Is this bad and if so why?

When you become a world-famous photographer, this shot will be celebrated for its statement on the human condition, with very critic 'seeing' just what you intended to be seen. Until then, it's just a bad shot...

I reckon old Condyk is taking the p*ss with this shot...

He knows it's a candidate for the virtual dustbin (or 'trash can' for the souls across the pond ), We know it's a candidate for the virtual dustbin, but he's sittin' back in his fancy loft apartment (or wherever he resides at the moment) laughing at all of us debating the finer, or not so finer, points of it, and some of us (well, one of us...) are even doing clever drawings to illustrate the reason it is 'bad'

I think we are the ones being judged here!

PhotosGuy wrote in post #2380239
Bad. Not much, if anything in focus. No context to understand why it was taken in the 1st place, or what it's supposed to illustrate, so it has no meaning for me.

Ditto.

kevin_c wrote in post #2384799
and some of us (well, one of us...) are even doing clever drawings to illustrate the reason it is 'bad'

Huh? I resemble that remark!

Rad

PS - thanks for saying "clever"

Indifferent. Why:

- There isn't 'bad' pictures, all have value to somebody, for varying reasons.
- I personally don't consider this 'good' - yet: this is a picture which I would save, return to it a couple of times, to see if there is something I did not see at the first look. Then I might dump it, or save ...
- Until that, 'indifferent'.

I like her. the isolation, the expression and the conversion is good.. I don't like the focus and the background... it seems out of place. The composition as a whole comes up a bit short. But I can see the attempt.

The poll here is as useless as the usual "Does this work?" Question. No useful opinion can be rendered unless the artist's intentions are known. What the hell is the purpose of this image? Invoke emotion? What emotion? Does it have a photojournalistic purpose? What is the context? Is there an intended commercial use? Are you trying to convey something about the person in the photo?

Answer the questions above and I will render a thoughtful critique of your blurry, unlevel picture.

Woolburr wrote in post #2383492
I voted for good....the photographer spotted a lovely young lady that he took a fancy to. The recorded image is the best quality a Holga is able to capture. This is a perfect example of a shot that if you were told it was taken by a famous photographer, people would be fawning over it. There is a whole lot more detail in the photo than you all are letting on. You can clearly tell that the items in the background are Christmas trinkets, you can see that the young lady is very lovely and you can also see that she has something weighing heavy on her mind. Sharp focus isn't everything.

my thoughts exactly, well said

PhotosGuy wrote in post #2380239
Bad. Not much, if anything in focus. No context to understand why it was taken in the 1st place, or what it's supposed to illustrate, so it has no meaning for me.

Same for me also.

Curtis N wrote in post #2385919
The poll here is as useless as the usual "Does this work?" Question. No useful opinion can be rendered unless the artist's intentions are known. What the hell is the purpose of this image? Invoke emotion? What emotion? Does it have a photojournalistic purpose? What is the context? Is there an intended commercial use? Are you trying to convey something about the person in the photo?

Answer the questions above and I will render a thoughtful critique of your blurry, unlevel picture.

Man, that is nonsense on so many levels. Look less hard and you might see

Sorry Curtis, but I disagree. No use/intent was specified, so I stick to my comment, "No context to understand why it was taken in the 1st place, or what it's supposed to illustrate, so it has no meaning for me."

Generally, I don't want to have to read a book to understand what the artist is trying (& failing) to say. Most images should stand on thier own, even when they're part of a PJ series. Or I'll just glance at them & turn the page.

Bad. Nothing in focus, and no focal point.

is this the whole 'is it art' debate... My least favorite painter in the entire world is Kadinsky.. can't stand him. think everything he does is primary colored throw up. My bestfriend has a thing for abstract art.. He loves Picasso and Kadinsky has tons of prints around his apartment.. I love the impressionists.. He says my Monet prints make his eyes hurt.. He hates all of the pastel tones and shadow details and 'smudgy' paintings that I love.. What works for some doesn't work for all.. we can't exclude something as being junk if there's someone else out there that thinks there's something good about it..

sari

Some of you guys think way too hard and look way too hard As I say, it is a simple image. If it is bad, why do some like it? If it is good, why do so many dislike it? What makes the people who feel it is mediocre sit on the fence like that?

condyk wrote in post #2389976
Some of you guys think way too hard and look way too hard As I say, it is a simple image. If it is bad, why do some like it? If it is good, why do so many dislike it? What makes the people who feel it is mediocre sit on the fence like that?

You gave us the possibility.