Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: BobDavid on March 05, 2018, 07:38:45 pm
-
Conoco on the high plains, a few miles east of the Rockies...
-
Conoco on the high plains, a few miles east of the Rockies...
Monumental...It's American everywhere.
Peter
-
Monumental...It's American everywhere.
Peter
yup
-
It's a nice combination of symmetry and color. I find it's a lot easier to shoot at night than in the daytime.
Kent in SD
-
Definitely one of your best gas stations yet.
-
Monumental...It's American everywhere.
Peter
+1
Clean composition, clean colors, good separation, recognisable subject, distinctive style. Your acing it, Bob.
(I'm still searching for good Hollandia to do a similar shot here)
-
Definitely one of your best gas stations yet.
Agreed, and this one is a beaut.
-
Bob, an interesting and probably important point: I look at that picture and recognize immediately that it's a BobDavid. It's just as recognizable as a Cartier-Bresson or a Robert Frank or a Garry Winogrand. Very few artists achieve that kind of recognizability.
-
Bob, an interesting and probably important point: I look at that picture and recognize immediately that it's a BobDavid. It's just as recognizable as a Cartier-Bresson or a Robert Frank or a Garry Winogrand. Very few artists achieve that kind of recognizability.
Oh come on Russ, those photographers outclass my work by miles. But, I graciously accept the compliment!
-
I graciously accept the compliment!
You'd better!
But I'm not comparing quality. That's a call shot by the observer -- whether or not a picture is good or bad. I covered that point in The Horror of Technical Excellence (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TechnicalExcellence.htm). What I'm talking about is recognizability -- recognizing that a particular picture is a "whatever." You can look at a picture and say, "It's a Picasso," or you can look at a picture and say, "It's a Renoir." I pretty much can look at a picture and say "It's a BobDavid." I suspect a lot of others on here would agree. I think that's a pretty important quality for any artist. Now, I'm not saying that recognizability means it's always good. Take Eddie Guest's "poetry" as an example of what I mean. It's certainly recognizable, but . . .
-
You should visit a Buc-ee's in Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buc-ee's
-
You should visit a Buc-ee's in Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buc-ee's
If I make it down to Texas, I'll definitely scope out Buc-ee's.
-
You'd better!
But I'm not comparing quality. That's a call shot by the observer -- whether or not a picture is good or bad. I covered that point in The Horror of Technical Excellence (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TechnicalExcellence.htm). What I'm talking about is recognizability -- recognizing that a particular picture is a "whatever." You can look at a picture and say, "It's a Picasso," or you can look at a picture and say, "It's a Renoir." I pretty much can look at a picture and say "It's a BobDavid." I suspect a lot of others on here would agree. I think that's a pretty important quality for any artist. Now, I'm not saying that recognizability means it's always good. Take Eddie Guest's "poetry" as an example of what I mean. It's certainly recognizable, but . . .
Russ is absolutely right, Bob. I share his joy at seeing a new BobDavid and knowing instantly that it is, indeed, a BobDavid.
And, incidentally, they're pretty good, too. :D
Eric
-
+1