Martin Parr does Chelsea

I saw that earlier and thought something similar, but I guess we usually see a more considered selection from photos taken over a longer period than one day. It's all in the edit. After all, he admits he takes a lot of bad photos. ;)
 
I guess that's the thing, you can't necessarily get the shots you want on a particular day and especially somewhere as crowded as Chelsea
 
I had a look thanks :)

What a load of tosh - had anyone in 'normal' circles, such as a camera club or even a TP member, posted any of those in an comp or on TP for crit they'd be laughed at; especially using flash when its clearly not necessary - presumably as a style

Seems you can post anything when you have a 'Name' and get published

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
What a load of tosh - had anyone in 'normal' circles, such as a camera club or even a TP member, posted any of those in an comp or on TP for crit they'd be laughed at; especially using flash when its clearly not necessary...
Click to expand...

That's it though, different standards to judge by. I'd class most of the stuff I've seen in camera club exhibitions and on TP as 'a load of old tosh'. :)

As run of the mill news reporting the pics are fine. By Parr's usual 'art documentary' standard they are below par. :D
 
Thanks for sharing. To me they are just record shots of the day. If he was trying to capture the feel of the day I am not sure he has done it.
 
I think the first two shots are particularly good (the woman with the rose hat and the one choosing seeds) and sum up the feel of the place. Don't forget, Martin's books will be the product of whittling down many dozens of photos taken over a considerable period of time; The Last Resort was a collection of photos taken over a 3-year period, so I don't think he's done too badly to come up with a selection of shots like that in a few hours. I'd have been happy to have got just one or two of those. As for the processing, Martin seems to use flash (with a diffuser) a lot of the time for his people photos which, amongst other things, makes the colours more vibrant, couple that with the warmness of a Canon DSLR and it explains the 'postcard' type look of colour and contrast. To be honest, I think it suits the subject and adds to the portrayal of the absurdity of the lifestyles people create.

As for 'a load of tosh', you either 'get' what Martin's work is about or you don't. It's not about producing 'perfectly' (whatever that is!) exposed and processed images, it's beyond the photograph, it's telling a story. As I said, you either get it or you don't, so I won't waste my time trying to convince you to like something you won't. That's why we have more than one channel on TV, and pastimes other than TV, not everyone likes the same thing. :)
 
Last edited:
They are very Martin Parr aren't they, love the way he concentrates on people. These don't have his usual processing 'punch' but that may be the way the Guardian have published them, or the speed at which they were delivered. I'm sure in an exhibition or book etc they would look stunning.

He was also on the BBC show

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b4js9c
 
Wouldn’t call it a load of old tosh, there are 3 or 4 gems there, but also some quite weak images. Martin was interviewed by Monty Don on the BBC last night and he summed it up nicely as Chelsea is the preserve of the white middle class and these images support that view.

After watching the coverage of Chelsea this week I have removed it from my bucket list!
 
He just documents life. He doesn’t purport to be landscape, portrait, wedding, street, travel, camera club perfection or any other “type” of photographer and I think he makes a pretty good job of it. I’m not sure why so many people are against him.
 
gerry s said:
He just documents life. He doesn’t purport to be landscape, portrait, wedding, street, travel, camera club perfection or any other “type” of photographer and I think he makes a pretty good job of it. I’m not sure why so many people are against him.
Click to expand...

It's because many of his photos look like snaps, even the intentionally shot ones like the sniff-a-rose series, but are backed up by a 'name'. As pointed out, he arranges things so that his colours are super-vibrant too, though I grant that they don't have the usual 'overcooked in lightroom' look to them. I don't get Parr either, but I'm not convinced there is anything to get other than good explanations.
 
Each to their own. He's never appealed to me.
His images seem nothing more than snaps, and I never understood why he was so 'overated'
Still, many follow him seeing something I don't.
I'd personally delete many of his best...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top