one handed shots [ if obvious ! ]

Discussion 5 posts |  Only members can post. Join?

About one handed shots [ if obvious ! ]

Photos only taken with one hand - and evidently so.

You may note that "evidence" is the key to what we're looking for: any photo which, for a reason obvious from itself (!), cannot but have been taken with "one hand only"

We're not interested in any other than visual explanations of why a photo can be considered a one handed shot - immanent explanations thus.


***

A few visual explanations


- 0/3 -



- nice photos of one hand shooters - one of them our group's patron -, though a good example for all of those photos not obviously shot with one hand only,
yet thought (by their authors or others) to bear some relation to one handed photography as such.
To be rated 0/3, zero out of three. Beneath categories, that is.


- 1/3 -
....................................

Photos possibly taken with one hand only but with complete indifference against the fact whether they are able to provide immanent evidence thereof. In other words: which could as well have been taken with a third hand, the hand of another photographer very close... to the first person (if any) or with a tripod or other automatic devices. Or with the mouth, who cares.
To be rated - 1/3 -, one out of three. -

- 2/3 -
..............................

Artistically the most ambitious and most interesting category: photos which are almost obviously taken with one hand only, with their obviousness, however, depending on the intelligence and fantasy of the spectator.
This is also where contextual reference may come in and where it should be remembered that external explanations about the one handedness of a photo are not what we are interested in. The context, if important for understanding the true one handed nature of the photo, should be suggested by internal references of the photo.

Related groups: Your Shadow on the Floor

To be rated - 2/3 -, two out of three. -

- 3/3 -
........................... ............... .........

Photos which, from all photographic evidence provided by themselves, cannot but have been taken with one hand only - as in the classical (and at times classically boring) examples of the photographer in front of the mirror.
Note that the easiest method for taking this kind of photos seems to be providing photographical evidence that the camera with which the photo is being taken is in contact with one hand. The question is whether this can be achieved at all without either having the camera itself depicted in the photo (by mirroring, monitoring or refined shadowing) or suggesting the prolongation of one arm extended towards the point of view of the camera into the invisible(!) hand which necessarily has to be in contact with the camera.
To be rated - 3/3 -, three out of three. -

[ to be continued... ]