Discussion
I'll get the ball rolling.
I agree. You could spend the earth on equipment (as some on here regularly do), and yet, if you have no idea on how to compose a decent photograph, the results will suck.
Look at the winner each month of the photo competition - some taken on relatively cheap cameras, I'll wager.
Cameras can't take their own photographs, after all.
I agree. You could spend the earth on equipment (as some on here regularly do), and yet, if you have no idea on how to compose a decent photograph, the results will suck.
Look at the winner each month of the photo competition - some taken on relatively cheap cameras, I'll wager.
Cameras can't take their own photographs, after all.
Depends entirely on how its executed. A photograph used as an art medium, executed properly, can have as its subject something utterly mundane. Likewise, something really captivating, snapped without any thought as to composition, can be completely spoilt and unintersting in print.
However, beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder - beware the family slide show!
However, beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder - beware the family slide show!
Edited by cy88 on Friday 7th July 09:53
le gravy noire said:
Good to see your thoughts...
Personally I think that subject matter is king. I also think that the majority of people see straight through the photo and react to the subject matter rather than the photograph.
Personally I think that subject matter is king. I also think that the majority of people see straight through the photo and react to the subject matter rather than the photograph.
Yes. Mostly. And for most people probably.
But every once in a while the image can hold interest from other angles - technical challenges for example. Or unusual context. Or, and I think this is quite common, historical context.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff