comment:
I was asked by a good friend at DPC to explain why I'd nominated this as the "best photograph in the challenge" but had made no comment beyond that (see below). He said I usually have a lot to say in my comments about why I like the photos that I like. So I hope you don't mind if I say a bit more now.

I love the picture because it's the most interesting photograph in the challenge. It communicates so perfectly everything that is joyful and durable about photographs. It's exactly what a photograph should be: an object in its own right, and not just a representation of something else. That's a very important distinction to me â€Â¦ that a photograph is an object separate from the thing it depicts (i.e. the nominal subject).

When I look at this photograph, I do still see the children of course, but much more indelible is the impression that I am primarily viewing not the children but the photograph itself as a thing, a cultural marker â€Â¦ and not looking at the photography. Most people at DPC are, understandably enough, looking only at the photography of the subject. The actual photograph is for them an ephemeral thing, a passing vehicle useful as a demonstration of their accomplishment: something to be copied if they like it, and copied again, and then discarded when they're done using it and ready to start copying something else. Nothing necessarily wrong with that: they're nearly all people interested first in photography, and many of them are oblivious or unreceptive to a meaning of photographs outside of that personal context.

The photograph-as-object is a very important part of our modern society and history. It is an indicator of how we see ourselves culturally, and of what is important to us about that realisation of ourselves. The distinction (photograph versus photography) is really only accessible and comprehensible to those who are prepared to study and reflect on images from the whole history of photography; it's a view that can only be seen from that kind of distance. But the philosopher and essayist Susan Sontag wrote extensively on the theme in her book of essays On Photography which, despite some flaws (one of which is the title; it should have been titled On Photographs), is a brilliant analysis of the social and cultural significance of photographs. That book, plus any big fat book of photographs from say 1850 to 2010, is all you need to really understand photographs as cultural icons. Once done with that, move on to your parents' old album, and your grandparents' album. Then jump forward again to Instagram. Photographs are culture, and culture is photographs.

I wasn't bothered by the border, because I simply subtracted it in my mind. It had no impact on my view of the photograph because for me it wasn't really there. I recognised it though, from the iPhone tintype Hipstamatic set. I agree with you about the lack of clarity of the rules in this case. The Hipstamatic app does post-processing of the original file, but inside the camera. If it saved an original file as well, then your photograph as submitted would be perfectly legal. So it's a pity that you're disqualified for submitting something that is entirely legitimate in terms of the processing done, but is compromised only by lack of an original unedited file. Don't worry about it though; certainly everyone understands this dilemma and no-one thinks you cheated! It's a very good picture and I am going to post it on the posthumous awards thread so that it gets a bit more attention. It deserves it.

P.S. I enjoy Hipstamatic myself, especially tintype, but I usually cut the various borders off, like this:

I think the pictures are always better for the snip.

Message edited by author 2014-02-26 07:55:32.

Playtime
by LinMalAng

Comment:
This is the best photograph in the challenge. 10. Thank you.

stripes
by bvy

Comment:
This is a modern iteration of a Winogrand classic: the famous image of the mixed race couple with the monkeys. Not a re-creation, mind you; that's too easy. This is more of a subtle nostalgic nod from two generations' distance.

The power of that original Winogrand shot wasn't so much the monkeys-as-children (although some commentators saw some unpleasant symbolism in that). It was the very idea of a mixed race couple, each of them strikingly attractive and stylish. For its time, it was a tricky photograph to deal with. The viewer had the irresistible impression that there were people all around looking on with disapproving, or at least skeptical, visage. There was massive tension implicit in that picture. I think Winogrand's shot was a test for the times: (a) OK; (b) Not OK; or (c) Undecided.

And yours? They're probably not an actual for-better-or-worse couple, but they are a casual couple at least for this moment. The tension is gone. The sense of sartorial style (and expectation) is substantially relaxed. And the monkey is barely visible at all. Everybody's cool now. But imagine for a moment if the guy in your shot had a menacing facial expression instead of his exuberant smile. Would we still be passing the test then?

Anyway, enough of discussing the shots that aren't here. The shot that is here is a very fine photograph in the modern unaffected street photography style that I imagine Winogrand would have enjoyed. 10. Thank you.

bubbles
by LevT

Comment:
If it hadn't been black & white I'd have picked it for a Martin Parr photograph. That's a good thing because Martin Parr is a whole lot more interesting than Garry Winogrand.

This is really a very funny, savage indictment of a certain prominent wedge of modern western life (I'd say American life, but you'd like my comment even less if I did). The obesity to the point of immobility; the silly, pampered, yapping dogs; the dreadfully tacky sunshades; the truly awful Disney World school of architecture â€Â¦ all wrapped up in a fountain of flaccid-looking bubbles cascading towards a bewildered kid who himself appears to be already on the road to double-wide pants. It's a scarcely credible celebration of gross indulgence and delusion.

Even if you took a kinder view than I, it's still a good street photograph on a superficial level. 9. Thank you.

o
by nick_hinch

Comment:
It's a terrific street photograph.

The obvious part is that it so loudly rings one of the central bells of street photography, which is that people can be seen by a camera in a way that differs from how an actual eye witness would have seen them. She wasn't standing there looking goofy for ten minutes: it was only for a fraction of a second. And you wouldn't have seen it yourself if you hadn't been holding a camera with mischief in mind (your mind, not the camera's).

The less obvious part is that as well as being good street, it's also most excellent photography. The composition, the theatrical orchestration of the tonal blocks, and the technical camera stuff like exposure in particular, are all exemplary. 9. Thank you.

Women ARE beautiful
by lei_73

Comment:
This is so like a typical Winogrand 'Women are Beautiful' shot that I'd be happy to believe it's genuine. I think the frank exchange of glances between she and your lens is the only thing that makes it a little less convincing than it might be; very few (any?) of the Winogrand 'women' involved eye contact. But I think yours is better and more interesting than most of his for that very reason. 9. Thank you.

Got Milk
by salmiakki

Comment:
I love goats, pretty much unconditionally. This is a terrific picture too. The man's posture, his stick and his exotic (to my eyes) clothing, and the A, B and C echelon of the goats, are all fabulous. And then there's the composition, which is also exceptional in the ordering of all the graphic elements. A very beautiful and absorbing photograph which, although it's not much like any Winogrand that I ever saw, rises above all that petty DNMC stuff just by being so very good. 8. Thank you.

Saturday mornings
by tome

Comment:
This is a beautiful photograph. I see it as an environmental portrait, where she is the owner of the restaurant/cafe, or at least works there. That may in fact be wrong, but it's not wrong for me. The composition, and the lovely balance of the tonal masses, plus the subject's orientation (projecting out of the premises, rather than in) suggests too strong a connection between the two – i.e. person & place – to be just an arbitrary choice on your part. 8. Thank you.

chill
by jmritz

Comment:
Yes I like this. It's beautifully incomplete, with an imagined icy pavement down there outside the frame, and probably snow and slush residues edging the roads. It's a good example of how you can say more by showing less, and thus you can meet the viewer half way, rather than forcing him/her to go all the way across to your side of the bridge of comprehension. I'm a relentless fan of unfinished pictures like this. 8. Thank you.