I disagree - profoundly! At various times in my life I've had the (mis)fortune to be an editorial photographer, and worked on advertising pack shots and other quick turnaround studio work. Editorial photography consists largely of getting the portrait/ event/ whatever in sharp focus and properly exposed. Filling the frame is about the limit of the aesthetics demanded by most editors. It's not an unreasonable aspiration as far as it goes, but it demands little of the viewer or photographer. Look at Cartier-Bresson's work in comparison. Almost every photograph implies more than it explains and leaves the viewer wondering. Most great photographs suggest a world that goes beyond the edge of the frame.
Originally Posted by clayne
The OPs shot of people gathered round a car in a hole is just about the most mindless portrayal of the event imaginable. You could crop that photograph almost anywhere and make the image more inviting. He/she went for distortion and a wide angle lens. There's a hint of desperation about reaching for such a solution. For example, do those faces tell us anything? Not to me, they're looking off in various directions and make the photographer at least as big event as the car. I'd say the rows of legs in traditional and Western clothing are more revealing. Do we need to see all the car? Not for my money. Having it disappear out the frame would make its demise even more dramatic. All those options and micro decisions are what make a photograph good, not relying on the angle of the lens for drama.
Last edited by blockend; 08-14-2013 at 11:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.