I would like to discuss the aesthetics of photography...

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jeff
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,470
Like?
Re: I would like to discuss the aesthetics of photography...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

...based on this post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51516317

Particularly, this paragraph, and particularly the portion I highlighted in bold:

I had a recent (very successful!) gallery show of prints up to 20"x30" from the E-3. Got many comments about how "natural" the prints looked. Several people said they didn't realize at first they were photographs. They used terms such as "relaxed, smooth and inviting" to describe them. Several, including other photographers, thought they were from film, though the photographers said they were puzzled by the lack of film grain. They were surprised to hear they were digital. Several, including buyers, said they generally don't like prints from digital cameras because they are too "self-conscious" in that they have too much unnecessary detail, too obviously photographic, and too unpleasant to live with on the wall, even if initially striking.

What do people think?  It's a very interesting observation, in my opinion.

First off, it's a provocative observation and fine grist for an interesting conversation.

There's something very appealing about this fellow's impressionistic style.  However their photographic attributes might be described (smoothness?), the images don't require the eye to work so darn hard processing all that fine detail. They are images with all of the conventional attributes of color and formal composition, but the impressionistic quality keeps attention focused on the macro rather than the micro scale.

Maybe another away of the making the point is to imagine comparing them side by side with a super detailed version of the same subjects composed the same way. Of the trees, for example, one might be drawn in to look at detail in the bark. In Cole's images that becomes irrelevant not because the detail is missing, but not by a technical flaw. It's not there by intention.

Now that sensors, lenses, and software, etc., have advanced to the point that incredible detail is within reach of the masses -- has it become too much? We all look at pixels all day, at work, at play, at the movies, on the weekends shooting images. Maybe the appeal is to back off a bit on the micro contrast and learn how to photograph the forest, not just the trees.

Much food for thought here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
4MPNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow