~ Guy In The Sky ~

So, there was a little discussion in another thread about whether or not “Guy in The Sky” pics are any good!!!!!

Just wanna know what the general consensus is around here?????

Here’s just a couple that I’ve been checkin on Instagram!!!!! Like’m or not!!!!!

Feel free to put up some that you like/don’t like, with a reason as to why!!!!!

Whilst i understood the point others were trying to make - I do think they have merit.

some i like, some i dont. Completely shit-canning a whole type of photo is a bit harsh i believe.

I think the best of the above ‘guy in the sky’ pics are the ones that aren’t actually just guy and sky.

1, 2, 3 and 5 all have something in the background that orients the pic.

I think 1 doesn’t need the trees. the angle it is at doesn’t orientate and is just a distraction to me.

I think it has to be said (reminded) that art is subjective and like Trent said I don’t think we should just can one type.

no I agree entirely….just was mentioning that i wouldn’t really call those pics pure ‘guy in the sky’ ones because there is other stuff in the background to give perspective. I like the trees in the first one.

Sorry kinda of two separate points i was trying to make

I liked trent comment and was just pointing out the subjective part of art.

Only one of those shots (#4) is actually a genuine ‘guy in the sky’ pic, so the survey results are skewed - and no, it has no merit.

if only talking about #4 type pics

dont really see the point of it

I’m not a fan. All shots should have at least a basic point for reference.

The only one in those 5 that would even provoke a “that’s nice” is #2 because he really is in the middle of the sky and you can tell how high he is from the shot.

Still not fantastic but the best out of an average bunch of shots.

Do they have ANY merit? I think the simple answer is yes.

I quite like the first shot, which was photographed from underneath. The grab is sick and the whole image gives you that feeling of freedom. I don’t think it needs too much surrounding to give you a positive feel about it.

I also agree with the points made by Gamblor and chucky. I think as a general rule for photography they are correct. The general rule should be considered and I agree it’s very hard (if not impossible) to have an amazing ‘guy in the sky’ shot. Having said that, rules are made to be broken, but you better be bloody good at what you do to make it work. The only decent shots above are number 1 and 2. The others I wouldn’t look at twice.

To me it doesn’t matter if there is only the rider in the photo, as long as the rider looks composed and has style. With that in mind the trees add nothing to #1 it’s still a sick shot with or without them. #5 is utterly horrid as is #3. However, really only #1 and #4 could be considered ‘Guy In The Sky’ pictures.

You would all have a hard time convincing me that if it were you in #4, that wouldn’t be your facebook profile picture or at least posted there for everyone to see.

Agreed. Without the trees, #1 would also be considered a ‘guy in the sky’ pic.

There are some nice photos out there, I think most of them look weird because there is nothing framing the rider and no context as to where the trick has been pulled off.

trentradpants - 15 October 2012 04:03 AM

some i like, some i dont. Completely shit-canning a whole type of photo is a bit harsh i believe.

my thoughts exactly