fOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE.

[dingo]

I am guessing that most, if not all of my photos are snapshots. Such is the way I approach photography: little thought to composition beyond the frame, context is paramount, technical issues are put aside.

One thing I am not conscious of is FOCUS, other than drawing the attention of the viewer to the image and the relationships within. Success isn't always achieved, conformity is not considered, pleasure isn't necessary.

Cheap lenses, small sensors, slow shutter speeds, poor eyesight, lack of sharpening, all subtract from the end product (or adds).

The obsession with sharpness seems futile in the light of my own poor vision and the possibility that the viewer will pass by without noticing. Or perhaps its the only thing noticed, in which case I have failed.

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day mate

Truth be known - I would put 99% of photos from 99% of photographers as 'snapshots' ..... we see a sunrise / sunset / bird / insect / whatever and we grab an image of that item at that moment in time

Different for 'commercial' photographers - the wedding person / newspaper / magazine type who is tasked with a specific subject & time & location in order to fulfil a program of some sort

Thus I would say that you and your style of photography is perfect just the way it is. What changes things is your artistic interpretation of the subject - and each of us has differing interpretations of every subject in front of us. As my missus & I travel in the motorhome around Oz, one or other often shouts 'photo stop' and out we hop for 5 - 10 minutes to shoot a subject that has caught our interest. [ps- we each have a bright orange fluoro safety vest for roadside use]

When we return to the vehicle and swap cameras to see what each of us has done, every image is different. I go for long lens stuff; she likes wide-angle stuff. I go for atmospherics; she goes for flowers / trees etc

Your images above are great to my eyes ... I like the slow shutter usage and the capturing of movement in a way that traditional artists cannot achieve. The mono treatment rather than colour concentrates the mind on the subjects themselves and for me, it works a treat

Well done ... got any more?
Phil

[HansE]

Or... Pissed again!
Henri Cartier-Bresson took thousands of pictures. He said I have to take a good one occasionally Never saw one of his out of focus though. I might have some of those.

[dingo]

The nature of photography is mechanical. There will always be a physical limit to its achievements and capabilities. There is also a limit to our own capabilities and perceptions. I can acquire the 'best' camera and take the greatest care but if my results exceed my own capacity to see sharply, there is a great deal wasted, if not irrelevant. To overcome our limitations we can take another path.mthat of interpretation, as the painters realized and did with Impressionism. No longer are we bound by the search for perfection. Reality isn't feasible, so why pursue it. Comfort is found in the reflection the image provides of the photographers view of the world.