Scott Bourne gives his 2 cents on forums with critique sections filled with amateurs and rude people.
http://goingpro2010.com/?p=574
http://goingpro2010.com/?p=574
is a "good" photo supposed to have mass appeal?
sometimes photography reminds me of art i see in museums.
some supposedly famous ones (and presumably, technically superb) look like crap to me. will it be wrong to opine as such?
but i agree with the general idea. if you don't know what you're talking about, then don't talk so much!
is a "good" photo supposed to have mass appeal?
sometimes photography reminds me of art i see in museums.
some supposedly famous ones (and presumably, technically superb) look like crap to me. will it be wrong to opine as such?
but i agree with the general idea. if you don't know what you're talking about, then don't talk so much!
I think bottom line is one must be able to accept comments from pros, amatuers and non photographers be it good or bad and is always looking to improve.
Reason being simple, sometimes people sees what you don't sees.
Just a final note. Whatever i said, only applies if ppl are unbiased, and are open minded lot. Ppl tends to support ppl they know, tends to be mean to newcomers. That's the social aspect of ppl, which is unavoidable in itself.
But to say that....(in photography) ... whether a person has the right to criticize, only if that person has already achieved something in photography... is utter crap.
I wonder who are the buyers for the genre of photography.... wedding photography......