Uhhh...what is the point of the article again? I guess I missed it!
g'day all
so David, can i assume from your post that you would consider there are no basic 'rules' as to what might define 'good' photography?
Ray, after 40-odd years, my considered opinion is that a "good" picture is one that fulfils its intended purpose. Ths means that if a photographer is working to please him/herself, then only his/her own opinion matters (which is not to say that a given picture couldn't be improved, either aesthetically or technically, but I would offer an opinion only if asked, only in a positive way and only in order to help the photographer to say what HE/SHE wants to say more clearly. If the photographer is not concerned about communicating with others, criticism is pointless). In commercial work, pleasing the client is what matters. Specifically, if I see a picture that does fulfil its intended purpose, I acknowledge it as good without regard to my personal feelings, i.e. even if I don't personally like it at all!
Regards,
David
http://www.startphoto.com/learn/basics/what_to_photograph.htm
Remember him? I recall his articles and the photographs of New York from a distance.
Who is this person?
A tutor or a keen photographer?
I would appreciate to give me some info.
Thanks
I was the only analog guy, for starters, ... it seemed more to me like I had an arm growing out of my forehead. Also, the main photographic activity seemed to be to line up in font of a subject and shoot 500 or so handheld shots in two or three minutes, sort of like shooting the grizzly bear salmon feast from a railed platform. Just not my cup of tea.
I was the only analog guy.......
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?