You either have “the photographers eye”, or you don’t. I admit it.....I don’t. My Daughter does. I don’t. That’s why I’m a Collector mostly.....I can Imagine what these things can do....if Only I had that damn photographers eye!
I photograph light and it does not care if anyone thinks it is boring...
Add a nice looking nude person.
Too ambiguous. Woman, please.
I know you didn't mean anything negative from this. And I'm not trying to denigrate you this. I understand where you're coming from. But this is one of the most infuriating things I have to deal with, time and time again. It truly is insulting.You either have “the photographers eye”, or you don’t. I admit it.....I don’t. My Daughter does. I don’t. That’s why I’m a Collector mostly.....I can Imagine what these things can do....if Only I had that damn photographers eye!
I understand where you are coming from, but my subject tends to be the light...but it is my subject and I realize others are more object orientated and may not appreciate my images in the same way...just as some people are more subject-orientated looking at sculptures, rather than placing equal or more importance on the space it occupies....to write with light, the fundamental principle. You can accomplish that with a riveting subject, or a blah subject seen in an interesting manner (contrast, tones, textures, leading the eye with lines thru the shot, etc.) but all are simply writing with light.
...
The coastal mountains by me are mostly boring, but only come alive when certain fleeting lighting serendipitously occur...usually while I have no camera but my smartphone (and the shot is usually disappointing when I see it!)
Hehehe!I think spijker is male, and the punctuation needs some work. So your statement should have read, "Too ambiguous, man. Please!"
its an age old question i think.
person has camera,
person makes a photograph of something .. but
that something is super boring, i mean a telephone pole, a water plug, a used car lot, street scene a >fill in the blank<
but how do we photograph it to make it well, not so boring? or is the mundane, boring-ness so mundane that it overcomes
the boring-epitude, and makes it interesting ?
i mean we all have seen photographs or mundane streetscapes or scenes from "whenever" and even though
they are of a scene that probably was as interesting as watching paint dry, now, 5, 19 or 80 years later, they are interesting.
is that the point ? hope that in 80 years someone will find our boring photographs and be enthralled? or ... do we make them interesting now ..
Better question: How does jnantz do it?
Simple. With his "Window Filter".
+1!light...
light...
I don't know why try so hard to make something boring interesting when there a loads of interesting things and people in the world....probably I just like it easy
Many photographs can be made more interesting by moving in. Also changing the view point. Moving up or down. All of that can be done without waiting for the lighting to change.
I never said that you have to wait for the lighting to change, I said that I don't understand why one should struggle in any way to make a boring subject more interesting when there are already many many subjects which are interesting in their own right.
Whether it is a choice of my subjects or yours, changing point of view, lighting, ... all useful tools.
With Zen photography the best images are captured without thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?