> + 1. Maybe we're just too critical of our own stuff. But then there's also an
> argument that something other than the clouds, say, something ground-based,
> anchors the clouds in such a way as to provide them a context they are
> otherwise missing. But that said, I think just the clouds themselves should
> be appreciated for their evocative nature. Maybe I'll follow Jim's lead and
> do more just-cloud pictures.
I've taken quite a few cloud-only shots through the years and for the
most part am pretty happy with them. As a stand-alone image, I don't
think they have much gumption, but as a set, I think they can rock.
Same thing with water pictures. I have some awesome water-only
pictures, but they need to be presented in a grouping of three or four
in order to make sense of them. The exception is one or two of them
which are extremely abstract.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|