Here is a photo from which a famous photographer had taken called Martin Parr. From my research I found out he photographs photos which are to do with modern society and how it's implied within a photo, for instance this photo is probably a mother and daughter although it may seem like quality time spent together the meaning here is that young children (in particular young girls) are growing up too fast.
The exposure within this picture is a little under exposed slightly. I think the photograph did this to imply that the time spent together isn't the bad thing, however the dark side is the young girl trying to be older and wearing make up.
The focus here is immediately on the elbow which is quite sharp. As the elbow bends, it guides our eyes towards the finger which has a soft focus. I believe here the photographer purposely did this because the finger in the picture is the main focus and it's the direction which the girl is looking at. The girls face is also quite sharp on the picture. I think the focus is used appropriately here because it presents the make up in white a harsh light, whereas on the woman, her face is slightly softer because society again "believe" it's acceptable for a woman to wear make up.
Theres no rule of third in this shot because it focuses on the two people on the picture rather than the scenery. However, the picture is mainly white walls and slightly the angle of the couch. The cleaniness of the walls, couch and pillow implies the child's behaviour is very adult like because theres no mess made and again connotes that she acts as if she's older than what she is.
The light on the girl is quite harsh whereas on the woman its soft. This is because the first thing the photographer wants you to notice is the little girl, especially her face. On the other hand, her 'mother's' face is quite soft up to her lips. The facial expression, mainly her lips allows the girl to let her put make up on her which some may say this is wrong because children are stereotyped to play with dolls, however the photographer is i think is trying to suggest that, you give a little girl a doll and they'll play with their her and face, so what difference does it make if she does the exact same thing on a doll to a human? How does it make it anymore right? He's trying to suggest that its ironic that society believe girls should play with dolls but think its wrong when they do the same on themselves or others.
The death of field here is quite shallow because you can see the detail on the pillow again its to show the tidiness of the house. I think the depth of field works within this picture because it shows the meaning of the picture very well.
I think the way the photographer has cropped the photo is very smartly done because he's cropped it quite tightly but still includes the main pain of the pictures. I do think if maybe he added the picture at the top left hand corner it could connote something again. Despite the photo being cut out, it's still sends the same message so really the photo at the top isn't necessary within the picture.
The colours within this picture are rather plain which I do like, whereas on the face the colours contrast against each other. On the face it uses turquoise eyeshadow with bright red lipstick. The reason why the colours on their faces are like this is to show that its not natural looking and its very fake, just like the situation being quite strange or surreal in a sense.
Here, Parr uses a slight curve on the finger. The effect here is to guide our eyes directly towards the eyelid where the eye shadow is placed. The reason why the photographer did this is so we recognise the make up and think the meaning of this picture is more profound; that we (adults) affect how young children act, look and present themselves.
Within this image Martin Parr uses leading lines on the arms. I think here the photographer purposely did this so us as an audience notice her posture, that she's quite laid back on the couch. This suggests that she's allowing the little girl to put make up on her and that as a society were allowing young children to act older. The fact is that were not seeing the problem in front of us, were allowing children to become adults too quick. Also that this idea of "child hood" doesn't exist anymore, because shouldn't it be the adult taking care of the child not vice versa?
The light areas are mainly used on their faces, especially the girl's to emphasise her concentrating on the woman. However, Parr uses ring flash to create the light on the face. On the other hand, theres not really many dark areas in the photograph, which shows that every part and object of the picture tells us something. We recognise or see the image as a safe environment but the photographer has an ironic meaning to it because such dangerous changes are being made within a safe environment.
I think the photo is balanced because as an adult you're seen as the 'bigger' person, so less objects are biased on her side whereas on the child's side more objects are there. This is so our eyes don't only focus on one of them at once, it brings our eyes within the middle and again leads us to the finger where most meaning is coming from.
I definitely think the picture opens my eyes towards society especially because like the woman we have our eyes completely shut to this problem and act as if it isn't going on. Even though the mood of this photo is a 'lovely' image, it contradicts it's self because the meaning of the image sets it as a quite sad mood. Unlike his other photos, it doesn't suddenly show a bad side on a mother and daughter, however it does have a profound message once you look at it properly. I do think the photographer intended to set the mood, to make us as a society realise this problem. Personally, it makes me feel quite relieved that someone has raised this problem because I do think society are looking past it.
I do think the photographer succeeded in telling his message within this photo because the make up used here is bold and tells a story its self.
I do like this photo because of the message which it portrays. Also the colours used, the basic white blouses shows that the young girl is quite older and mature and the coloured pillow in the background is quite colourful, it's as if she's left her childhood behind her and already became a woman.
This picture is again from the photographer Martin Parr from 2008, taken in Britain. Within this image it shows the upperclass celebrating a particular event (probably a wedding or a certain sport.)
The exposure in this photo is the right exposure. I think this happened because he didn't need a flash or a back light, as he's outside so natural sunlight was enough.
The only point in this photo thats in focus is the higher class man and the champagne glass whereas the whole background has a soft focus. I do think the focus is appropriate for this picture because its mainly focussing on one man. The effect of this is to show society that one man alone has wealth so imagine a group of people, yet they all sit round the table in their own luxury instead of helping the 'poor.' On the right side of him theres quite a sharp focus, however on his left side theres a soft focus. I think the photographer purposely did this to make our eyes look at the phone on his face. It's ironic because even if this man is particularly wealthy, he's holding quite an antique phone. So, he's quite ironic here with the phone. However, the way in which the man is holding the phone is as if she can afford it so he doesn't care. It's like the man is balancing the phone but judging by his facial expression he doesn't really care because he has money.
This image uses depth of field but Parr uses quite a shallow death of field to notice the man first but then slowly recognise the people in the background. I think the depth of field in this show works quite well because even though you see the man you also notice groups of them. This suggests that this photograph doesn't only regard on person, it requires a whole situation of people. Again it's ironic because even though the man hasn't got a great phone, you notice the cigar which he's smoking in his other hand and a cigar is an old symbol for people to recognise money, business and wealth. Also the champagne glass is in focus, again the champagne glass is for the viewer to notice that money is the main thing here. However, even if working class people don't drink champagne or smoke cigars, they do have the same phones, so it connotes to the upper class especially that were all as equal as each other no matter what luxury we can afford or not.
The light here is quite soft because it is outdoors and its quite natural light to give the rich glow about the scenery but the colour over all of the whole photo is slightly yellowish so the gold from the dress and champagne stands out more. I think the photographer again did this because the connotations of gold is rich and powerful- the most richest thing you could ever buy.
The photo doesn't use rule of thirds, however it does centres the pink hat. The reason why i think the photographer is because working class see big hats as a wealthy statement because realistically they aren't affordable. Everyone at the event are wearing hats again this suggests they are quite well presented.
I enjoy the business of the background because it shows a lot is going on even though they're all sat down. Also everyone in the picture have an up right posture, this suggests that they've been educated or brought up very well because the posture of their back is very straight. Obviously this photo contains all three: fore, middle and back grounds. The fore is obviously the man which you first notice, the middle is the woman with the big, pink hat and the background is the woman dressed in gold. They way that each person is positioned in a diagonal so your eye automatically looks at each stage in the photo. I think the photographer purposely positioned them in that order because the further you go down, the lower the money.
I don't think theres wasted empty space in this image, I think this image in general is quite busy. So, I believe the cropping here is accurate.
There are different range of colours used such as pink, gold, purple, cream (quite rich colours). The photographer here hasn't used many primary colours because it implies that the colours are very rich and for them to use very plain, complimentary colours because they were again well educated. The colours here connote elegance and superior.
In this image there aren't any S Curves which specifically stand out. However, there is a curve on the table where the man is sat. I don't think the photographer particularly did this on purpose because a curve makes did image feel soft, I think he purposely didn't allow any S Curves within the image to make upper class people seem more harsh, as if they're told how to sit, act, etc.
