Great!

I'd also like to see the landscape in the window alongside the hero.

I'd like to...see the landscape in the window alongside the hero.

Kalju4ii, or, on the contrary, not see it, just the light, IMHO

Kalju4ii, or, conversely, not seeing, only the light. IMHO

ytrewq, that's also an option!

Kalju4ii,

A landscape in the window is completely unnecessary)) Even if it were possible, and it's impossible here - in this light.
ytrewq,

There's just enough light)) The signs don't get in the way, on the contrary.

There's actually light))

Yakov Trembovolsky meant just light. But of course you get the idea.)

The signs don't get in the way, quite the contrary.

And here I seem to have misunderstood something. But that's okay.

ytrewq,

Got it)

Yakov Trembovolsky,
I've been pacing around this photo for two days now, wondering, "Well, what did you see here?" No, I saw what you saw too, but I'm not really a fan of the technology... I'd like something more intimate... But now I'm thinking, "Let's do it this way: a rustic double-glazed window, and on the outside, it looks like a Windows screensaver."

PDG,

You ask a question and answer it yourself...))

Either the question isn't very good, or the answer is obvious.)

Either the question isn't very clear, or the answer is obvious.)

Yakov Trembovolsky,
You're wrong))) Third)))
I'd like to involve you in the life of the site)))) Oh, yes, I know what you're going to tell me.... But! You have more than just a rating, you have HF, and more than one (joke). Basically, you think, you know, you feel... And in a slightly different way... And I like that...

PDG,

I also thought you were just inviting me to a conversation.))

I'm not promising an active role in the life of the site.))

What's going on with the HF on the site?

I don't promise an active role in the site's life.))

Yakov Trembovolsky,
Yeah, come on, who needs that position? As for the HF, you're the one who's been a longtimer on the site, not me. )))
P.S. Anyway, I'd handle the editing a little differently.

PDG,

:))

What about processing?

It's simple. No processing.

PDG,

I skimmed through the "meaningful comments" on the site and understood a little of what you meant by HF.)
"Sobytiyev-to" on the site... By the way, I perceive the term "artistic photography" as a hackneyed cliché with blurred boundaries...) It's more of a swear word in intellectual circles.)

Yakov Trembovolsky,

The term "art photography" is a hackneyed cliché with blurred boundaries... It's more of a swear word in intellectual circles.]

You're intriguing! What do intellectuals say when they want to praise something? In a modern, cool way?
Very curious.

Valeriy Sviderskiy,

Just photography) and further, if you like) - attributive (conceptual, pictorial, etc., ad infinitum). "Artistic photography" is more of a "blonde" lexicon.

Although I'm not insisting: any cliché can be revived in a small group, if we can come to an agreement.))

And for meaningful "praise," the entire Russian (or any) language is at your disposal.)

Is HF "cool"? :))

Yakov Trembovolsky,

Any cliché can be revived in a small circle

Contraceptive photography!

PDG,

I perceive the term "artistic photography" as a hackneyed cliché with blurred boundaries...

Yakov Trembovolsky,

I couldn't articulate my feelings for a long time, but now I've found the right wording, and thank you for that... It's been floating around in these circles for a while now...

Yakov Trembovolsky,

"Art photography" is more from the lexicon of "blondes").

1. Yakov, whose lexicon are "feature film" and "fiction"? That of peroxide blondes (the next level of blondeness)?
2. How would you translate the term "Fine art photography" from contemporary European culture into Russian?

Andrew Kud,

With "fiction" and "feature film," things are quite simple: these terms were created based on technological principles and were not intended to be evaluative.
Feature films are documentaries.
Fiction is documentary prose, memoirs, etc.
The English language, which is by nature much more terminological, offers
Fiction - nonfiction. And nonfiction is actively entering the Russian language as a pair to "fiction." But no one tries to evaluate works by this principle. Bubennov or Tolstoy, Dontsova or Gazdanov - they are all "fiction." ))

Attempts in the Russian language to distinguish directorial, personal cinema have led to the development of the useful term "auteur cinema," while in English, Redford coined the term "independent film" at Sundance to contrast it with "commercial cinema" (a different reason for the same meaning of the term!)

You use the term "art photography" precisely as an evaluative category, and it's an unfortunate term. I've already written about this. It's impossible to call Alexander Veledimovich's works on this site "art photographs," if you have a sense of language. Rather, we should speak of "auteur photography." This is the generic hallmark of good photography. And then we can classify them by "karass."

Returning to the English language and terms. Attempts to use common Russian words to translate English terms are usually unsuccessful. The phrase "art photography" It's accrued with a host of negative connotations, and it's only in this sense that I mentioned blondes.

These stylistic features of the English language and English poetry were once recognized by Joseph Brodsky, who grafted English poetics onto the tree of Russian syllabo-tonic poetry, and thus arose Brodsky's highly unusual nominative poetics (this is a digression, but relevant).

These terms were created based on technological principles.

Yakov Trembovolsky,
The adjective "artistic" in the Russian language and according to Russian culture indicates that something belongs to art.
To bring technology into this, while remaining within the bounds of culture and common sense, is, of course, something out of the ordinary. Sorry.

Then we should rather talk about "author's photography."

If there is "author's photography," then there must also be "NON-author's"? Do you agree?
And then what do we do with this "author's" of yours? Where do we attach it if there is NOT A SINGLE photograph here that does not have an author?
The term "artistic photography" It's much more accurate and convenient, and as a result, it's the one used by the cultural community today.
All your efforts to discredit this term will fall short and will seem too naive for a cultured person.
Earlier in the feed, I provided a link to Anton Verkhovsky's book for Marina Glebova. It was reviewed by all the most prominent and authoritative figures in Russian photography today: photographers, critics, art historians, and philosophers. It contains an entire chapter dedicated specifically to ARTISTIC photography, explaining their consolidated position on the question of the difference between apples and oranges. And you've summed them all up as "blondes." Perhaps something in YOUR "conservatory" (c) needs to be corrected?

Andrew Kud,

I read your text... Yes.)

It's late.)

So, I'm an "uncultured person."

That's much nicer than "artistic photography."

P.S. The "cultural community" bit is powerful.))

Yakov Trembovolsky,
I give you arguments.
You respond with interjections.
And you were introduced to me as a thinking person.

Andrew Kud,

Who called me a "thinking man"?))
You've been deceived.

Your arguments aren't just arguments, they're a "soup set." )
All in a jumble.
You remind me of Gleb Kapustin.
From a story by Shukshin. )

Yakov Trembovolsky,
Excuse me, you're being as stubborn as a petulant schoolboy.
Do I really need to rub your nose in serious reference works on philosophy, art history, and cultural studies, where the legitimacy of the term "artistic photography" is beyond doubt? Are the academics, their constituents, blondes?
Come on, honestly!
This isn't serious at all.
What nonsense... It happens to everyone! Why are you stubborn?

Andrew Kud,

Here we go: off we go.))
It's all as expected.

References to academics and serious reference works...))
Reading is bad for you.

Yakov Trembovolsky,
and it's harmful for you NOT to read

Andrew Kud,

Funny.)

The word "artistic" exists. The word "photography" exists.
The term "artistic photography" exists and is, as I've already written, obscenely overused.
And in your understanding, it's also "squashed boots."

You want to select "artistic photographs" on the website? Who's stopping you?))
Everything that doesn't make it onto your list is non-artistic photography. They're lucky.)
I'm going to work. This conversation is over for me.

I'm going to work. This conversation is over for me.

Yakov Trembovolsky,
What else can you do?
But you asked for it. Sorry.

I'd venture to suggest that the word "artistic" comes from the word "artist." And an artist is more than just an author. An artist is an author who strives to actively understand and transform reality. This term conceals a significant layer of Russian culture. In the quest to be known as original, one can, of course, "ignore" it and even deny it. And even win some laurels from provincial girls in the preparatory department of a Moscow university. However, for a grown man, this would seem unseemly.
However, it's also true that every revolution of the ignorant begins with a total substitution of concepts. In this sense, it's instructive to become familiar with the works of Ellochka the Cannibal and Snob Khamovsky, in my humble opinion.

It looks like a bathhouse, but the kid isn't using it for its intended purpose)))

And yet, once again, I propose changing the name of the HF.

After all, even if it's a stretch, this is still considered an HF website.
Either call the section "NeHF," or think of some other name, something provisional, otherwise such conversations will inevitably arise from time to time.

Marina Glebova, there's another option. A more correct one, in my opinion. Make the site truly become the HF site.
And the section could be renamed. For example, like this:

***
But the point isn't what we called it.
This is where the BlueJay syndrome has really flared up in grown men.

Following up on 23.
Look, Marina, how things really are.
This defective disgrace

was dispersed to 28 recommendations in two days!!!
And now, I'm sure, it will gain even more.
But this picture

in the same two days only garnered 17 grateful viewers.

Essentially, it's a protest. And this protest crowd on the site far outnumbers authors like you, Anna, Seryozha U., Dima S., and others.
It's always been like this everywhere. "I, a deer, was eaten alive by mosquitoes" (c), remember?
Well, that's it... Nothing new.
But the caravan must move.
And twitching and reacting isn't worth it.

Andrew Kud,

Make sure the site actually becomes an HF site.

And where will the rest of the visitors go? After all, there are dozens of times fewer interested visitors than just photographers.
Maybe we should be content with what we have – the platform? And then, without paying attention, without being distracted by anything, move on?

I am categorically against educational and pedagogical activities for everyone and everything.

Alexey Krik,
I agree. The caravan must move, but not along a beaten path.

Andrew Kud, And one more thought. Or rather, a request.

Texts that express a position or coherent thoughts should be posted either 1) in separate threads (which can be inconvenient)
or 2) under photos of RESPONSIBLE authors. Responsibility presupposes: 1) the author doesn't delete comments; 2) the author is more or less on topic (this is easily seen on the page, what they themselves show and recommend); 3) the author is at least somewhat interested in the conversation.
And good photos of insane authors or analysis of their bad photos (as you did today with Kuzmin) can be posted through the Radical website (with attribution) and discussed if the need arises.

It's time to respect ourselves and what we do.
There are too many idiots out there who think that talking clearly about photography is a piece of cake, while pressing the camera button is a real chore.
This morning is a prime example.
I'm done.

Texts that express a position or any coherent thoughts should be posted 1) or in separate threads (which can be inconvenient)

You can write in blogs. At the same time, blog announcements will appear on the homepage, where people will see and read them.

Master, The blog also turns out to be inconvenient. In fact, and this is clearly visible from the feed, the discussion is a recurring theme
through numerous photos.

Besides, I'm against handing out knowledge on a silver platter.

Master, The blog is also proving inconvenient. In fact, and this is clearly visible from the feed, the discussion is a recurring theme
through numerous photos.

Besides, I'm against handing out knowledge on a silver platter.

Alexey Krik, the discussion is taking place in the general feed because there aren't many photos per day and few people, and therefore few messages, so you can read everything. The good thing about the blog is that no one will delete it. I mean, you can write a photo analysis in the blog and link to the blog under "work." All the tools are available on the website.

Master, Thank you. I'll think about how to use this opportunity.

Alexey Krik,
I agree that something needs to be done about this.
I've encountered the blatant rudeness of incompetent people here about ten times already, when, at their request, I showed them their technical errors with pictures, histograms, and color correction examples.
At best, they stupidly, mercilessly, and maliciously delete the comment. At worst, like today, in the best traditions of thugs.
Let the Master decide what to do about this. If they want such comments to be saved under pictures, let them take action and figure out how to do it.
This is exactly the case when "it's time to use the power," in my opinion.
***
Master, I won't write in the blog. The analysis should be under the picture, not apart from it.
A blog is good for theoretical questions, not for pointing out technical flaws in pictures to someone unknown.
Alexey Krik,

I am everything.

Me too.

Journal entries often go unnoticed. Messages posted in the feed may be chaotic, unsystematic, and inconsistent... but they're very convenient and quick to read and follow, especially on mobile devices.

Diary entries often go unnoticed. Messages in the feed may be posted chaotically, unsystematically, and incorrectly... but it's very convenient and quick to read and track, especially on mobile devices.

Irinny, the Activity page displays new diary entries from authors the person follows.

So, there's plenty to think about here.

I dare to suggest that artistic comes from the word artist. An artist is more than just an author.

Valeriy Sviderskiy,
I agree, I'd like to expand a bit... what's not usually talked about is that the main problem with photography is that it is inseparable and at the same time incompatible with painting... that's the unity of opposites... however, this is all only complicated at first glance... If we consider photography as a reportage, forensics, documentary - it is incompatible with painting... in such photography, the height of skill is to convey an unaltered picture (technical adjustments, such as lighting level, are not considered, this is purely technique), if we consider artistic photography, then it is inseparable from painting and should be formed precisely according to the laws of painting (or can anyone distinguish an IMAGE of a drawing from an IMAGE of a photograph on the Internet? And if it is impossible to distinguish, why should the laws be different?) However, precisely due to the fact that there are two extreme positions, there will be something Between them, nature abhors a vacuum... and this something will someday be described and described, but while photography hasn't even changed its first diapers, it's hard to judge by its lifespan what and how... And then there's the catch - the speed of progress - technical. What does progress have to do with it? Yes, it's simple... Photography was originally a complex process, specifically from a technical standpoint, and it was done by passionate people. Each shot was unique, they thought about it, it was born in creativity, they even thought about reportage, although in a slightly different direction, but they thought. And then photo labs came along, you press a button and we do the rest for you... This period also saw the emergence of the first cult, iconic, epochal and other YKH photographers, and before they had time to enjoy their triumph, it was like a ball - digital - you press a button and you don't have to do anything else at all... and they finally lost their minds... Why learn anything - the image is high quality.... And so the problem emerged - they confused a high-quality technical image with a high-quality artistic one... There are a lot of photographs now, plus the Internet, but what can YKH do? They'd already managed to get a foothold, they'd started pushing their own agenda, and because they were so aggressive, they succeeded. True, aggression has a negative effect on a thinking person, but there are other things, too... And the propaganda machine took advantage of this... What does it have to do with it? It's simple: the more a person's core values are distorted, the easier they are to manipulate... And this is maintained artificially, distracting from true values...
P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-15 years, the "coolest" photographers are those who photograph late-night drinking parties in clubs... Because right now, young people on social media are squealing at these drunken mugs, they're growing up on them, and in 10-15 years, they'll try to realize themselves... and find the easiest place to do it—that is, photography... God willing, we'll avoid such a development...

It looks like a sauna, but the kid isn't using it for its intended purpose)))

Nicholas,

Yes, it is a sauna. ))
But for him, it's a house, a window. He needs to look out the window.

Marina Glebova, Marina, wouldn't "Creative Photography" do? I remembered: "Creativity is making mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." by S. Adams, and I was just thinking...?

Marina Glebova, Marina, wouldn't "Creative Photography" work? I remembered: "Creativity is making mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." by S. Adams, and I was thinking...?

Anna Timofeeva,
I was also going to suggest this title - Creative Photography.
See how our thoughts coincide.

Anna Timofeeva, Marina Glebova, This is the worst title one could have come up with.
There are:
1. Morozov's book

2. Kosolapov's book


You'll have to explain how your creative photography differs from theirs. Also creative.

Alexey Krik, well, then it's not suitable.
What do you think, should we keep the name HF?

Marina Glebova, ...we'll diligently fill this section with our mistakes, and then let the critics sort it out..

I don't quite get it... a miracle has happened at our photo center - we have a space, we have curators, it turns out we even have photographs, and good authors are joining us... why complicate things with the name?
Let's allow Andrew Kud, as the discoverer and main initiator of this section, to leave the name as is, especially since there can be no "insinuation" about the name; the meaning (understanding) of this term has already been perfectly explained to him.

Marina Glebova, you screwed up, Marina

Irinny, in any case, he decides, of course.

Marina Glebova, In any case, the concept of artistic photography was given a clear definition.
There's no fault to be found. The terms are used in their true, undistorted meaning.
Why abandon all this?

Another thing is that some homegrown philosopher from somewhere like Ibinevo-Sobakino will inevitably show up and start writing about artistic photography.
But that's a matter for the future.
Well, it might be a little embarrassing for the person—I'm always ashamed of such homegrown thinkers—but we'll bear with it.
I'm no stranger to it; I've read worse.

Alexey Krik, you've convinced me.

Marina Glebova,

in any case, he decides, of course.

It is solely the Master who decides.

Andrew Kud, I probably missed a lot, like how the section was created, what the rules are, and who decides :-)

Name a VIP photographer.
It's a well-worn ploy, of course, but it's proven to be incredibly effective.
+100 prestige right from the start.

It turned out to be a convenient platform for discussion: "Bathhouse with a child."
I don't mind. ))

The term is bad and a little funny precisely because it's "generic," overused, and loaded with connotations.

It's as if a group appeared on Proza.ru that classified some texts as "fiction,"
and others as not "fiction" for creative reasons, not genre or other reasons.

It's the same here.

But any group can agree on and work on any term.
I wrote about this right away.
No one's stopping me.

(lik13vvs), I agree. The culture of fine art is one. It applies to photography, painting, and rock art. Design stands a bit apart. But it also grows from the same soil.

Yakov Trembovolsky,
I just ask one thing of you: if you happen to play darts at work, please don't write my name on the dartboard. )))
I had a slightly different plan when I invited you to the conversation. )))

PDG,

That's for sure. ))
Give me the script for the future. ))
I haven't been "inside" here for a long time: I didn't know such "intellectual" passions were running high here, and that the "Bolsheviks" had seized the bank, the telegraph office... )

Alexey Krik,
I've already driven Andrew Kud crazy, I even mixed two theories into one bottle. Can I ask you a couple of questions, and you'll have to be patient, like with Ichthyander)))
I'm all for any additional section on the site. To give or not to take away. In general, I'm all for any educational work and expressing opinions...
But, to be honest, I can't agree with the term "HF"... Maybe I'm a conservative and find it difficult to accept clear definitions where there aren't any))))
You write:

Marina Glebova, In any case, the concept of artistic photography was given a clear definition. There's no getting around it

Well, look, that's a clear definition too:
Green is one of the three primary colors, considered to be the range of colors in the spectrum with a wavelength of approximately 500-560 nanometers. In the CMYK system in printing, green is produced by mixing yellow and blue-green (cyan) (c)

And I'm sure that unless you and I are sitting in the same lab, under the same lighting, and with an understanding of nanometers, we'd explain "greenness" differently to a blind person.

And how can you formulate a clear definition on a website where most people have photography as a HOBBY?

Yakov Trembovolsky,

"The Bolsheviks" seized the bank, the telegraph... )

But without them, where would Chagall and Malevich be?))) Of all the others, the Soviet regime gave carte blanche to these two))))
And so, there's always Harbin as a backup, but even there, the Chinese could kick them out)))

I'll say one last thing about HF, and then I'll just enjoy it.

It's hard for me to define the boundaries.

This work was offered to HF.

I'M FOR it!

This work, in my opinion, is also HF. But that's only my opinion.

This work is absolutely amazing for me personally, and with the author's permission, it's even hanging in the gallery. Is it HF?


And such questions will be constant.
I think we should do a HF selection without announcements. Chosen, chosen. No invitations. Let the admins create some kind of button for the author (like an alarm that they've been chosen), otherwise we'll drown in discussions of opinions and tastes.

PDG,

where for most people, photography is a HOBBY

For them, photography is a pastime. They might as well drink beer or play dominoes.

Why should I explain anything to them?

I treat them like cows. They give me milk (meaning photos), and I figure out what to do with them (the photos) myself.
You wouldn't talk to a cow about sour cream or the taste of cream, would you? Same here.
And about education...
The caravan moves at the speed of the weakest camel.

If you focus on the weakest, you'll be stuck in the same place for the next hundred years.

Let them catch up if they 1) WANT and 2) have the strength.

There are thousands, billions, millions of these amateurs. But those who do or try to do something in photography are few and far between.
It's the latter that need to be taken care of. They should be given maximum attention and assistance, if any, if it can be offered.

Alexey Krik,
Damn, I thought Andrew Kud wrote to me.... Now I'll recover and send you a telegraph too)))

Alexey Krik,
If you're interested in hearing my opinion and have the time, then... Watch this film. It will tell you more about my point of view than words ever could.
http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/432791/

Where most people have photography as a hobby
There are thousands, billions, millions of these amateurs. But those who actually do or try to do anything with photography are a rare few.
It's the latter that need to be taken care of. They deserve maximum attention and assistance, if any can be offered.

Alexey Krik,

So it's come to this... A few creators (of course, that could be true), and the rest are trash.

For them, photography is a pastime. They might as well drink beer or play dominoes.

At least when it comes to photography. That is, the characteristics of a superior race, the "Race of Creators," are beginning to emerge.
God bless him, they swallowed it...

They give milk (that is, photos)

That is, there are true ones, and then there are so-so weaklings (I wonder who will decide?)
They also swallowed it...

If we focus on the weakest, then we will have to mark time in the same place for the next hundred years

- this reminds me of something... some vague associations, and yes, I remembered - everyone who is not of the Aryan race is subhuman and subject to destruction...
I don't even want to swallow this anymore, and it's somehow unpleasant to swallow...

Let them catch up, if 1) THEY WANT and 2) they have enough strength

And what then... well, 3-5 "SMART and LITERATE" ones will form, and then - the rest will not catch up or will not want to, and this "mighty bunch" will engage in "pure creativity" In such a cozy "get-together" inaccessible to mere mortals... And there will be a great outcome... oh, how it will be. Is that what you want?

Maybe stop tossing and turning... and just define what "ARTISTIC PHOTOGRAPHY" is and "WHO IS THE JUDGE"... If someone wants to impose their point of view as the only correct one... then it's understandable... what's unclear is WHY?... Instead of fighting for the quality of photography (and so much is said about this) and raising the level of the masses (by the sweat of their brow), fence themselves off and celebrate "Photographer's Day"? Wouldn't it be easier then to organize a small site for 5-7 people and quietly converse with each other... no need to educate or re-educate anyone... and the level of photography on this small site will be appropriate, satisfying the site's population... Why start a battle here then?

It's not clear, though...not clear at all....

PDG, I'll try to take a look.

Then why start a battle here?
It's unclear, though...completely unclear....

(lik13vvs), First off, +100500 to your post! And as for why there's a battle, I'll tell you. It's all clear, it's all been clear to everyone for a long time. Have you ever wondered why most Russian websites are in a deep coma these days? No?
I'll answer - because most ordinary, normal photographers who just want to shoot and talk about photography are simply tired of these endless flame wars about some kind of artistic photography. The fact that everyone's constantly trying to discuss his photographs, whether they're artistic or even artistic at all, whether they're worthy of this noble resource, or whether they belong in the author's SA... People are tired of making excuses, reading all this nonsense from virtual gurus who don't mean a damn thing in real life and have no choice but to pretend to be something more significant online, sitting on their couch and talking about some great art, photography, creativity, and so on, so on, so on. Because others don't see him, in his alcoholic T-shirt, his tights with his knees stretched out, and a bottle of beer on the table! And that's why he thinks he's an art critic, damn it...
That's why all the websites are in a coma now; 95% of the normal photographers have left... Or maybe 99% (even alcohol doesn't have a 100% chance).

ter58,
Well, we've already been through that... We already had Marat Gelman - he's gone - praise be to Allah.
He also came up with the idea for the Perm emblem, the red letter P, for a lot of money - it seems like they've already forgotten about it - praise be to Allah. A joke immediately sprang up... Russia has three famous letters: m - for men, z - for women, and p - for anyone interested...
He built a lousy wooden stool, put in some red, plagiarized Dutch men, made a killing, and ran away... praise be to Allah that he ran away...)))

So, we've been through it all, we've been through it all...

Classification—endless classification, in fact—has always been one of the main features of Soviet-Russian cultural bureaucracy, and, as it turns out, nothing can be done about it. What can be done about it? Some people had to be led through vacant lots for 40 years to get there. For some reason, fine art photography doesn't excite anyone in the West, and most importantly, it's a bottomless category! Here, as always, we've spawned a ton of subcategories (as, incidentally, on this site), only to discover that an equal number of them are left behind. The issue isn't the name, but the fact that, it turns out, there exists some secret knowledge and principles that determine which works are kosher and accepted, and which—sorry. It's a bit like the three rules for writing a good novel. The rules exist, but no one knows about them.

Alexey Krik,
I've already driven Andrew Kud crazy, I even mixed two theories into one bottle. Can I ask you a couple of questions, and you'll have to be patient, like with Ichthyander)))
I'm all for any additional section on the site. To give or not to take away. In general, I'm all for any educational work and expressing opinions...
But, to be honest, I can't agree with the term HF... Maybe I'm a conservative and find it difficult to accept clear definitions where there aren't any))))
You write:
Well, look, that's also a clear definition:
Green is one of the three primary colors. Green is considered to be a range of colors in the spectrum with a wavelength of approximately 500-560 nanometers. In the CMYK printing system, green is produced by mixing yellow and blue-green (cyan) (c)

And I'm sure that unless you and I are sitting in the same lab, under the same lighting, and with a working knowledge of nanometers, we'd explain "greenness" differently to a blind person.

And how can you formulate a clear definition on a website where most people consider photography a HOBBY?

PDG, Classification—endless, in fact—has always been one of the main features of Soviet-Russian cultural bureaucracy, and, as it turns out, nothing is being done about it. And what will be done about it? It took someone 40 years of being led through wastelands to find out. For some reason, fine art photography doesn't excite anyone in the West, and most importantly, it's a bottomless category! As always, we've created a ton of subcategories (as we do on this site, by the way), only to find that a similar ton remains unexplored. The issue isn't the name, but rather the fact that there's some secret knowledge and principles that determine which works are kosher and accepted, and which—well, excuse me. It's a bit like the three rules for writing a good novel. The rules exist, but no one knows about them.

suggest this title - Creative Photography.

Just call it something simple (it's already been said here): "Crumpled Boots" - it's new, humorous, memorable, and captures the essence )))

Great moment!