File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/index.html

A lot of good things to learn, good sir.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
Why does it seem like ALL photography back in the day was instant art. I know they didn't have a choice but to shoot black and white but what is it about us that makes us think that old photos = great. Kinda like that thread ages ago about someone who found a lot of old slides of snapshots.
>> Anonymous
yeah, I feel that same thing a lot of times in this website... there is a lot of bad composed photos, uninteresting snapshots and all that stuff, but they still call it Masters of Photography...

I think that way ago, everyone who had the guts to take pictures was a master
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>289349
Another really good resource: The History of Photography Podcast. http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/

Puts a lot of the faggotry here in perspective when you can look back at how far we've come. "HDR is a really annoying fad" gets amusing when you realize that early glass-plate photographers were using basically the same techniques as HDR to overcome the limitations of their medium.

>>289351
>Why does it seem like ALL photography back in the day was instant art.
A couple reasons. First and foremost, you don't *see* "ALL" photography from back in the day. You see the 10% or so that was good enough that people still keep it around today.

Second, there was a much, much higher bar for photography back then, so a lot fewer people who sucked at it were willing to put in the effort to keep going.

Finally, there's the originality aspect. If you're looking at, say, HCB's stuff and thinking to yourself "This is all just boring, cliche street photography", you should keep in mind that when he shot it, it *wasn't* cliche, it's just that so many people have copied him over the years that it might seem that way.
>> Anonymous
Why should I see it? There are no HDRs.
>> Anonymous
Any other good photography sites like that?
>> Anonymous
>>289534
deviantart.com
>> Anonymous
>>289543

6/10