Berlin (C&C)

DadaKopf

From last August.


1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.

More here.

DadaKopf

Thanks, guys.

Valentia

Number 7 is cool. The rest really don't hit me at all I'm afraid.

Is that ok ?

RoryW

7 i like as well

Valentia

On a second look, maybe a byline would help. There is obviously some symbolism but without some info the message is lost.

5uspect

Berlin is a great city but I don't find most of these interesting.
7. is good tho.

elven

Been hearing a lot about berlin and the various areas and the different styles of architecture, which part were you taking these in? Were you conscious of stuff like that as you were shooting?

DadaKopf

Valentia wrote:

On a second look, maybe a byline would help. There is obviously some symbolism but without some info the message is lost.

Perhaps my photos rely more on description than showy-offy 'ooh, look at the sharpness on that lens' or Photoshop wizardry. I accept the comment and raise you by 7:

1. Check Point Charlie - border between East and West
2. Lichtblick Kino on Kastanienallee, coolest street in Prenzlauerberg (into and in front of the kino at once)
3. Just a light study on the window sill of the apartment, in the 'hof' courtyard
4. Last remaining section of the Berlin Wall on Niederkirchnerstrasse, formerly Wilhelmstrasse.
   During the First Reich, Wilhelmstrasse was the seat of Prussian power, later redeveloped by Bismarck during the violent forging of the First Reich. It remained the seat of German political power during the Nazi regime's Third Reich. On this site stood the Gestapo HQ, a place where thousands were imprisoned, tortured and murdered for their political beliefs. The site was destroyed after the war, and divided by the Berlin Wall. Renamed Niederkirchnerstrasse, it became the home of the Stasi until a civil uprising pressed the GDR communist government to move the Stasi further inland. Only recently has its history been recovered through the creation of an open-air exhibition: Topology of Terror. (Here, I felt the tree symbolised the deep roots German identity, history, and trauma, while symbolising life and the resliance of the human spirit, with the tree reaching above the wall. Below the rafters are the foundations of the Gestapo HQ where people were interrogated and tortured.
5. Fleamarket in Mauerpark, formerly the 'deathstrip' in which many died attempting to cross from east to west. Now it's a place where East Germans, hippies and poseurs come to buy and sell junk. (Here, I felt a little uncomfortable with the idea of people selling their personal photographs; I tried to get the portrait of the guy looking at the viewer.)
6. Painting inside an artist's studio looking in from a window on Schoenhauserallee
7. A totally awesome office/design studio space in Prenzlauerberg
8. Mauerpark (the deathstrip) - a deliberately vacant composition with intersecting paths

elven

After explanations, the fleamarket one stands out to me now. Being nitpicky I'd only be able to say maybe I'd have liked to see some more trendies surrounding the stuff, but it really does make me quite uneasy to look at it - and annoyingly it's more compelling for that reason (annoying about how my brain works, not the picture that is).

The tree thing, that's cool, and i wish i was the kind of person that could come along and look at a shot like that and pick up on the symbolism. Unfortunately not though, and the explanation also makes it far more intriguing.

There's a bit of a stigma attached to 'explaining' your pictures it would seem, as though they should be able to communicate completely on a visual level but I'm starting to think that's complete balls. Unless you already have a fairly decent knowledge of the subject it's impossible to begin to understand what photos are meant to be about - in something like this especially that deals with history - so I can't see the harm in trying to say what you were getting at, if it makes it a more involved experience for the viewer then surely it's entirely worthwhile...?

Valentia

DadaKopf wrote:

Perhaps my photos rely more on description than showy-offy 'ooh, look at the sharpness on that lens' or Photoshop wizardry. I accept the comment and raise you by 7:

What an arrogant attitude...........That comment is interesting in itself. That had nothing to do with my comment to be honest. There are some photos that can stand on their own and others that have a story to tell. Sometimes the photo can do that on its own, sometimes not. In the case of these it would be better if you didn't presume. A dangerous exercise at the best of times.

Technically (photoshoppy if you prefer) they are fine but did you really think that we would have got the significance?? Take No. 6 as an example. Does it really change the value now that we know that it was a painting inside an "artists" studio?? (Even the Flickr version didn't indicate that!!!) C'mon. This is verging into the area of intellectual snobbery in my very humble view.

Oh! And by the way, what really focused my attention was the way you bumped the thread. If people don't want to comment.....live with it. Kind of leads to a negative response. From me anyway!!

To quote someone other than myself: "Most of these photos are just great, though. I just wish the captions had more detail "

PoleStar

Berlin photos, I like number 7 I have to say, seems sad for some reason to me, speaks of emptiness, I like it (not that I am an empty person btw!)

I guess as for criticism, you just gottta expect criticism and sure thats how we all learn!

Valentia

PoleStar wrote:

The baby photo first teeth for ann and liam, can you let me know what kind of setup you used to get this or did you do it in a studio, Ive got one of those little things coming along soon and I need some tips on baby photography.

I'll send you a PM later.

5uspect

I've been to Berlin a couple of times, only once with the SLR tho.
Its a fantastic city for photography, especially at night.

Oriel

DadaKopf wrote:

Wtf? "Lightstudy"? Call it what you want. If you post this and nobody says anything, be thankful.
To me, the rest of them are poorly framed and uninspiring, unfortunately.

thebaz

to be honest , i prefer photographs that don't require a description -- the viewer should be able to assemble the image/understanding in there own mind -- having said that i've posted loads here that no one gets or likes , it might be hurtfull, but i think it helps you develop to take better images -- negative criticism is tough to take but helps you develop in the long term.

Paulw

Ok, my 2c.

I saw the thread when first posted, and none of the photos did anything for me, so I didn't comment.

Photography is subjective. Some photos you like, and some you don't. There are some photographers on here who's work I personally don't hold great affection for, but I respect their work and their views.

A photo is supposed to be visual, with little need for words. Maybe one or two words, or title, just to give scene, but the photo should stand on it's own.

I post very few photos here for C&C. If I like my photo, that's all that really matters to me. Yes, it is nice for others to like them too, but it's not what drives me. If people want to comment on my photos, then I appreciate that, but if they don't, that's their right. I wouldn't hold it against them.

If people don't like your photos - no offence, but get over it. You can't please everyone all the time. Life is too short, especially if you're seeking validation from others.

PixelTrawler

Berlin is a very cool city for architechture. Was there myself a few years ago and got a few shots, some of which are here.

(love the pedestiran lights there - theres a story behind them to do with the east and west parts of town. After the wall fell they all switched to the west standard. But due to popular demand they were brought back - they are on my flickr page there. You'll always know what side of town ur in by these lights)

OP thats one of the last bits of the wall isn't it in number 4 (ah I see you've explained it...)

DadaKopf

valentia wrote:

Oh! And by the way, what really focused my attention was the way you bumped the thread. If people don't want to comment.....live with it. Kind of leads to a negative response. From me anyway!!

thebaz wrote:

to be honest , i prefer photographs that don't require a description -- the viewer should be able to assemble the image/understanding in there own mind -- having said that i've posted loads here that no one gets or likes , it might be hurtfull, but i think it helps you develop to take better images -- negative criticism is tough to take but helps you develop in the long term.

It wasn't negative criticism that got me thinking so much as no criticism at all. How is anyone to develop at all if people don't offer constructive criticism? That's what I was reacting to.

Thebaz, why do you 'prefer photographs that don't require a description'? Isn't that a fairly narrow attitude to what photography is about? Speaking personally (and not about anyone's, or my' photos), I'm intruiged by many approaches to photography and constantly remain open to the ways people perceive the world through the lens.

If this is a photography forum where enthusiasts share and learn, wouldn't we all be better off engaging each other more with a more open mind?

Changing subject a bit, perhaps, in my photos, I'm experimenting with style. Perhaps I'm influenced by certain photographers or ideas. Perhaps I'm interested in particular subject matter. Or evoking emotions or sensibilities. In doing this, perhaps I've made decisions to achieve this, or even just to explore if they work.

But none of this matters here. Only one or two people asked what I was up to. In retrospect, my photos did need captions, or descriptions - I learned this after people started commenting. And if people have taken the effort to consider, then, whether they worked, I can learn from that, and perhaps others can learn the ins and outs of photography indirectly.

Valentia

DadaKopf wrote:

Only one or two people asked what I was up to. In retrospect, my photos did need captions, or descriptions - I learned this after people started commenting. And if people have taken the effort to consider, then, whether they worked, I can learn from that, and perhaps others can learn the ins and outs of photography indirectly.

Fair enough and a balanced response. Thanks.

thebaz

DadaKopf wrote:

Thebaz, why do you 'prefer photographs that don't require a description'? Isn't that a fairly narrow attitude to what photography is about? Speaking personally (and not about anyone's, or my' photos), I'm intruiged by many approaches to photography and constantly remain open to the ways people perceive the world through the lens.

.

I think if you have to explain what the photograph mean, your giving the game away too easily.
In essence photography is a simple medium , in comaprison to some other arts , for the photographer and viewer alike. If you have to explain what the image means , you are taking away any possible mystery for the viewer . Too most people Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed is rubbish , but theres a lot of mystery about it , cause Lou never gave the game away. I did some images here awhile ago on depression , that few got , but were personal to me, then i explained what they meant for me , and fealt i was trying to justify myself . Anway as Oriel said to me at the time, don't give up just take some more, and learn from your mistakes, and i'll pass on the advice .Post up some more , and confidence and development will occur.
B.

elven

thebaz wrote:

I think if you have to explain what the photograph mean, your giving the game away too easily.

If you have to explain what the image means , you are taking away any possible mystery for the viewer .

Baz, I think you have to consider different types of photography here when applying a sweeping statement such as 'photography shouldn't require an explanation if it's any good' - forgive me if my paraphrasing is off but that's the feeling I'm getting from the response.

It's one thing with a highly emotional, artistic photograph where the subject isn't necessarily the focus - like steiglitz and his equivalence stuff, where he wasn't necessarily taking a picture of the subject in itself, he was taking a picture of something to try and describe an emotional response to something else.

But when you have a picture of a subject which has a history, that may not be familiar to the viewer, there's no amount of photographic talent that will tell a story in words like that. If you already know the circumstances, it is up to you to judge how well the photo has put across the feeling the photographer was trying to capture/convey about that subject, however, if you don't, it's going to be impossibly difficult to make a stab at what's going on.

Example: I saw a spread in a magazine with some fairly mundane looking landscapes, I thought 'meh', and flicked past. Later on I came back and read the text along with those pictures, and it turned out they were photographs of fields that were scenes of various battles, where thousands of men died, and now they just look mundane and peaceful. Is it wrong that I should have had to read a caption to tell me why those fields had significance? Hell no.

That's why I don't think you can just say "sorry, but if it needs explained, you're not doing it right" in all cases. You have to take the particular situation into account.

Blip

I like photo No. 7 too as its a visually pleasing shot.

Taken away the symoblism/explanations, the rest of the photos are very ordinary.

No.3, Light study, ok, if you say so but I'm drawn to the tissues or whatever on the sill. No. 6, the focus is on the plant not the painting?

thebaz

elven wrote:

Baz, I think you have to consider different types of photography here when applying a sweeping statement such as 'photography shouldn't require an explanation if it's any good' - forgive me if my paraphrasing is off but that's the feeling I'm getting from the response.

.

Maybe its a personal thing , but i look at still photography as the story is in the image , where as in video , a tale is narrated to you (sometimes) -- for me the best photographs don't need explaining , and the meaning can have different meanings to different viewers, thats the beauty

just my personal thoughts , and thats the beauty we can all have differnt ideas of what its all about:)

Third_Echelon

Berlin is such a great place for photography... I was there a couple of years ago in my pre-SLR days

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmnscttirl/sets/72157601839319134/

I'd love to go back again and explore it a bit more...

/// no.7 is definitely the one i like the best.