>>3803822The camera is merely amplifying some traits of what's in front of it. Without the tear gas it wouldn't work. And without being at the right place it wouldn't work either, go back a few yards and maybe the illusion goes away. But that's a good example of doing things in-camera to amplify something.
>>3803833Based. I used the quote from Nightcrawler because it shows precisely my point. He drags the body to get the pefect shot that will get people glued to the screen.
>>3803927>You need to think about your settings and experiment for artsy stuff.You do, but most of what you need to do is still in front of the camera or altering what's in front of it (flashes, fog, etc). Some of it can be replaced to a certain point in post. In the camera you basically control exposure and depth of field, important things but minor in the grand scheme. If you get them perfect and the scene is mediocre, the photo will be mediocre. If the scene is memorable, the photo will be good as long as those parameters are in the ballpark. Just don't half-ass the background blur, either have good blur or don't have it at all. Barely-out-of-focus backgrounds are distracting.
>Taking pics of some syrian kid dying isn't art, it's journalism.It would be journalism if it weren't staged, they moved the body to create a more striking picture. If anything, it's propaganda. And propaganda is art.
Like the Aleppo kid in the ambulance. You see the video and it paints a completely different picture.
