jeka-mobile, Wonderful, let's have more variety, at least we can enjoy this fairytale land virtually!
Removich R., Thank you for your sincere interest. I've already posted a lot of photos of Patagonian mountains here. If you're not too lazy, take a look through my profile; maybe you'll find something you like. I'm just digging through my archives. Every now and then, I stumble across something.
Removich R., Thank you for your sincere interest. I've already posted a lot of photos of Patagonian vehicles here. If you're not too lazy, browse my profile; maybe you'll find something you like. I'm just digging through my archives. Every now and then, I stumble across something.
jeka-mobile, Yes, fine, of course I'll take a look and admire them...))
jeka-mobile, why is it so bad?! There's something interesting to see in your photo)))
Vera Ketova, Sorry, Vera, I misunderstood. Your comment can be interpreted in two ways. For example, there's an opinion that the more concise the photo, the better it is (I agree, by the way). And in contrast to this assertion, there are a huge number of superb photos with an abundance of detail that are fascinating to examine. There are also paradoxical shots, where photography pros ignore all the rules of composition and produce stunning results that would be considered trash by an average photographer. And, contrary to all standards, such photos sell for millions of dollars. Examples of this include Andreas Gursky's photos "Rhein" and "99 Cents."
Vera Ketova, Sorry, Vera, I misunderstood. Your comment can be interpreted in two ways. For example, there's an opinion that the more concise the photo, the better it is (I agree with this, by the way). And yet, in contrast to this assertion, there are countless superb photos with an abundance of detail that are fascinating to examine. There are also paradoxical shots, where photography pros ignore all the rules of composition and produce stunning images that would be considered trash from an average photographer. And, contrary to all standards, such photos sell for millions of dollars. Examples of this include Andreas Gursky's "Rhein" and "99 Cents."
jeka-mobile, and yes. I didn't take into account that human psychology is such that we think about the bad first, and only then about the good. Speaking of conciseness, this shot could have been turned into two. But you saw it THIS way and took exactly THIS photo. That's your perception, and I can either accept it as is or reject it. However, I like it, and I wrote about it. There's also the concept of a shot's value, and I don't mean the monetary equivalent. You still have to get there, and mountain landscapes are very challenging in that regard. I'm glad we understood each other)))
jeka-mobile, # that you think about the bad first, only then the good. #
Vera Ketova, that's right, you have to keep your ears open. And what's most interesting is not the criticism itself, but how it's presented and how it's perceived by the opponent. Unfortunately, the most common reaction is: I'm the author, so I see you don't know anything. Personally, I prefer constructive comments. They're what make me grow or allow me to look at my photo from a different perspective. Honey is the most harmful thing on photo resources. This has been discussed and discussed. Dizziness from success is a bad companion.
As for the view of Fitzroy from this vantage point, I took a lot of shots back then. With and without the sun, from above and from below. You can come up with many variations and crops. But here I decided to apply the principle "I'm the author, this is how I see it." Thanks again for the interesting discussion.
As for the view of Fitzroy from this vantage point, I took a lot of shots back then. With and without the sun, from above and from below. You can come up with many variations and crops. But here I decided to apply the principle "I'm the author, this is how I see it." Thanks again for the interesting discussion.