If there was a conclusion to this discussion all art would be very reptitive and dull. Of course it is subjective as art. But art (especially photoraphy) mirrors reality. And in reality beauty for example is objective.
Basically our tastes and preferences as humans follow a gaussian...
You mean something like this? This is just a 2 minute edit with gimp, but I believe looks better then the original.
What you need in B&W is more contrasts and a good composition. Your picture looks dull because it is all grey. You need the blacks and the whites!
That is an excellent question (s).
I don't think there is a black and white answer to that. In the end what makes a picture artistic is how much of himself the artist puts into it. And how much it interacts with the viewer.
Let's say we have to landscape photographies...In one a tourist...
I would say none. When you process an image, work on it, you manipulate it. The only difference is that sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it is right in your face. Both can work and both can be screwed up.
In the film days, if you developed images yourself there is also a lot of manipulation...
Hey guys,
just a quick question...Whats with the weird naming of the pictures? They are absolutely not chronologically named when shot...Is there a way to change it?
With that photo it is like in the fairy tale by Hans-Christian Anderson about the naked king.
True.
But there are also objective factors which make something beautiful (especially people) which are wired in our brains on a subconscious level. The artistic part is a conscious effort though...
Photographs made by the Hubble Space telescope are made with even better gear, higher resolution and are undeniably more artistic that that POS from the article.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.