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...

Raist3d 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.

If you ask me I think what happens is that on digital as someone said you can get some artifacts and then there is something about it where it has "too much detail everywhere" to the point of being distracting.

But do you think this is common on digital prints displayed in galleries?  I mean, for sure, facebook posts from cell phones, but...

If I had to put my finger on it, I have seen some film photographs of medium and large format prints that have a lot of detail yet they keep a certain "natural softness" to them.  They draw the eye by the amazing tonality along with detail but the detail doesn't end abruptly but it all mixes...

I know this is kind of hard to describe but maybe you are getting my drift by the description.

But cannot the same be done with digital?  If so, are you suggesting digital photographers choose to do otherwise?

In a way too much micro contrast/detail all over the shot in everything it's a bit like 95%+ of the HDR out there where people think it's cool to give equal importance and exposure to the clouds in the sky and the ground, creating a whole mess that calls for attention everywhere, ruining composition and particular attention to particular places, making for a very tiring shot to look at.

For sure, many photos that are subject to strong tone curves look more like digital art than a photograph.  But is such processing mainstream enough to where people associate that look with digital?

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