Quote:
|
Originally Posted by njb42
Yes, his choice of subject matter and his sense of composition are excellent, but his exposure is often way off. I'm aware that he deliberately underexposes most of his shots to give them a moody atmosphere, but the result is often large portions of an image that are featureless black -- a big no-no in classic photography.
Look at the work of Ansel Adams, Georgia O'Keefe, or Weegee. All of them took very dramatic, often moody, photos, but they also managed to keep almost everything in the frame visible.
|
i disagree with you there, but not because i claim to know more about photography than you. i dare say that you've forgotten more about the subject than i'll ever know.
isn't art subjective? i mean, whether some of his photography adheres to the rules of classic photography or not is irrelevant. i think art
should be about pushing the boundaries. i'm not talking 'piss christ' here or anything, i mean some things should be subject to the boundaries of taste, but if no one had ever broken the 'rules' of art then photography as we know it wouldn't even be considered to be art.

ainting:
anyway .. just my two cents.
it's art, jim, but not as we know it .. :rainbow1: