So, at what point does the image colapse into a failed technique and one that has succeded in creating something artistic?
I once attended a slide show by a well known photographer in NAPA and camera club circles and he put the question to the audience, "What makes a good Photograph?" Some said, good composition, impact, good design and other answers. Most people nodded. The presenter said, "Whatever works." This, at first glance may sound glib and cynical, but I think this is true. The same goes for painting or any other art form. Any good photographer will know if the outcome of his technique in any given photograph, whether accidental or deliberate, has resulted in a reasonably good image. So if you tried something and it looks bad or did not accomplish what you intended, then it faiils and you figure something out and try again. It is only gimmicky if someone suggests a given technique or filter is the end all and be all of taking photographs and shows only the same old tired images.
JMR
