>>3873564>yeah, some of them are quite lamewould you like to elaborate? for instance I think
>>3873002 has a very powerful intensity to it. to way she's lit, how she seems so absorbed into her phone, the little human pictogram on her hat, personally it draws me in a lot more than for instance
>>3873001 which you seem to like better.
Imo
>>3873001 is a pretty boring shot. at least as the person who took it, sure it looks nice, but it wasn't a hard shot to make and I don't get as much energy from it as I get from the girl photo.
If you take
>>3873004>>3873008>>3873009for instance, every person in that shot have a different beverage. With the harsh lighting it evokes at least to me, some kind of oasis in the desert. These 3 characters stopping to rest and quenching their thirst. you have the lady with her wine, the hobo with his beer, and the young man with his soft drink. You could go further into it and make it a comment on how covid restrictions are forcing people to go outside to enjoy those moments that would normally happen inside, or just simply needing to go outside to see other humans.
Maybe I'm looking too much into it. Personally I like to think a shot should speak for itself, so I guess having to explain them probably means they're not that good. but at the same time art galleries always want you to explain your submissions.
food for thought.
interested to know what you think.
>>3873544>I think anon's problem with monochromatic pictures with a color sensor is that you get the disadvantages of demosaicing and other stuff in the way.honestly it bothers me a little too, I've seen what sensors can achieve once you remove the bayer matrix and it's quite impressive. I have plans one day to a conversion if I ever get my hands on a cheap camera to use as sacrifice. But I doubt anon thought about it this much. surely he would have mentioned it if it was the case.
