Why make a story with the fact that a picture was taken through a pinhole or not ? Either it works or not...
Personally, I don't like it at all (it does not say what it claims for).
Did I miss something? I thought it was simply a collection of the top photos from an annual contest. It just happens the top pick (grand prize) was taken with a pin hole camera. I did not see that there was a "story" over the fact. Not trying to stir up anything, just not sure what the angle is here.
Well I think it's cool ;)
This is the "story" that the artist apparently told the journalist. Sorry, I like mountains and I don't see any abandonment nor desolation in this picture (indeed, it's not sunny), plus I don't see how the use of a pinhole could help to yield this impression ?Quote:
To capture the "abandonment and desolation" she felt when faced with the "eerie perfection" of the Swiss Alps in 2007, Canadian photographer Nathalie Daoust turned to practically prehistoric photo techniques--a pinhole camera
Moreover, pinhole photography is not "prehistoric" ! not even "practically" :)
These days some people think B&W and film itsself is prehistoric. Point is, it's not the photographer's fault when a journalist beats up a story.
Furthermore, lens or pinhole, neither guarantees that you'll produce art. It's not even for the artist to judge.
If you like photography to regular painting or rendering, you wouldn't criticise anyone for using charcoal, with it's low res approach, is B&W too, nor if they use a limited colour palette, or even if they choose to not use perspective.
So what's the issue when someone enters a pinhole photo, which just happens to capture the mood in the eyes of the judges.
This is not the fault of the artist. I haven't even seen the work, but the debate is intriguing.
The bottom line is the image and IMHO this is a good one. The camera, irrespective of its nature, is just a tool. This photographer used their camera and skill to produce a very interesting image. Bill Barber