I bought my first photo book the other day, that of Marc Riboud, street photography done around the 50’s through to the 70’s, it’s amazing stuff really. I looked at the images and realised that much of what you see in them is also interesting because of how much has changed since, seeing a horse and carriage, seeing just the way the streets looked is fascinating, seeing life naturally unfold. He uses a lot of juxtaposition, everything has a relationship to everything around it. A lot of the photos are out of focus, motion blurry and not necessarily photos that come out and smack you in the face with aesthetically pleasing grandeur, but they are all so intriguing, it’s very apparent in most (bearing in mind i’ve gone through it only once so far) what and why he is taking the photo, and you can sit there and study each one for quite a while trying to work out what is going on, or read the emotions on peoples faces.
Got me thinking, photos don’t need to be 100% perfect in technique to be compelling, even though i’m naturally inclined to self regulate, there are some (actually quite a few) that I like quite a lot but that have problems, focus, motion, composition. So I thought i’d share one here, I like this photo but I would usually not put the time and effort of post producing it because of how much is apparently not perfect in it. An ode to Marc Riboud I suppose, though I don’t suggest it’s anywhere near his level.
And another from the yesterdays post, I can see I am lacking some rudimentary skills in Landscape work, I often put the horizon in the middle of the image, it feels natural to do so when taking the picture, in fact in this shot I was walking off the bridge and took one final snap, upon going through all of them it unfortunately (because of the horizon) is the best, sharpest, otherwise best composition showing the city and the bridge. I still like it a lot, there wasn’t much to put in the foreground and the sky seemed like a waste.