Photography Lesson

Consider the two photographs below :

Paignton 1992  by Martin Parr

Porlock Bay 2013  by M Carroll

 

If you prefer, or can so much as countenance, the first one, please click immediately on the x button at top right-hand corner. You should not read on - I mean it.


Here is my analysis of why my picture is better than world-renowned photographer Martin Parr's :

 

1. Horizon angle. He hasn't even bothered to get the camera straight. Look at that lamppost leaning over further than the Tower of Pisa. I, however, was at pains to hold the camera perfectly level and I adjusted it later in Windows Picture Manager. Since Mr Parr's picture was taken before the days of Windows Picture Manager it was beholden in him to take more care.

 

2. Subject matter. Who wants to see these, let's be frank, unprepossessing people in their leisurewear? It's not a pretty sight at the best of times and they are doing NOTHING to help matters. They aren't showing their finer sides, or smiling, or posing nicely for the camera. My subject matter on the other hand is beautiful and the small yacht provides a pleasing focus.  My picture is uncluttered, understated and much the better for it. His one looks as if the camera went off by mistake. Any normal person would have cursed roundly, and deleted it forthwith.

 

3. Lighting. The light quality in his is horrible. My pictures are rarely taken in such harsh and bright light. It gets you a nasty, jarring image full of unpleasant colours. Wait for hazy evening light, Mr Parr, is my advice.

 

4. Composition. Mr Parr seems not to know any of the regulations for achieving a satisfying composition. He has cut off one of the feet of the main subject - whose face is obscured by a vulgar newspaper. He has provided other, disembodied, feet at the bottom right-hand corner. He missed the man at the left side of the picture almost completely. The background is distracting, busy and ugly and there is too much of it.
In the unlikely event of my wanting to take a photograph of this scene I would have i) confiscated the newspaper, ii) changed the position of the camera so as to get the rest of that man in and leave out the foot-person altogether, iii) placed the woman's head higher up in the frame and not permitted her fat leg to dominate the foreground, iv) waited till that person behind them in the stripey pantaloons had gone away, and v) moved the hideous impedimenta - the bag, the red sun lounger thing - out of sight.

N.B. It is a well-established convention that one should avoid the dead-centre horizon shot - but one must also know when to break the rules, as I have done in taking my picture. For once the dead-centre horizon works perfectly as the boat sails along the top of the line of the sea level. How clever I am.

 

Mr Parr's photograph has no merit and you might wonder whether his infant daughter got hold of the camera and he did not have the heart to destroy the photograph she took in her ignorance. If that were the case it would reflect well on him; but I have done some research and I can tell you that ALL Mr Parr's photos are like this one, so it must have been deliberate. Yet he is highly thought of, recommended by the Times and paid fortunes for his work. I meanwhile receive zero pence for my enterprises. There is considerable injustice at play here.

 

In conclusion, I rule. To Mr Parr I say this: I bite my thumb.