Biggest EVER turn on? Easy. Alfred Cheney Johnston's photographs of the Ziegfeld girls. WOW! I don't care that there's a hint of nudity but I just go nuts when I see his photos. I'm totally amazed by them.
Regular likes :
Historical photos, either of people or landscapes, preferably from around the Civil War through the 1940s.
Landscapes (b/w) or sepia
Action photography, especially football, ice skating, hockey...I love sports photography - color or b/w
Sometimes its just better to go to bed and post in th morning when the mind is fresh. :)
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
I mispelled three of the names in my post, they should be Jerry Uelsmann, Rene Magritte and Lazlo Moholy-Nagy. A interesting aside, Hungarian is spelled strictly phonetically except for some personal names. So no help even there.
I noticed that nudity comes up in a few people's list of turn-off, mostly when it falls in the "useless" category.
I find there are two kinds of nudity that people care about: prurient, or meaningful. Sometimes a photo can be both, but the popularity of prurient photos on the Intertubes shows that it's easier to make than meaningful nudes.
The sad sack of nude is thus the non-prurient, meaningless one: just a naked girl, somewhere, not doing anything specific, nor representing much of significance.
Nobody really cares about it. It stimulates no sinful intent, and communicates nought.
Well I suppose it's good to get things off your chest, so here goes:
Well-executed photographs with interesting subject matter, or ones which convey strong emotions or otherwise draw me in as a viewer (so an entirely personal thing).
Photographs that show some special quality of the light (hard to define exactly what this means).
Photographs of things/people/places that I haven't seen before (especially from the earlier years of photography and therefore liked as much for their content as for their technical qualities).
Almost all photos of a jetty sticking out into an empty sea. It's not that they're bad pictures, but the internet would be half its present size if they all ceased to exist.
Milky water: flowing down waterfalls, swirling round rocks (with or without strategically placed autumn leaf), washing up on the beach. It just looks downright freakish.
Photographs in exhibitions with incomprehensible captions. I can only take so much "autobiographical ethnobiology" without feeling like biting my hand off.
likes: as a viewer i like to be made aware that the photographer effectively uses the medium in their own unique style
dislikes: repetition, cliché and generally mediocrity
Someone once remarked that to tell whether a photograph is artistic or pornographic; "the artistic photograph always contains a plinth or an urn." :)
Turn-on: attempting to answer the question.
(yeah im calling you guys out who answered "like: good stuff, dislike:bad stuff")
I also don't like when people generalize about liking things that are "unique" or "different" or that they "haven't seen before". Just because it is unique or different doesn't necessarily make it any better than something that has been done to death. It is very popular these days to just do something unique, and often the "uniqueness", and nothing else about it, is what makes it "brilliant". I recall a relatively recent issue of View Camera which featured a portfolio of prints from some of the photographer's old negatives that had been poorly washed (therefore stained and heavily degraded). That was the point. Brilliant.
What does a Grecian urn? ;)
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
i guess this is me ;)
Originally Posted by darinwc
for turn ons
i am open to most types of photography, i don't really mind nudes or
things if they are accidental, as long as some thought was part of the scheme ..
as for turn offs ..
and i get tired of when there is no self expression
or nothing that expresses ownership of an image ... but instead just
copying someone else's style or their tripod holes &C ...