> I agree, to an extent, Ken, but the fact that you do that yourself should
> not detract from an image's value.
Ah, but then you have to examine the mindset behind the photo. I
produce these same types of images when I'm in "stock photography
mode". It's not too different than when I'm in "wedding photography
mode" or "portrait photography mode". I have seen some awesome
portrait photos (and taken one or two myself), but almost without
exception, portrait photography is formulaic.
> Apart from the cliché ones, the others that turned me off were those that
> looked way too risky to be sensible. The balloon over the iceberg is one,
> as is the daft one of the couple at the lava flow.
Well, we don't have a good idea of scale and distance. It could have
been a mile from the iceberg. As to risky? This from a fighter jockey?
;)
AG
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|