>> |
Anonymous
>>120470 >>119992 This is an interesting comparison. The former is a copy of the latter, but technically superior. It is in sharp focus, has no grain, more detail, etc, but it sucks in comparison. It's a boring to look at, the image has no flow or balance to it, and it lacks the dynamic element of Cartier-Bresson's. One can look at Cartier-Bresson's photo many times and still find something interesting, whereas a passing glance is all that's necessary to see all that the copy has to offer. This is the difference between a photographer who is concerned more with the technical aspect than the compositional aspect, the difference between a novice and a master.
|