but that something is super boring
Too ambiguous. Woman, please.
I think spijker is male, and the punctuation needs some work. So your statement should have read, "Too ambiguous, man. Please!"
English isn't my first language and I haven't understood at all what you mean, care to elaborate?
I’ve heard (or read) somewhere that the naked female body can be attractive to both men and woman, whereas the naked male body is less attractive to woman and mostly unattractive to men.
I have seen totally boring photos taken with Leica, Hasselblad, MF, LF where people liked not the content, but rendering.
Naked ladies always gets maximum views among any other photos. No matter if it is crap shot, as long as tits are present, it can't be boring.
Good photography been on the edge of the fault is Winogrand thing. And so is been gifted. He used Leica with cheap Canon lenses. His photos are with content, not with bokeh. Even tits photos are not just about tits.
I’ve heard (or read) somewhere that the naked female body can be attractive to both men and woman, whereas the naked male body is less attractive to woman and mostly unattractive to men.
I don't think that's true, where did you read it?
I disagree, I have seen many (actually too many, including on this forum) boring pictures of naked women
I might be in rare exclusion. I was fascinated by naked woman at very earlier age. And still. How good is picture is not exist for this subject. All are good to me.
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 ..
To synthesize Eli griggs’ remarks into one word: composition.
Movement, line, sensuous curves, colour harmony, colour discord, arrangements, such as stacking, piling, juxtapositioning, distance, nearness, selective focusing, filters, grain or lack of grain, framing, printing choices, coolness, heat, low key lighting, high key lighting, sharpness, softness, obscured view, etc.
It's probably my limit, but I don't even find Weston's famous picture of a pepper all that interesting.
Here's an image I made long ago...just a chair, right? But as someone previously said, an image can provoke more questions than answers. Who sat here? What were they like? What hardships did they experience? Yes, a simple image - yet a complex message. An image can be interesting because it is visually and technically pleasing, but there are countless images that are not technically good but amazingly interesting.
I guess the question that fits here as an answer to your original question, since it seems to be a matter of opinion, is: “SAYS WHO?”
So, think again: is that boring, period? Or is it just boring to you?
None of these make any photograph automatically interesting. All listed things are part of technique.
I believe most of photographers max out to that level; we know and maybe master all the techniques but that's it. The best ones continue beyond this and start to create art.
.. and I know this and still shoot uninteresting shots time after time. Sigh.
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?