>> |
Anonymous File :-(, x)
>>146445
-just + sometimes.
eggleston is king, his photos wouldn't be shit in black and white, they'd just be different. maybe worse, but not even halfway to shit.
his photos are good for a number of reasons, so are bresson's. either could have done amazing colour or black and white work, they chose their medium and stuck with it because it worked.
i'm not discounting an artist's intuition, i just think that sometimes with digital photography (which isn't better or worse than film), people take a bunch of boring photos and photoshop the hell out of them.
it's the same as some people i know using film who take awful photos and take them into the darkroom and automatically put a five filter on it, or solarize it or some shit, without considering the value of editing in camera.
i think the OP's photos stand alone as strictly black and white photos, and i think that tinting is ridiculous looking, always.
but, like i said, it's just my opinion.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0PhotographerWilliam EgglestonImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2003:10:09 15:13:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height400Unique Image IDc7a3155ab102b7e3939e0436af69f2d5
|