Nononono!
Cem, you misunderstand me. When I say TMI it does not mean that I find the images too graphic. I mean, aesthetically, perhaps it is a little bit too direct. It's not that I find men kissing or crotch grabbing objectionable. I certainly don't think you should be censoring yourself even if my tender feelings <i>were</i> offended, which they are not.
Actually, it is interesting that I preferred the third one since in general I like pictures that are on the dramatic and daring side. I think the reason 2. and 4. did not appeal to me like 3. and 1. is because they are so straight-on -- those people are simply documented, raw, with what seem like little input from the photographer. No area of the picture are more in or out of focus than any other area. The angle of the camera is close to perpendicular to the figures, which are placed dead center in the frame.
What adjective do you think applies to the scene depicted in 2? It might be interpreted, depending on the camera angle and other editorial decision made by the photographer as 'cheeky,' 'sly,' 'naughty,' 'a caught moment' or whatever. But these shots are so direct I don't feel any of those things. Instead, they come across as exhibitionists, posing for the camera. Same with 4. I feel like the subjects are specimen splayed against the glass. Compare to 1. and 3., which are lovely depictions of moments with people.
With one, you have a nice sense of the girls' lovely eyes engaging with the camera, rather shyly with the case of the girl with the pink hair. In 3. it is a tender, private moment in a public setting that the camera gave us the privilege to share.
