Please let me have your thoughts on these...

marcusrichphoto

I took these two photographs on a visit to the Saatchi Gallery in London. People were interacting with a piece of art, a large mirror, which vibrated every now and then, distorting the scene.

Shot one shows the mirror at rest. I really like the interaction between mother and child.



Shot two shows the mirror vibrating. I purposely didn't crop myself out of the photo, as there are two other people shooting, was this a good idea or not.



Would you class these pictures as street, documentary, or something else?

I'd like to get your thoughts on both the pictures

torags

I think #1 is well done. The negative space, while populated, works.

You don't need the full mirror story

#2 Doesn't work for me. I don't think the photog shouldn't be there, but more than that; you need a vibrating mirror story to explain what most would think is a poorly taken blurry pic.

But #1 is nice & the high key effect is pleasant

"Would you class these pictures as street, documentary, or something else?" this forum has gone thru a war on titles (don't go there) - I would class #1 as worthy

good shooting...

marcusrichphoto

torags wrote: »

I think #1 is well done. The negative space, while populated, works.

You don't need the full mirror story

#2 Doesn't work for me. I don't think the photog shouldn't be there, but more than that; you need a vibrating mirror story to explain what most would think is a poorly taken blurry pic.

But #1 is nice & the high key effect is pleasant

"Would you class these pictures as street, documentary, or something else?" this forum has gone thru a war on titles (don't go there) - I would class #1 as worthy

good shooting...

Thanks torags,

#2 Now you put it that way, I would have to agree with you, without the story it would look pretty poor.

A war on titles eh, sounds interesting, can you point me in the direction of one of those threads, sounds like a good read

bdcolen

No. 1 is interesting. I don't know that I'd worry about what to call it.
But number two is simply your recording someone else's "art." (And I use the word very advisedly.:-))

thoth

The woman with the child makes number one interesting. Number two is missing the art's audience, which was hopefully your intended subject. Surely there were some surprised reactions which could have made this an interesting piece to shoot.

bdcolen

Don't forget, Travis, that the 'audience' is the subject of the 'art.'

thoth

bdcolen wrote: »

Don't forget, Travis, that the 'audience' is the subject of the 'art.'

Indeed. But there are two audiences here. One is in the art, one is participating. The OP shot the one in the art instead of the one participating. I think there's opportunity with the latter.

bdcolen

Huh?

thoth

bdcolen wrote: »

Huh?

What I mean is, the OP shot the crowd IN the mirror. The first shot was nice because he also captured a bit of the crowd outside of the mirror. In my opinion, the was an opportunity to do the same in the second shot.

marcusrichphoto

Thanks for your thoughts guys.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
#2 I like the juxtaposition between the pictures characters, I would also like to think it prompts a couple of questions; which character is taking the picture and why are the people in the background contorted, when the two in the foreground are not. Maybe I should have left out the description of the vibrating mirror, to see if it provoked these questions. Maybe I'm just trying to be too clever and failing miserably ha-ha.<o:p></o:p>