Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Actually I side with Rob on this one. All the images I have seen are what I would consider bland in that we have seen them a thousand times before. I know my rule of thirds and can readily apply the Golden Mean. This, however, does not make my photos interesting. I may well be showered with admiration from the snap shot crowd but, as they have trouble with focus and exposure, their standards are not high. I think the pictures are fine but bland; all well and truly done in the 40s, 50's and 60s. Is there anything wrong with this? Absolutely not, if Graham is happy, enjoying himself and learning more, then that is just fine by me. The good lord knows I think ill of my own photography. That is why I am largely silent on photo criticism but, in this case, Rob, a photographer and writer I do find very interesting, is getting hammered for telling it like it is. If you like this kind of photography, great, but do not pretend that it is cutting edge or even vaguely current. It is what it is: coverage of well trodden ground. Very few of us will break new ground or stretch the medium in any small or significant way. When I discovered I was not going to be the next (fill in your favourite photographer*), I got over it and carried on doing what I enjoy. When someone tells me my pictures are bland, I agree with them! John Collier * Clark, HCB, Gibson, Salgado, Goldin, Horenstein, etc On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 03:45 AM, Rob Appleby wrote: > My point was simply that there is a lack of intentionality in these > images, > to my eye. I wasn't advocating using tricks, but simply indicating that > there are various ways of signifying intentionality (including weather > and > light) and - as I said - clichéd tricks. Anyway, the consensus is > against me - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html