>>2974048>>2974133Interesting shots for sure.
They clearly worked with what they had, for the most part. My only issues with them are that
>>2974048 seems a bit out of focus (or it could just be the higher ASA setting) and
>>2974133 may have looked better if he moved to the right and pointed more down. But maybe that wasn't possible.
Anyways my point really was that saying "fuck aesthetics" is like saying "nailing the technical parts isn't important, because every once in a great while out of hundreds of thousands of photos shot, some of them end up being of interesting subjects even if they aren't great aesthetically".
Photojournalists, and people who try to capture candid, fleeting moments will not always get the best light or the best composition, but their aim is to "get the shot anyways". I understand that. BUT, and this is a big but, they will still try their damn best to seek out the best light and the best compositions anyhow. They simply wouldn't have the jobs they do if they didn't have the ability to grasp technical excellence at all.
There are also people who shoot things like landscapes or architecture and they not only care about technical perfection a lot more, they have less excuses than others for technical flaws because they are usually working with static/slowly changing subject matter. And no, you can't just fire back with "but those genres of photography are boring", because that isn't "incontrovertible truth, it's heavily biased opinion. We're talking about photography as a whole, as well.
For what it's worth, here are some examples of what I find to be great photos - that is, photographs that utilize light, composition AND subject, not just the latter of the three.
