Okay, here's a picture of the Eiffel Tower when the sparkly lights were going on.
You can see that I have somewhat shaky hands.
I tried to make a point of taking "interesting" pictures on my trip. With a digital camera, I loosened up and took pictures of odd details, or from weird angles and other things like that. I also spent time before I left taking pictures of Philadelphia, just to see what I could do with a camera.
As an example, here are four pictures I took of or from the Eiffel Tower last summer. With all but the first, I was trying to take pictures that would be more interesting to look at than the standard, "Look, I saw a monument," photos. Does this make my pictures artistic, or merely pretentious?
The pictures are a bit large, so maximize your screen if you want to see them all at once. (The quality was degrading too much when I tried to shrink them, sigh.)
Okay, here's a picture of the Eiffel Tower when the sparkly lights were going on.
You can see that I have somewhat shaky hands.
Now here's a picture I took from under the Eiffel Tower, looking up.
I liked the way the lines looked, and thought it might be an interesting shot.
This picture was more for my own amusement, because I realized it was a great way to do that traditional "look, I was there" picture. (If you can't tell, it was the Eiffel Tower's shadow, as seen from, probably, the top deck.)
And here's the last one. I took it because of the wires, but also with the intent of the Arc de Triomphe being just visible in the background.
Now, I had fun taking the pictures, and they are certainly amusing for me to look at. (I have a screensaver with all of these vacation photos, and hundreds more, which provides hours of viewing pleasure.) What I like about taking photos is that it makes you look at the things around you differently. But does that make them art? Who knows....
