06-13-2020, 08:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2020, 08:09 AM by Brightcolours.)
Toni, you do not totally get what I tried to explain, there is a difference between documentary photography and what I tried to explain about myself and "atmosphere, emotion, composition, "painting with light".
Not everyone has the same artistic ideas and sensibilities, and I have not commented on Dave's images in the 1st place.
I'll take an image of a tiger as example. Those are apparently great for posters to hang on walls of children's bedrooms. But not really as art in living rooms. Even if the exposure is correct (that is not what I meant as painting with light) or the composition is fine. They can also be great in books about big cats, for instance. It can be exciting for someone to have captured an image of a tiger too.
That does not mean that it is for me to spend a lot of money into heavy gear and travel the world to take documentary images of animals.
And a well taken image of tiger does not automatically make it "art" either, just like some portrait photographers actually make art, most portraits have little artistic merit, even if they are done with technical skill and are fine concerning composition.
By the way, I do not think we should bring back photo discussions. They will be pointless, everybody has an opinion, and many will just type things out of spite, if someone has valid negative points he/she will be met with vitriol and spite and grievance.
Dave has a point here, concerning photo discussions: "Rule No 1 in photography BC ...... if you don't like someones photos you say nothing .... you may well think it ....but you don't say it ..... you comment only on the ones you appreciate ...... otherwise things become unpleasantly messy ....... but at the same time you don't turn round and tell them you know better ........"
To reiterate: I have not said anything negative about any of Dave's photos. In fact, I do not think anything negative about Dave's photo's.
Not everyone has the same artistic ideas and sensibilities, and I have not commented on Dave's images in the 1st place.
I'll take an image of a tiger as example. Those are apparently great for posters to hang on walls of children's bedrooms. But not really as art in living rooms. Even if the exposure is correct (that is not what I meant as painting with light) or the composition is fine. They can also be great in books about big cats, for instance. It can be exciting for someone to have captured an image of a tiger too.
That does not mean that it is for me to spend a lot of money into heavy gear and travel the world to take documentary images of animals.
And a well taken image of tiger does not automatically make it "art" either, just like some portrait photographers actually make art, most portraits have little artistic merit, even if they are done with technical skill and are fine concerning composition.
By the way, I do not think we should bring back photo discussions. They will be pointless, everybody has an opinion, and many will just type things out of spite, if someone has valid negative points he/she will be met with vitriol and spite and grievance.
Dave has a point here, concerning photo discussions: "Rule No 1 in photography BC ...... if you don't like someones photos you say nothing .... you may well think it ....but you don't say it ..... you comment only on the ones you appreciate ...... otherwise things become unpleasantly messy ....... but at the same time you don't turn round and tell them you know better ........"
To reiterate: I have not said anything negative about any of Dave's photos. In fact, I do not think anything negative about Dave's photo's.
