>> |
Anonymous
>>282439 >Dose it matter?
Yes. The camera a photographer uses is often an important part of their working methods. Besides that, different cameras can produce radically different results, e.g. a 8x10 view camera lends itself to the use of shallow depth of field, whereas a 1/1.8" sensor digicam lends itself to the use of extensive depth of field.
I think it would matter less with Eggleston than with some others, because his images don't have anything extraordinary in their technical aspects except OMG COLOR, or anything in their shooting conditions, but it still counts.
>Any point and shoot
For all we know, he preferred point and shoots and loved the Ricoh GR or the Leica Minilux. Maybe that was personally important to his photographic process.
>could take a photo of a shitty red ceiling and call it art...
Why do you think it's not art? You can have an opinion about it, but of course it's art. It's an attempt to communicate something through aesthetic form. That's art.
>am sure you can find plenty of examples over at DA
You can find plenty of pictures shot in black and white with ultrawide Canon zooms over on DA, too, but that doesn't mean the shits are Jim Nachtwey.
>overrated faggot is overrated
Make your case.
|