http://www.pbase.com/clairabella/image/41755294
I find that when I see photos like this, they tend to be somewhat
striking, but I don't mentally retain them the way I do a good
"realistic" photo. Some of them seem to exist only to illustrate
a "shock" value. I was looking in a magazine the other day (Brit) and
it had landscape shots that were exaggerated in terms of colour and
contrast, violently so. To me, it defeats the purpose of having
a good landscape at your disposal, one that can be interesting
as it looks, rather than modified in a "scifi" kind of way.
But art is art I guess.
-Rich
Stacey - 27 May 2005 08:12 GMT
No.

Signature
Stacey
Alan Browne - 27 May 2005 14:36 GMT
> http://www.pbase.com/clairabella/image/41755294
>
> I find that when I see photos like this, they tend to be somewhat
> striking, but I don't mentally retain them the way I do a good
> "realistic" photo. Some of them seem to exist only to illustrate
Crap is what it is. Has nothing to do with the camera.

Signature
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
John Tucker - 27 May 2005 17:24 GMT
> http://www.pbase.com/clairabella/image/41755294
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> But art is art I guess.
> -Rich
It has its place in the world of art. However, I can understand how the
"purist" photographer wouldn't necessarily care for it. It isn't my
preferred type. To each his own.

Signature
John
Bubbabob - 27 May 2005 23:58 GMT
Some of it is boring and some of it is absolutely brilliant. Editing this
collection down with a somewhat stricter hand (eye?) would help a lot. I
think the artist has a lot of potential.