I don't think a photograph has to necessarily be better than reality to be good. Some photographs are very fascinating because they depict reality as is. They capture a moment in time, just a fragment of a second, that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. They preserve something otherwise lost. So I think really any kind of photograph has the right to be called good or accomplished. Not all, of course, as many are just snaps and that's just fine, but in the end it really depends on the individual picture.
snaps are ok. and most photos are ok. but just that.. ok. in my experience, the "camera" takes away so much.. strips of a dimension, of the surroundings, the ambience, much of the feeling of vitality, etc. if i look at most of the pictures i took, they simply pale in comparison to the actual feeling of being there, of directly perceiving it through my own senses. but if in spite of all that a shot catches your attention, moves you somehow, makes you feel something even if you have no personal tie to the object.. then there's something superfluous, something that had not been apparent and got revealed somewhere halfway between the lens and the memorycard. or that's how i see it, anyways..
Comments 2
Reply
in my experience, the "camera" takes away so much.. strips of a dimension, of the surroundings, the ambience, much of the feeling of vitality, etc.
if i look at most of the pictures i took, they simply pale in comparison to the actual feeling of being there, of directly perceiving it through my own senses.
but if in spite of all that a shot catches your attention, moves you somehow, makes you feel something even if you have no personal tie to the object.. then there's something superfluous, something that had not been apparent and got revealed somewhere halfway between the lens and the memorycard.
or that's how i see it, anyways..
Reply
Leave a comment