I'll keep posting even though I'm done clarifying my transition in photography. It will help me sorting out the production and tossing away the bad. Hopefully during that process I'll end up with an idea of packaging all of them in a nicer way. Keep watching. The next will be... next.
Was I the only one to see that woman? Could that shot advocate for invisible undies 2? Man ,these aftershot details!
Anyway. Could someone tell me what it is that drives army of photographers to go around shooting square format or not and capturing almost alike scenes with posts in mid-still-waters, one with a top flirting with the horizon(most of the time dividing the photograph into even halves!), sometimes replaced by boulders or a rock or a lone tree or a sun-beat walkway ending in water? Where does that homogeneity in image-making come from? What's the meaning of it? I know about repetition in photography but here... Are we all looking in the same directions now? And/Or is it simply that the shooting recipe's good for all but the scope of photographic objects is so narrow that many end up shooting the same postcard? ...I still ponder and I'm wondering...Anyone...?
Do you think it is really important, mandatory for a photographer to work series like we often see? I do understand that series are sometime needed to shape a view and guide viewers. I think what I want to know is whether it is mandatory in order to have your work considered successfully by gallery owners or collectors who want to know what your project is about. Couldn't it be only so subjective and sensation-driven that the project would be simply to gather good images? Because one can understand that depending on the nature and subject of your photography, series occurs or not. And building a body of work with a theme varies in time for photographers.
It's only after dealing with the colors and seeing past the colors that I laid eyes on her face and gazed at her expression. The tension in her eyes, moving forward.There might be more to tell but that's all for now.