Kind of the opposite of 'found images' isn't it?
However, I submit that whether you are talking about 'snapshots', 'found
images', or 'intentional photographs' there are still good ones and bad ones;
and that a good 'snapshot' is better than a bad 'intentional photograph'.
How much effort you put into a photo does not seem to make much difference
whether a given photo is a good or a bad one, but the percentage of good photos
goes up a lot with that effort. There is no doubt at all that limited recording
ability improves ones photography. This is called 'editing in the viewfinder'.
However, one should note that in the real world of professional photography
editors feel that they should be the one to select the image not the
photographer (which brings up the question of why the hell they don't get out
from behind that desk and actually do something useful*).
*most media photographers think this way.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Cotty wrote:
On 14/6/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://wilson.dynu.net/dilution.asp
'Intentional photographs'
I like that.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.2/14 - Release Date: 6/14/2005
