</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ross @ Jan 15 2003, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If anyone with a 30 megapixel point and shoot can snap well exposed images and make vibrant ink jet prints all within a few minutes, what will this mean for photography as an artform? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
But is that art? I know well exposed is important but what matters is what the artist wanted. What might be considered a badly exposed photo from a techincal standpoint might be good art.
I spent a few minutes looking at the photos of one person over at that place. All the comments went something like badly exposed. Crop out the overly bright sky. Etc etc. Now honestly they were right but let me describe the picture. An older couple [you can't tell how old. The real serious problem is the underexposed shadows-)] are walking towards the camera. They are walking on a wooded path. Behind them is a large bush or small tree. The tree is lit up I guess by the rising sun. The section above it is also fairly bright. If it had been done better what it would have said to me is an older couple refusing to surrender to the white light at the end of the tunnel.
All I'm trying to say it's not the techincal that really matters. It's the image and the feeling that's created. What you're talking about are just snapshots. Nothing wrong with that but it's not usually art. Perfect technique is important to have but it's not what makes something good.