You’ve given me a number of good tips over the years. Today I’m going to return the favor. Your photo is slightly crooked which makes the lamp look as if it is leaning. If you will make the horizontal lines erm, horizontal all will be good. And I bet there’s a future post to tell others how easy it is to do so in Photos.
The angle is intentional.
You’ve given me a number of good tips over the years. Today I’m going to return the favor. Your photo is slightly crooked which makes the lamp look as if it is leaning. If you will make the horizontal lines erm, horizontal all will be good. And I bet there’s a future post to tell others how easy it is to do so in Photos.
The angle is intentional.
Aiming for Eggleston territory, are we? 🙂 I like it.
Spending a lot of time looking at his work recently has inspired me to think less about subjects and more about light, lines, shapes, and colors. I fully applaud his “democratic” photography, though I understand that most people will find it boring.
I took a “History of Photography” class in another lifetime and it wasn’t until we got to Eggleston (in the “modern” era) that things really clicked for me. His work has a kind of casualness to it which is SO much harder to achieve than you’d think. I’m only familiar with his older work. I wonder if he’s stuck to film over the years or if he ever transitioned to digital.
Watch this documentary; it’s fascinating:
He still shoots film (though I don’t know how much he actually shoots any more), and prints everything using dye transfer printing, which is what gives his photos such saturated colors. He never crops, and never edits. And he only ever shoots one picture of a subject (though sometimes he uses multiple angles).
I agree, that his photos are truculent; they look simple, but they’re not. He explains that he considers them abstracts, and looks at them upside down, saying they should work like that as well. If you look closely at some of his photos, ignoring what you’re seeing – the objects in the frame – this makes sense. He has an astounding eye.
If you have some spare cash, this is worth the cost:
Aiming for Eggleston territory, are we? 🙂 I like it.
Spending a lot of time looking at his work recently has inspired me to think less about subjects and more about light, lines, shapes, and colors. I fully applaud his “democratic” photography, though I understand that most people will find it boring.
I took a “History of Photography” class in another lifetime and it wasn’t until we got to Eggleston (in the “modern” era) that things really clicked for me. His work has a kind of casualness to it which is SO much harder to achieve than you’d think. I’m only familiar with his older work. I wonder if he’s stuck to film over the years or if he ever transitioned to digital.
Watch this documentary; it’s fascinating:
He still shoots film (though I don’t know how much he actually shoots any more), and prints everything using dye transfer printing, which is what gives his photos such saturated colors. He never crops, and never edits. And he only ever shoots one picture of a subject (though sometimes he uses multiple angles).
I agree, that his photos are truculent; they look simple, but they’re not. He explains that he considers them abstracts, and looks at them upside down, saying they should work like that as well. If you look closely at some of his photos, ignoring what you’re seeing – the objects in the frame – this makes sense. He has an astounding eye.
If you have some spare cash, this is worth the cost:
You’ve given me a number of good tips over the years. Today I’m going to return the favor. Your photo is slightly crooked which makes the lamp look as if it is leaning. If you will make the horizontal lines erm, horizontal all will be good. And I bet there’s a future post to tell others how easy it is to do so in Photos.
The angle is intentional.
You’ve given me a number of good tips over the years. Today I’m going to return the favor. Your photo is slightly crooked which makes the lamp look as if it is leaning. If you will make the horizontal lines erm, horizontal all will be good. And I bet there’s a future post to tell others how easy it is to do so in Photos.
The angle is intentional.
Aiming for Eggleston territory, are we? 🙂 I like it.
Spending a lot of time looking at his work recently has inspired me to think less about subjects and more about light, lines, shapes, and colors. I fully applaud his “democratic” photography, though I understand that most people will find it boring.
I took a “History of Photography” class in another lifetime and it wasn’t until we got to Eggleston (in the “modern” era) that things really clicked for me. His work has a kind of casualness to it which is SO much harder to achieve than you’d think. I’m only familiar with his older work. I wonder if he’s stuck to film over the years or if he ever transitioned to digital.
Watch this documentary; it’s fascinating:
He still shoots film (though I don’t know how much he actually shoots any more), and prints everything using dye transfer printing, which is what gives his photos such saturated colors. He never crops, and never edits. And he only ever shoots one picture of a subject (though sometimes he uses multiple angles).
I agree, that his photos are truculent; they look simple, but they’re not. He explains that he considers them abstracts, and looks at them upside down, saying they should work like that as well. If you look closely at some of his photos, ignoring what you’re seeing – the objects in the frame – this makes sense. He has an astounding eye.
If you have some spare cash, this is worth the cost:
https://www.kirkville.com/photo-book-review-los-alamos-revisited-by-william-eggleston/
Aiming for Eggleston territory, are we? 🙂 I like it.
Spending a lot of time looking at his work recently has inspired me to think less about subjects and more about light, lines, shapes, and colors. I fully applaud his “democratic” photography, though I understand that most people will find it boring.
I took a “History of Photography” class in another lifetime and it wasn’t until we got to Eggleston (in the “modern” era) that things really clicked for me. His work has a kind of casualness to it which is SO much harder to achieve than you’d think. I’m only familiar with his older work. I wonder if he’s stuck to film over the years or if he ever transitioned to digital.
Watch this documentary; it’s fascinating:
He still shoots film (though I don’t know how much he actually shoots any more), and prints everything using dye transfer printing, which is what gives his photos such saturated colors. He never crops, and never edits. And he only ever shoots one picture of a subject (though sometimes he uses multiple angles).
I agree, that his photos are truculent; they look simple, but they’re not. He explains that he considers them abstracts, and looks at them upside down, saying they should work like that as well. If you look closely at some of his photos, ignoring what you’re seeing – the objects in the frame – this makes sense. He has an astounding eye.
If you have some spare cash, this is worth the cost:
https://www.kirkville.com/photo-book-review-los-alamos-revisited-by-william-eggleston/