Below are comments on this photo collected in the past few days from various web sources. So far the consensus opinion has been almost entirely negative, but I'm open to new thoughts. What do YOU think? Like it, slam it, I don't care. Just curious...
"Blake Andrews should permanently delete the photo and swallow his pride. Such a shame! When you have a crap of a photo like that as the photo of the month for your collective, it represents everyone within the collective and not just the photographer who took it."
"On "that" photo, you know the one "The Death of Street Photography?" I think there is a game being played as I am pretty sure something that bad could never be voted upon as photo of the month, especially as the vote was by the iN-House team. Rubbishy bollocks. A ruse."
"Yes, it's a shitty mediocre photo though."
"I love distorted images but that one is not worthy of destroying a collective over."
"...it's a pretty weak presentation if its uniqueness is only inherent in the manipulation by the algorithm. Either way, I don't think it's a very interesting photograph other than the fact that it is now controversial."
—Richard Andrew Sharum
"Who cares it's a terrible frame, of that there is no doubt."
—Ryan John Lee
"I don't think the chopped up aesthetic is pleasing. So basically you have ho-hom moment propped up with the gimmick of how it was made. To some, it seems this represents a sort of "fresh" experimentation. To me, it comes across as a bored photographer giving himself a needless challenge."
"Not a great photo."
"Not a fan of the photo itself, but...."
"About the picture in question: I don't care much for it. Whatever oddness factor that might have made it appealing or interesting comes from the iPhone's Panorama algorithm and its randomness...."
—Ricardo García Mainou
"How can a picture that deforms the subject's appearance as this picture does be classed as street photography and if this is the best that in-public can produce in a month then my respect for them as a group has diminished."
"I would be very interested to hear members defend this photo, inner turmoil set aside. I don't think the chopped up aesthetic is pleasing. So basically you have ho-hom moment propped up with the gimmick of how it was made. To some, it seems this represents a sort of "fresh" experimentation. To me, it comes across as a bored photographer giving himself a needless challenge."
"I thought so too... not a photo I would fall on my sword for."
—Michael T Sullivan
"I mean, I don't think it's a good photo. But..."
"...Before realizing the manner in which the shot was taken, which wasn't the first thing apparent to me, the impression I got was that I was seeing a minder taking her intellectually disabled charges on a trip from their shared-living facility....That is a kind of shot that I generally avoid taking in the first place, and in editing, if I were to find a shot that created that impression I would think long and hard about putting it out there...It's an ugly photo..."
"Sad to read this. The image isn't even that interesting, seems not worth arguing over..."
"To me it's a rubbish image...."
"When I first saw the picture I thought my son had done a Minecraft screenshot on my phone."
"Yeah...hate that image."
"My grandma's basement smells much better than this. I didn't like blake's image, but..."
"Crappie photo but who cares how it was taken. Having a definition of what street photography is silly. More importantly does the photo move you! This photo doesn't."
"Whatever the technique used or the manipulation made, the important thing remains to know if it is a good or bad picture. In this controversial photo, I see nothing that arouses interest or questioning. It looks like a trivial image capture of a surveillance camera."