Save & earn with MPB; trade-in and buy pre-loved
Originality and creativity and/or technical excellance
which is more important/interesting,an image of average maybe even poor quality but which makes you think about what you are looking at or something that shows a high level of technical awareness but which contributes nothing to creativity,picturesque shots of cliffs,clouds and sunsets are all well and good but its not exactly fueling the forest fires of original and alternative thinking.Is photography as an art form there to provoke thought or to provide wallpaper?
Images that make you think are better. Tecnical proficiency has to be allied to something alse to make a great shot.
Not nessecarily a conceptual idea but certailny a way of seeing that tells the viewer of the photograph somthing, prefferably something new, about the subject.
Not nessecarily a conceptual idea but certailny a way of seeing that tells the viewer of the photograph somthing, prefferably something new, about the subject.
Got to agree with Vince here; It's undoubtedly a 'Catch 22' situation.
And I feel the 'Before & After' Gallery is not helping with this one...
I saw an amazing image the other day which - on the face of it - was a superb landscape. When I clicked on the 'Before' and saw the original, I was severely disappointed. There was a 'shed-load' of post-production in there.
So...
( unless - of course - I am missing something here... in which case I'll select 'Trunk' and 'Retract'!
)
And I feel the 'Before & After' Gallery is not helping with this one...
I saw an amazing image the other day which - on the face of it - was a superb landscape. When I clicked on the 'Before' and saw the original, I was severely disappointed. There was a 'shed-load' of post-production in there.
So...
( unless - of course - I am missing something here... in which case I'll select 'Trunk' and 'Retract'!
)
Both I think. I don't think that lots of post-prod should detract from an images overall value, as this is a skill too. If the producer of an image wanted the final picture to look a certain way but used a software package to do so then so what. As far as art goes then using the tools, skills and knowhow to get what you want is not a bad thing.
That said, the smart alec that can churn out perfect images deserve recognition of this too.
am i getting splinters in my arse?
That said, the smart alec that can churn out perfect images deserve recognition of this too.
am i getting splinters in my arse?
Both would be great but concentrating too much on the technical can blow the creativity sometimes.
Quote:Both would be great but concentrating too much on the technical can blow the creativity sometimes.
(For the second time this evening...)
Amen.
Quote:Which is more important/interesting
Depends what for.
Ordinarily, probably the poor quality more thought provoking image.
If filling a blank space on the wall, the one that matches the decor - especially if its a bland, technically good, decorative image that doesn't need thinking about.
LOL!!!
LCD picture frames, built in audio, courtesy Trotter Enterprises - any tune you like, so long as its Jingle Bells - dead classy.
interesting views,for me personally i feel wallpaper is something you put on the wall not to look at as supermarket muzak is not something you listen to,it's all background blah blah,photography as art of any kind is attention seeking in nature,technically great wallpaper is still wp and is in your periphiral vision as you watch tv,great art is in place of the tv.
