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

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
ROC124 Contributing Member • Posts: 785
Re: Are you saying...

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

I think it is about prcoessing and perception, not digital vs. film. The comments I related from that night, in combination with others heard over time, seemed to condemn a perceived digital "look." Thinking about what they meant reminded how few purely-film and optical enlargement images ever look over sharpened. Even with images made on medium/large format Velvia and printed on Cibachrome with eye-popping saturation, contrast and tremendous detail, they still seemed smooth without detail that dominated, even though it was present. Indeed, most of us probably didn't go to the bother of creating sharpening masks in our darkrooms. I didn't.

Digital can be different because it is easier to process but isn't constrained to any particular look. But I don't think it is inherently too detailed, too sharp or too anything. It is tremendously maleable and it is up to the photographer to determine to the final look.

Kind of reminds me of the vinyl vs. digital debate in audio. I don't find either to be superior; it depends on what the recording engineer did.

-- hide signature --
 ROC124's gear list:ROC124's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +7 more
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