joannahaha

<p>

 

<p>I did a degree in Drawing and Applied Art. This was crucial for me to 'see' more. I learnt about different artist and stopped myself using a camera for a whole year. What a difference it made to me. When I picked up my cameras again it was like seeing the word in a different light. I had learned and read about all aspects of art, from 3D to life drawing, and also art theory, Baudrillard, Sontag and John Berger had massive influence on my how I see things. </p>

 

 

</p>

<p>I was banned from another photographic site for speaking my mind against camera owners who use photographic websites to validate their degrading offensive portrayals of women. I only wanted to ask him' WHY ' and if he was an artist, photographer or misogynistic piece of animal excrement? <br>

I was told to put up and shut up basically. The ' Birds ' and ' Tarts ' are not offensive! Of course I did not put and shut up, I went kicking and screaming. Anyway I am now here annoying you all with my bolshi ways. <br>

So where were we? Yeah I still hate rules and love freedom of speech. </p>

<p> I was starting to worry you have a personal vendetta against me John? I just see time and time again perfectly good shots being rejected by amateurs and enthusiasts for fear of the ' rules '. </p>

<p>Thanks Alan. Some photographers get more of a thrill about their equipment and gadgets that accompany cameras than the actual image itself. Many photographers drag a shot into photoshop and check for correctness before they make a judgement on the shot. I know this is crucial for commercial photographers and advertisers. <br>

I just do not work this way, even if I see a shot that is out of focus or at the wrong speed, sometimes it is then that you find real gems. The shots that photographs discard are the ones I love. I do not think it is a crime to be out of focus or to chop limbs off, or heads. Look at Richard Billingham his shots of his dysfunctional family as he was growing up are sublime, but would have the technically correct reeling in horror. Why? </p>

<p>Thanks Alan. Some photographers get more of a thrill about their equipment and gadgets that accompany cameras than the actual image itself. Many photographers drag a shot into photoshop and check for correctness before they make a judgement on the shot. I know this is crucial for commercial photographers and advertisers. <br>

I just do not work this way, even if I see a shot that is out of focus or at the wrong speed, sometimes it is then that you find real gems. The shots that photographs discard are the ones I love. I do not think it is a crime to be out of focus or to chop limbs off, or heads. Look at Richard Billingham his shots of his dysfunctional family as he was growing up are sublime, but would have the technically correct reeling in horror. Why? </p>

<p>Sorry not insulting any Kingfisher photographers at all. JJ seems to think I am. It was a metaphor. But I will retract.<br>

I think your " protest too much " comment should be retraced though, you don't know me? </p>

<p>I am very much an artist with a camera. I get constantly critiqued about not being technically correct and try and apply all these rules to my work. I just laugh and ignore. I am hardly ever out of work and am hired for my originality and uniqueness. It does get tiresome having to explain my way of working to an anal tog who shoots kingfisher for a living with photoshop as a back up!</p>