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

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,404
Like?
Re: Are you saying...
In reply to Jack Hogan, May 24, 2013

Jack Hogan wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

If so, then wouldn't the comments about "unnecessary detail" mean that the people who made the comment represent a minority opinion of those that pursue photography?

Sometimes detail detracts from a specific image, sometimes it adds to it - choosing what is necessary and what is not is part of the artistry.  Which may be more or less appreciated depending on the times (recently whenever a certain look has become popular a plug-in has been developed to create it easily. The KR look, the color feature inside a B&W look, the grunge look, the heavy HDR look.  They get tiresome quickly.  I think we are currently coming off the Tonal Contrast look: a mixture of all of the above

Except the quote that I predicated this thread on:

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.

made a sweeping indictment (generalization) about digital photos having "too much unnecessary detail" that are "too obviously photographic" (not sure I know what that means) and are "too unpleasant to live with on the wall, even if initially striking".

In contrast, I presume, to film photos which do not have "too much unnecessary detail" that are not "too obviously photographic", and are not "too unpleasant to live with on the wall".

I sometimes like images that have both a lot and a little of detail (as in some of Bob's mysty/long ss/low dof images or Ian Bramhan 's look ).  But generalizing, 'unnecessary' detail/sharpness may also be part of a look that we are getting tired of and/or that is not required by gallery going patrons of the arts today: Capturing and displaying perfect image information is too 'perfect' and tells us too little about the artist and what s/he is trying to convey.  A perfect capture/print may be categorized as an impersonal poster, merely the recording of what was there - A willfully 'imperfect' capture/print may instead be categorized as an artistic expression of the artist's thoughts and feelings at the time.   Humans do not love perfection served on a silver platter - they love puzzles and imperfections that challenge them to figure out something about who shot the image, what s/he felt at the time and what s/he wants to say.  The beauty of digital is that often one can capture and process for both, if one wants.

Are you trying to say that they were talking about how *some* photos are processed as opposed to the whole of digital photography?  Because their comments absolutely did not imply anything of the sort.

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