On 11/27/2013 12:43 PM, Paul Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:39 PM, philippe.amard <philippe.amard@xxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> If I may intrude again ...
>>
>> this is not about "if was more like this or a little bit like that"
>> nor "is it up to the specs or not"
>>
>> I don't pay a damn about these questions.
>> I think photography is about what you want people to FEEL when they
>> view your take, the rest is just immaterial ...
As Paul says, I agree - but - if I can't get the image to look as I want it to,
be that highly realistic or abstracted
in whatever way, I can't present what I want people to react to emotionally.
>> Or does this belong to another thread? ;-)
> I agree, Philippe, but in this case, I'm not able to get the photo to the
> point where it shows what I really saw. That's the point I want to
> achieve. I completely agree that a photo, unless it's strict
> photojournalism, is an artistic expression, and I have no problem tweaking
> or using HDR (to a degree) to achieve that. But in this case, bad lighting
> and not enough time to go back and re-shoot left me with something that I'm
> not quite happy with yet.
And I was simply trying to show how one might overcome the problem. The image
itself does nothing for me, either as pure
image or through association with someone I've never heard of. Most images I
tinker with are ones that affect me in some
way. This one is pure technical response to questions to me.
Just The Facts Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|