Art is always in the eye of the beholder or as a wag suggests, the beer holder. One mans art is another man's junk. As for shooting on program or automatic, does it make a picture more or less interesting if you used a program mode? For me, no. Let's go a step further. Todays cameras have excellent light metering. If you use that rather than a light meter, are you less of a photographer?
What burns you about the gentleman's work? That it might not be technically perfect or that he is making money from it ? It's kind of like the impressionist movement versus the realist. Up close, the realist's picture gives sense of detail while the impressionists seems just a jumble of color, yet both can exhibit beauty and convey the thought the artist had in mind. While some of the work you linked may not be my favorite technically, I generally got what he was trying to get across.
Art is meant to move you, to stir something within you or to capture a moment in time as presented by the artist. This same idea is why Henry Ford had to start producing cars in colors other than black.
Without the best equipment, we're only as good as everyone with a phone.
I live near the Windy City a 1/2 hour
JeffreyKupiec wrote:
I live near the Windy City a 1/2 hour
If you're going to be downtown sometime, don't be a stranger.
And if you are in Lindenhurst don’t be a stranger
jakester69 wrote:
A real photographer is one who started with film and learned the rule of thirds, and to see the results one must learn
how to hone his craft in the darkroom through the development of film and printing of said photograph, by mastering the darkroom .Then one can move forward to digital photographry. Only then one can call themselve a
photographer. And, yes i've been at it for over 40 years .
This has got to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard. So you're saying that younger people, those who've had no contact with wet work, are not (and never can be) "a real photographer." Well, I also came of age in The Wet Ages, but am not so smug as to disparage those who didn't.
I started in High school with film & a photo enlarger
Every changes
PhotoSteve wrote:
Art is always in the eye of the beholder or as a wag suggests, the beer holder. One mans art is another man's junk. As for shooting on program or automatic, does it make a picture more or less interesting if you used a program mode? For me, no. Let's go a step further. Todays cameras have excellent light metering. If you use that rather than a light meter, are you less of a photographer?
What burns you about the gentleman's work? That it might not be technically perfect or that he is making money from it ? It's kind of like the impressionist movement versus the realist. Up close, the realist's picture gives sense of detail while the impressionists seems just a jumble of color, yet both can exhibit beauty and convey the thought the artist had in mind. While some of the work you linked may not be my favorite technically, I generally got what he was trying to get across.
Art is meant to move you, to stir something within you or to capture a moment in time as presented by the artist. This same idea is why Henry Ford had to start producing cars in colors other than black.
Art is always in the eye of the beholder or as a w... (
show quote)
I like much of what you say here, but "
Art is always in the eye of the beholder...."??? Does that mean if
you don't like a particular painting it's not art?
If you want to be the creative type, to be an artist, you have to be willing to buy a new camera.
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you're going to be downtown sometime, don't be a stranger.
I have to go back to Chicago to get some Portillo's italian beef.
Have several cameras & Lenes
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.