View Single Post
Old 06-10-2007   #3 (permalink)
brian.austin
Photocamel Master
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 7,080
brian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armorbrian.austin strides over the forum like a knight in shining armor
CamelKarma: 4737
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Does a great subject make an otherwise blah photo great?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit View Post
The subject matter has to be interesting, taking a perfectly executed shot with an uninteresting subject will hold very little interest for the viewer.
A great shot is one that is well taken with a subject that captivates the viewer, in reality you need both to make it a great shot.
I understand that part. The question, though, centered around a viewer's opinion of an interesting subject with an average or below average photo, technically speaking.

In other words, if the subject is interesting but the technique isn't very good, why do reviewers tend to think it's a great photo?
__________________
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas
brian.austin is offline   Reply With Quote