Of course not. First of all, "professional" just means you're a "hired gun" that supplies specific photos for clients (a.k.a. "commercial" photography) and relatively few of them routinely create truly "great" images from an artistic standpoint, which is fine, as they're merely trying to meet the client's expectations to get paid, not create portfolio pieces. Although there were times when Ansel did commercial work to pay the bills, he considered himself to be an amateur, which simply means he shot what he wanted to shoot. I wouldn't have it any other way! Re composition, it's good to know the "rules" just so you can ignore them! Wasting time thinking about "how" to get the shot often results in a lesser result than relying on experienced-based instinct (and knowing whatever gear you have well enough to operate it by feel). I agree with your approach of avoiding the "obvious" perspective, as that's a great way to simply replicate what others have done (boor-ing!). I disagree that an easily-identifiable subject is necessary to produce a compelling image. Much of my favorite abstract work (mine and other's) not only lacks a clear subject, but it's not necessarily obvious what the "subject matter" is! Emotional/thought-provoking impact is in the eye/mind of the beholder and I'm often "moved" simply by an interesting texture or the way certain visual elements interact. To quote Ansel (of course), "There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer," and if something appeals to you, chances are it will appeal to others. Nice work from Iceland, BtW. What an interesting and amazing place. I subscribed a while back and it's nice to have your voice out there. I'm much more drawn to the philosophical aspects of artmaking than the technical ones.
Thanks again for watching and commenting. Yes, I'm aware that you're a loyal watcher and commenter. I'm old and feeble at times, but I do remember when people are kind enough to watch more than one video and comment on a regular basis. I do have a few like yourself. I guess we could debate what "professional" really means, though I'm not sure it's that important. There are plenty of landscape photographers who would consider themselves to be a professional and aren't specifically a "hired gun". As far an obvious subject, I would agree with you to some extent. However, maybe an abstract is in itself the subject. Who knows. Again, another debate that we can all have. I still believe we can all have our opinions as to what is a good image or not. There is a very good photographer here on RUclips is makes unique images that suits his style, yet I'm not a particular fan of that style. Does that make it a bad image, for sure not. On it's face he makes wonderful images, but not something I would want on my wall. Anyway, I do enjoy our chats and let's keep em going. Thanks again.
Take care of yourself, Mike, nature is waiting for you to share its beauty through your photography. Love your casual, professional videos.
Awe thanks Diane. I hope all is with you.
Of course not. First of all, "professional" just means you're a "hired gun" that supplies specific photos for clients (a.k.a. "commercial" photography) and relatively few of them routinely create truly "great" images from an artistic standpoint, which is fine, as they're merely trying to meet the client's expectations to get paid, not create portfolio pieces. Although there were times when Ansel did commercial work to pay the bills, he considered himself to be an amateur, which simply means he shot what he wanted to shoot. I wouldn't have it any other way!
Re composition, it's good to know the "rules" just so you can ignore them! Wasting time thinking about "how" to get the shot often results in a lesser result than relying on experienced-based instinct (and knowing whatever gear you have well enough to operate it by feel). I agree with your approach of avoiding the "obvious" perspective, as that's a great way to simply replicate what others have done (boor-ing!).
I disagree that an easily-identifiable subject is necessary to produce a compelling image. Much of my favorite abstract work (mine and other's) not only lacks a clear subject, but it's not necessarily obvious what the "subject matter" is! Emotional/thought-provoking impact is in the eye/mind of the beholder and I'm often "moved" simply by an interesting texture or the way certain visual elements interact. To quote Ansel (of course), "There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer," and if something appeals to you, chances are it will appeal to others.
Nice work from Iceland, BtW. What an interesting and amazing place. I subscribed a while back and it's nice to have your voice out there. I'm much more drawn to the philosophical aspects of artmaking than the technical ones.
Thanks again for watching and commenting. Yes, I'm aware that you're a loyal watcher and commenter. I'm old and feeble at times, but I do remember when people are kind enough to watch more than one video and comment on a regular basis. I do have a few like yourself. I guess we could debate what "professional" really means, though I'm not sure it's that important. There are plenty of landscape photographers who would consider themselves to be a professional and aren't specifically a "hired gun".
As far an obvious subject, I would agree with you to some extent. However, maybe an abstract is in itself the subject. Who knows. Again, another debate that we can all have. I still believe we can all have our opinions as to what is a good image or not. There is a very good photographer here on RUclips is makes unique images that suits his style, yet I'm not a particular fan of that style. Does that make it a bad image, for sure not. On it's face he makes wonderful images, but not something I would want on my wall. Anyway, I do enjoy our chats and let's keep em going.
Thanks again.