>>3280758>>3280760>>3280762>>3280740What the hell is this trash? Why do we have to see 2157 photos of same weeds in a swamp?
If your photos can't stand as on their own without the colour gimmick, it means your compositions are weak and the subject matter uninteresting, captured in a boring way.
Let's see how a pic of yours would look as B&W, to judge your composition and "pictorial" treatment that you claim here
>>3280774. Mortensen, one of the pioneers of that school, shot striking pictorialist photos exclusively in B&W. Let's take a look then:
>pic relatedDo you see now? Can you finally comprehend why your photos are terribly weak and hold on the colour gimmick for dear life?
The problem with gimmicks is, once the fad is over, or if somebody had done it first, you end up with utterly forgettable and ill-composed photos.
You have zero chance of improving until you see clearly what everyone else knows: the King is naked. There's no deeper meaning or aesthetic or influence in your work other than the one you convinced yourself is there.
