>> |
Anonymous
>>235972 Subjectivity. It's hard to describe.
I personally see the colors/contrast in an image first and then start to pick out shapes afterwards. If the photo is pretty conventional, then I criticize the approach to the subject more rather than the subject. If both however are in my taste, then I will like it. Though a bad photo can be seemingly "interesting" for a moment.
I usually find that most things have been done before, so it's not like you will see anything new. It's not "seen one, seen them all." The question should be whether or not this is done well and could it have been done better under the same conditions? I dislike comments that say "I wish that ______ wasn't there" when there isn't any possible way to avoid getting it in frame along with the subject. However, if it could have been avoided, then it would be valid. In addition, fads come and go, like lomography, vignetting, light writing, etc, It's interesting to see what comes out of these cultural endeavors. But most of the time, it's done poorly. Essentially they are revisits to different aspects of photography and remind you that this particular tool can be used or exploited. Whether you use it or not is up to you. Sometimes we have to work outside our norms to get a better perspective even if conforming to a fad.
|