Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
I beg to differ, however, on food looking similar throughout the country.
Here's a picture I took of a chicken breast salad in a neighboring state at the end of 2019; before clicking the link, think of the image you might have of a chicken breast salad, and then click the link
Aren't you like, 'WTF??' Look what they did to the chicken breast. And cheddar cheese?? What the hell?!? It's a mess.
I named this thread "My Los Ángeles." I post pictures of what I see in *MY* Los Ángeles. The food. The people. The landscapes. The art. Things I love and appreciate and connect with in my county. Things that stimulate my senses. My Los Ángeles.
|
Yea, comparing & contrasting food like that I can get into....that provides a very interesting full context.
Your format of pics is actually the rule, not the exception, in most of the pictorial books I've seen at Barnes & Noble or other book stores. Professional photographers tend to like showing ppl or things that are animate & more personal vs mainly the inanimate & mainly public.
I tend to be the other way around....mainly because close ups of ppl pr things like food, inside of stores, don't allow me to as easily identify a place, inc LA. But I get why showing ppl in a setting is preferred by photographers, for the same reason that an empty area is less lively than a place bustling with pedestrians or shoppers.
In the yrs I've been going to dtla, I always come away feeling one way after seeing a lot of ppl out & about....by contrast, when I've gone there & the streets & sidewalks are sort of dead, I feel less good about dt.
But I'm so interested in seeing as many pics of dt & LA as possible, in terms of THE place, that when photos don't show that, I become disappointed. But I just have a different take on what images best reflect a city compared with what many professional photographers prefer.