As the thread on composition begins to fizzle, I offer the above question. Of course there is no "correct" answer, but feel free to offer your thoughts. Insightful one word answers, flippant remarks, highbrow discourses all welcome. For some of us who are not particularly astute, it might help if any lack of seriousness is obvious!
Boobies.
Just thought I'd get that out of the way early.
If I like it, it’s good to me.
That’s kind of how I look at it as well. Some folks can wax eloquent about their photography, I wasn’t blessed with those genes…Originally Posted by BrianShaw
We should consider good for what and for whom? My sports photos don't interest Ansel Adams fanatics. Unfortunately, neither do most of my scenics. The few times there is some deep meaning, viewers often miss it. Other times they seek profundity in just a shot of a pretty subject. Maybe Dugan does have the right idea.
I'll offer one possible answer to my own question: It is made by Erik Larsen. I say this as a proud owner of two of his prints!
F--k if I know. I like to think I know one when I see one, except I dont agree with my own assessments from just a few years ago.
The frame, obviously.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Well Gregg, now you’ve lost all credibility!
Didn't have much to start with, so no great loss.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks