Arty or just rubbish?

[fidgits]

The girlfriend is a little 'snap happy' when were on holiday, and as such, usually when i'm sorting through I find a load of blurred/out of focus/unrecognisable photos, however, I came across a few she took one evening when we were driving down a nice little backroad, and I think they look pretty cool... almost 'arty'.

So, I was wondering what you guys think?






Heres a couple more in focus..

[cvp]

If the first one was a bit more infocus / steadier I think it would be a really nice shot.
Chris

[Dibble]

1 and 3 I like, the other two not so much.

[Davi]

Arty and Rubbish are not mutually exclusive you know

just kidding - I really like shots 1 & 2, have a sureal eerie feel to them.

Edited by Davi on Monday 18th December 16:49

[markgawthorne]

I run two professional photography companies and have been a pro for 14 years, I love shot 1 and 3, these would sell as stock photos easily

[V6GTO]

Had there been a pin-sharp groupe B rally car sideways in front of you they would have been brilliant!

Martin.

[Platinum]

The first few look like illustrations from The Snowman or similar.

get a blur brush on that sky

[fidgits]

Hi LA - perhaps you missed what these photo's were...

As I was making fairly rapid progress down a snow-covered lane in a Ford Escape (sorry, no group A rally car) late one night last week, my girlfriend shot these out of the windscreen on her little point and click digi camera.

There was no preperation, or plan, she simply took the pictures, and I for one, thought they looked pretty 'arty' (and i dont seem to be the only one).

But I appreciate your opinion, the fact is, there was no subject to 'frame', it was simply a picture of the road ahead while we were moving, hence the shake...

[fidgits]

Los Angeles said:

Ah, right - but your girlfriend has spotted the potential and grabbed the shot ... maybe she has a yen to do it professionally? (No jokes about Chinese clients, please.)

perhaps, i'll have to ask her..

[stuart b]

Some of them are nice - I know what you mean. Trouble is they made me feel nauseous within seconds - at least your art is getting a reaction

Stuart

[sstein]

Los Angeles said:

Hi Fidgits!

Please accept my view - they are nor very interesting.

They are moving towards the abstract but lack a solid subject matter - I know you are trying for mobvement, for energy, but it comes out as inert, appearing as if the camera shook when the photographer took the shot.

May I respectfully take your attention to the photographic work of actor Viggo Mortensen? (Yes, same as in Lord of the Onion Rings.) Google "Viggo Mortensen Art," scroll down the page and about halfway on the right hand side will appear a pic. Click on it to enlarge it. It should be a group of New Mexican Indians walking across a landscape - see how he uses the same technique as you but has developed it to include interesting subject matter, and away from the rather conventional symmetrical shots you have ...

Hope that helps guide you.

LA

Off topic, BUT is this the Viggo Mortensen that was in a History of Violence? If so what a n actor and what a film! The year it came out the only better movie was Crash!

Mortensen was just epic in AHOV!

-

Stuart

[Carrera2]

I'm not convinced. They could be classed as arty I guess but I think you'd need at least one part of the phot to be in focus to get away with it being intentional.