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

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,819
Re: I would like to discuss the aesthetics of photography...

brianj 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.

I have always thought this.

Extremely fine detail probably occurs at a similair size to the typical digital image distortion and becomes part of it.  The average person looking at this hideous mess thinks it has wonderful detail, but it is the very thing ruining the image.

I've no idea what you mean by that.

I think what these people in your paragraph discovered is the photographic equivalent of hi-fi music compared to everday music especially MP3 type compressed music.

Could you elaborate?  Sounds almost like they said the exact opposite.

This is the reason why I am so turned off by the constant talk of lack of detail on these forums.

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