>>3747189You and I will never see eye to eye because, to be very frank, you probably do not have very good taste.
Wow, well you will never now, but most people here 100% know that you have terrible taste, your 'Art' is a bad joke
>Even if you manage to create a technically accurate shot, (which you have not yet demonstrated) if the subject matter is of no or limited interest, why bother sharing it?The fact you think "technically accurate" is even a thing tells me all I need to know about how inexperienced you are with the ~artform~ of photography. You're still in the stages of insecurity about your settings, you haven't yet begun to think in terms of theme, narrative, geometry, abstraction, or intent.
No, Jamie what I am stating is you are so inexperienced you do not know how to use your device to capture your vision, being creative does not mean being technically inept.
Likewise, a technically incorrect photo may have merit. but you cannot achieve either.
Let me demonstrate, via the magic of EXIF data
>>3747067Why when shooting a landscape why would you select, or allow the following, is the building or tree going to run away>>>>?????
AV mode, not M, sure ok
f5.6 > little low DOF, but maybe
Iso 800>> why, do you not like quality?
1/4000 of a second> REALLY, you love shit image quality???
Flash on > WHY??
>>3746931Manual here but;
iso 800 > AGAIN WHY??
1/2500 > Again why??
Flash on?? WHY??
Oh but wait here is faithful doggo, who actually capable of moving, what setting shall i use??
AV? for a moving subject
iso 800 > why?
@ 1/500 for the dog, but 1/4000th for the tree? hahaha!
Result = Blurry OOF mess, Flash still on, Feet chopped off.
Tell me more about how this is artistic, please?
Pretty sure you are so retarded you do not even understand the exposure triangle, tell everyone more how art stuff and photography works.
