| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-37034154
The photographer has used very out of date film and under/over exposed intentionally to create 'artistic' effects. Not only that but he has also run films through the camera twice??? Just to get 'effects'...
I think most of us here try to get faithful colours, in sharp images with nice saturation and definition free of colour casts and fuzziness in the subject.
Having looked though the images presented in the BBC item I don't think one would have survived my initial cull on inspecting my freshly exposed photographs.
Just because the BBC publicises the photographer and presents this as art, does it make these (in my view) crappy images acceptable? It may raise awareness of the location, so perhaps some proper, nice images could be made, but why could the photographer not have done a less controversial job himself? I accept less sharp, 'dreamy' images can be nice, but this seems to me to be intentionally sub standard. Should it be encouraged by national coverage? Malcolm's efforts with his steampunks are far better than this in my view?
____________________
Robert.