File :-(, x, )
artsy fags Anonymous
Why do people take pictures like this?
I mean those deviantart'ed pictures of street poles, birds hanging on wires, boring bland skies, boring flowers, all b&w and with borders and those HORRIBLE signatures or "photo by joe" thingy...
Why do people do this and think of it as art?
I do not understand. srsly
I took this picture just for make fun of all of these dudes, don't bother to flame it
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:12:02 20:16:55Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height667RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> artsy fags? Anonymous
Its called straight photography. Just taking pictures of the object and whichever elements of design are there make it better. You may not like it but it is classified as a form of art. If you saw a painting of this would you still say the same thing?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
That scene and subject could have been quite a nice shot if it was done again properly. Potential was there. :P

You can get bad photos of any subject, really. Part of what makes the photographer still relevant even in the age of the "smile shutter". Some of them will get better with time. You've got to practice and learn from your mistakes.
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
     File :-(, x)
>>96934
Personally, for me, the same goes for paintings.
I also do not believe in 'classifying' things as art.

Also, if you're going to do a tribute shot, do it well OP.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:12:02 23:38:10Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width620Image Height420RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>96934

Imogen Cunningham's flower photographs, for instance, have some intangible quality to them this doesn't, in the same way Monet's paintings have something to them those cheap scenic landscapes some restaurants put up on their walls don't.

Anyone can learn how to set focus and exposure and to throw the subject on the rule of thirds grid. It takes more than that for the results to be art.
>> Anonymous
>>96936
op here

I LAWD so much at your version, much more proper than mine, congrats, srlsy

>>96945
Let me tell you to read it again, I'm not talking about fucking monet or some specialized flower photog, I'm talking about DA kids that do shitty photos, but then in bw, add some frigging nonsense filters, or b&w and post on deviant art like it was a masterpiece... read it properly jeez...
or take the example
>>96936
this is the perfect summarization of what I was talking about
there are borders, b&w cutout, diffused glow with blur, and he even called the picture "clockwork orange" this guy is a fucking genious about mocking DA
>> Anonymous
>>96934
I dunno
It depends, but if I think it was way too crude, I'd say the same thing...

BlackAdder told us something interesting...
You get to pratice stuff and you get better, when people don't pratice, and just go out doing what they think it's right and calling it "art" I feel an obligation to mock them, cause inprinting something into the world, and for it to be called art, imo needs some skills to get the job done, I hate crude stuff, you got to pratice, that's why I'd say the same to a painting, but the skill needed to take a picture and paint it's totally different right? after all, there's no auto mode in painting, you can't compare, a badly exposed and lit photo, is the same as a crude painting for me
>> Anonymous
>>96959
>>96945here. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the guy who said "it's straight photography, so it has to be art!" I indicated his post as what I was replying to.

I agree with you and can read just fine.
>> Anonymous
>>96968
In fact you can read, I'm the dumbass who didn't noticed the quoting =/
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>96929
Flower pictures like that look pretty. It takes a certain level of experience before you realize that closeup-of-a-flower-with-shallow-DoF isn't the amazing work of art you might think it is. It's just a phase that photographers go through.
>> Anonymous
>>96982
growth (c) BLACKADDER
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>96959
Thanks. It's fun to do.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
I think most people starting in photography goes through that, especially when they're in DA. It's a case of monkey-see, monkey-do.