>>3283745i really meant it when I said vapid as i didn't even read the post properly, i thought he was talking about ur scans and the tones.
i failed to see the context it was presented in which i think is probably what elevates photographs from snaps to art.
right, my response was a visceral one from the small photos i saw on my phone screen.
also i really like this photo (lol)
>>3283747i still don't find it compelling even with that information. call me a retard but a beautiful composition can be recited in a manner that i find "boring"
most people seem to know who you are - are you professional? do you set out to take photos or do you just carry your camera through your life?
