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

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jack Hogan Veteran Member • Posts: 6,946
Re: I would like to discuss the aesthetics of photography...

panos_m wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

...based on this post:


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.

Is this a question on realism?

Panos is right: having looked at Bob Cole's site, I think this is a question of the signature/stroke/style of the artist (i.e. realism vs cubism vs impressionism vs ...) rather than the nature of the capture medium.  Different styles come, get overdone and tiresome then go.  Perhaps now after a decade of the digital see-every-pore look we are ready to swing back into a softer look.

I like Bob's impressionistic look, I think I've been gravitating that way myself of late.  Many of my current favorite one-a-month prints of my meticulously technical captures are actually willfully not that sharp - and printed on fuzzy canvas.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow