Good photography

[craig]

Again. I enjoy the time and thought put into the photos. Beautifully composed. Simply fascinated by the birds and their happy little environment. Clearly you feel differently, which is fine. She displays her work. Even wrote a wordy intro. Not a lot of explaining to be done after that. Basically just put out your best work. Sometimes they take the bait sometimes they do not. Photographers critiquing photographers above all should understand that.

Love & Bass

 

[crownlaurel]

I followed the link to Purdy Hicks site. Sustenance 87 was the only one that sparked any interest in me and I absolutely love watching birds. There's just too much going on to find a point of interest in the others shown from that series. I would not pay $10 to put one of those in my home. But then again I woudln't have 99% of Picasso's work in my home either, so maybe I'm like most of the folks on his thread and just don't get it. Maybe from a different angle or a closer shot or something but as is, most of these look like untouched snapshots.

Cosmos didn't really interest me either. I am not sure how she got the effect but any graphics software can do something similar for next to nothing. Maybe the actual prints look different and show more texture than a graphic program could, but still not something I'd be paying for.

The Falling series was more interesting and something I'd be more inclined to call art, though I had to look at landing twice to realize it wasn't a picture of maggots.


One of the reasons I decided to get more serious about photography is that we use a lot of images for powerpoints in our worhsip service and on our bulletins. It was getting to the point I had run out of preloaded stock images and free images and I wasn't willing to pay $15-20 (or more) for something I could do myself. I can produce mediocre images just as easily for free.