"Now I am quite prepared to be told that that my artistic taste sucks..."
I'm going to hold you to that John.
I'm actually not a fan of infrared photography - per say - but if something is pretty, to me - then its pretty (to me).
John, I can't really judge your artistic taste; as the say, art is in the eye of the beholder.
I think these images would look nice in an art gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sk1968/4941627048/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/infraredatelier/4759620196/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/infraredatelier/4758986027/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/infraredatelier/4757472461/
I think the main thing that keeps me from going "IR" is that you have to hack the sensor on your camera (if you want to truly get into this "art". I'm not much into half measures (lens filters instead of actually opening up and hacking your camera's guts). If I get into something its generally all the way or not at all.
I might say that IR photography, to me, is kind of like country music - a little goes a long way (translation: I can only handle just so much). But beautiful is beautiful - even if it's white trees with a green sky (we don't always have to color between the lines).
Will
--- In MyOlympus@yahoogroups.com, John <zitjopa@...> wrote:
>
> Please do not take this the wrong way as it is not my intention to criticise anyone or their work but, can someone please explain to me the attraction for IR photography. I may be the only person on the planet who just doesn't get it as it does nothing for me. What are people seeing in it that I don't? Now I am quite prepared to be told that that my artistic taste sucks but all I see when I look at an IR photo is an image with unrealistic colours and I think to myself that it would look much better as a normal photograph. I feel the same way about a lot of HDR photography as well unless the effect has been used very carefully and subtly. Is it just me?
>
> John
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment