Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture(collectorsweekly.com)
collectorsweekly.com
Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/bad-photography-and-good-pictures/
172 comments
I also a return to analog in some who have grown up with cameras in their phones.
I guess the experience of only having 24 pictures and developing becomes meaningful/ interesting when you are used to unlimited and direct.
I guess the experience of only having 24 pictures and developing becomes meaningful/ interesting when you are used to unlimited and direct.
Great art comes from limitations. As Spielberg said, if he had access to CG when he made Jaws the shark would've been in every frame.
"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." - Orson Welles
> I can see it doing the equivalent of buying a vintage roadster as a senior citizen
Funny you should put it this way, because it’s the same crowd buying both: wealthy old guys. Some time around the 1990s, Canon and Nikon made the fateful decision that photography would become stupid expensive and accessible only to those with money to burn. Don’t get me wrong, modern DSLRs and AF lenses are amazing feats of engineering and manufacturing, but the end result has been that “serious” photographers spend upwards of $10k on a nice body and not that much glass. You reap what you sow. All of the energy and excitement about taking pictures now surrounds phones. The idea of dropping $thousands on a “proper” DSLR setup probably seems laughable to most millennials and gen Z.
Funny you should put it this way, because it’s the same crowd buying both: wealthy old guys. Some time around the 1990s, Canon and Nikon made the fateful decision that photography would become stupid expensive and accessible only to those with money to burn. Don’t get me wrong, modern DSLRs and AF lenses are amazing feats of engineering and manufacturing, but the end result has been that “serious” photographers spend upwards of $10k on a nice body and not that much glass. You reap what you sow. All of the energy and excitement about taking pictures now surrounds phones. The idea of dropping $thousands on a “proper” DSLR setup probably seems laughable to most millennials and gen Z.
I think anyone, even millennials and gen z, that gets serious about photography will quickly start to find the deficiencies of their phone camera. Sure, there is a lot you can do with a phone. Even some stuff you can't do well with a dedicated camera. But everyone who really gets into the craft starts to see that they can't quite get the shot they want I'm the lighting they want with a single, one size fits all device.
It's not clear to me how long that will hold. Maybe it will hold forever. But, I can certainly imagine my iPhone45 or Pixel53 will take say 100k frames per second so in 1/250th of a second they could take 400 images in a wide angle or multiple angles and then through computational photography reproduce almost any image that a current high DSLR could take at almost any lighting with almost any focus, after the fact.
I don't think that's possible.
There are physical limitations we're already bumping into. A lens can only have a limited resolution. It's pointless to make a sensor that's got more pixels than the lens can produce. The amount of light coming in is limited, and the sensor can't gather more than 100% the light.
A sensor has a quantum efficiency stat, which tells you how likely is it that a photon will turn into an electron and be measured, and IIRC it already hovers at around 50% for most cameras, which means at the very best you can gather twice the amount of light before running into a wall. In photographic terms that means a maximum improvement of one f-stop.
An improvement that still could be had is a good Sigma Foveon-style sensor with stacked sensors. This in the ideal case would give you two extra f-stops (due to the lack of a bayer filter), and improve color accuracy. Foveon still doesn't perform well enough on ISO to compete well though.
So at this point we can make near perfect glass and near perfect sensors. What's left is basically playing around with the tradeoffs -- do you want to sacrifice resolution for bit depth, or bit depth for resolution? How about medium and large format? This by the way means that a big dedicated camera will always be better than a phone because it will have a bigger lens and a bigger sensor, and can do the same software tricks the phone can.
There are physical limitations we're already bumping into. A lens can only have a limited resolution. It's pointless to make a sensor that's got more pixels than the lens can produce. The amount of light coming in is limited, and the sensor can't gather more than 100% the light.
A sensor has a quantum efficiency stat, which tells you how likely is it that a photon will turn into an electron and be measured, and IIRC it already hovers at around 50% for most cameras, which means at the very best you can gather twice the amount of light before running into a wall. In photographic terms that means a maximum improvement of one f-stop.
An improvement that still could be had is a good Sigma Foveon-style sensor with stacked sensors. This in the ideal case would give you two extra f-stops (due to the lack of a bayer filter), and improve color accuracy. Foveon still doesn't perform well enough on ISO to compete well though.
So at this point we can make near perfect glass and near perfect sensors. What's left is basically playing around with the tradeoffs -- do you want to sacrifice resolution for bit depth, or bit depth for resolution? How about medium and large format? This by the way means that a big dedicated camera will always be better than a phone because it will have a bigger lens and a bigger sensor, and can do the same software tricks the phone can.
I'm sure you know more than me but I can't help but remember all the people who said 1200baud, or 9600baud the fastest the copper wires in my phone line could ever physically handle. Well, my house still has the same wires but somehow they are magically magically handling > 1gig connections.
This stuff has always interested me but I've never done a deep dive into the science; do you have any recommended readings?
Maybe phones will become a new arbitrary standard like 135 film was. Modern APS-C sensors and larger will be dubbed 'Large Format,' something of interest only to enthusiasts but meaningless to the average consumer.
Maybe phones will become a new arbitrary standard like 135 film was. Modern APS-C sensors and larger will be dubbed 'Large Format,' something of interest only to enthusiasts but meaningless to the average consumer.
I'm afraid not offhand, I'm a hobbyist in the area and picked up a bunch of stuff from here and there.
But, "APS-C" won't become known as "large format". Those terms are already in use in photography and already hold specific meanings, even if there's some wiggle room. Micro four thirds is the smallest serious size, still far bigger than what a cell phone can have, APS-C is the consumer DSLR size, full frame matches the size of 35mm film, and it goes further to medium format and large format. Medium format is already quite specialized at starts at $5K, and large format is extremely specialized territory and not for normal people.
But, "APS-C" won't become known as "large format". Those terms are already in use in photography and already hold specific meanings, even if there's some wiggle room. Micro four thirds is the smallest serious size, still far bigger than what a cell phone can have, APS-C is the consumer DSLR size, full frame matches the size of 35mm film, and it goes further to medium format and large format. Medium format is already quite specialized at starts at $5K, and large format is extremely specialized territory and not for normal people.
Yes, I meant large format relative to phones and layusers and as a marketing gimmick, like Nikon's 'DX' line which sounds premiumly large but is actually APS-C. The filmic 'large format' needed 'medium format' to become 'large.'
To be fair, there are also lots of things you can only do with a phone camera, like have it on you at all times like a visual notepad.
One of my favorite books is Jerry Hsu's The Beautiful Flower is the World, a collection of phone pictures brilliantly juxtaposed to tragicomedic effect [1]. NYC street photo grandmaster Jeff Mermelstein now only uses his phone, to take pictures of other peoples' phones [2]. It's an interesting parabolic trajectory where the 'better' you get, the 'worse' your equipment can be, almost like how 'bad' fashion is an ironic indicator of 'good' fashion sense.
[1] https://www.fstopmagazine.com/blog/2019/09/book-review-the-b...
[2] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-photograph...
One of my favorite books is Jerry Hsu's The Beautiful Flower is the World, a collection of phone pictures brilliantly juxtaposed to tragicomedic effect [1]. NYC street photo grandmaster Jeff Mermelstein now only uses his phone, to take pictures of other peoples' phones [2]. It's an interesting parabolic trajectory where the 'better' you get, the 'worse' your equipment can be, almost like how 'bad' fashion is an ironic indicator of 'good' fashion sense.
[1] https://www.fstopmagazine.com/blog/2019/09/book-review-the-b...
[2] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-photograph...
Photography as art was slightly popular in the age when regular people had crappy cameras and had to learn how to create a picture. In the process people learned to appreciate good composition and artistic interpretation of true professionals.
With advancements in digital photography and recently computational exposure all of this is gone. Over-saturation, Hyper contrast, HDRI corrections are the norm. People like things that are easy to understand and reproduce.
The next level of madness is GAS. There are thousands of "photographers" who are actually Technographers. Who are part of some "group" or brand tribe. And the taste of the tribe defines success.
The people who are learning composition, exposure or development are minority. And in this age of popularity contest photography is measured in likes, so there is no place for good photography in a classical sense. People have phones with AI and everybody is an "artist'. So be it.
But some of us don't care. Some of us shoot film for experience and challenge. Some of us read Ansel Adams books and try to create meaningful work. Some of us know who is Bresson, Robert Capa, and countless other masters. https://www.magnumphotos.com/shop/photographers/ And this is not bad thing.
Let people like what they can comprehend.
With advancements in digital photography and recently computational exposure all of this is gone. Over-saturation, Hyper contrast, HDRI corrections are the norm. People like things that are easy to understand and reproduce.
The next level of madness is GAS. There are thousands of "photographers" who are actually Technographers. Who are part of some "group" or brand tribe. And the taste of the tribe defines success.
The people who are learning composition, exposure or development are minority. And in this age of popularity contest photography is measured in likes, so there is no place for good photography in a classical sense. People have phones with AI and everybody is an "artist'. So be it.
But some of us don't care. Some of us shoot film for experience and challenge. Some of us read Ansel Adams books and try to create meaningful work. Some of us know who is Bresson, Robert Capa, and countless other masters. https://www.magnumphotos.com/shop/photographers/ And this is not bad thing.
Let people like what they can comprehend.
The hobby / professional camera field has to my knowledge always been divided between technologists and artists. One group who doubled down on the technical side, and one group coming from an artistic background.
The Venn Diagram of where the two meet is not that big.
The Venn Diagram of where the two meet is not that big.
May be I cannot express my thoughts clearly.
Sorry, my English is not fluent and I don't always have enough time to polish my expose.
For me "Technographers" are not people who are on the technical side of photography. Real technical side is important from craftsmanship perspective, but only as a tool with photography goal.
"Tecnographers" are people who care only for cameras and photographic gear in general. They follow marketing gurus and camera reviews and participate in brand defined groups. They are obsessed with "latest tech" and "showing off" in "Photography competitions" or "Group Meetings". They are the most effective customers for manufacturers and in general are miles away from photography as an artistic expression or even craftsmanship.
For me "Technographers" are not people who are on the technical side of photography. Real technical side is important from craftsmanship perspective, but only as a tool with photography goal.
"Tecnographers" are people who care only for cameras and photographic gear in general. They follow marketing gurus and camera reviews and participate in brand defined groups. They are obsessed with "latest tech" and "showing off" in "Photography competitions" or "Group Meetings". They are the most effective customers for manufacturers and in general are miles away from photography as an artistic expression or even craftsmanship.
What do HDRI and GAS stand for?
HDRI-High-dynamic-range imaging. GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome. :)
To be honest gas is an ancient disease
The same is true for hiking and camping!
Whoever told me camping saves you money was lying.
Where I live, you can buy a very cheap tent with a rain cover for 25 USD (made in China). And I don't carry any cooking gear, so I keep things very cheap. But, yes, there are people who go crazy with "kit"!
This way most the assholes get filtered out, but the assholes that are left are goatse incarnate.
Talking about what good and bad means in photography always reminds me of Miroslav Tichý, who said "if you want to be famous, you must do something more badly than anybody in the entire world", and took terrible but strangely brilliant photos with homemade cameras:
https://flashbak.com/photographs-by-the-perverted-flaneur-mi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Tich%C3%BD
https://flashbak.com/photographs-by-the-perverted-flaneur-mi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Tich%C3%BD
Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.
Yup, you can't just take awful photos and say "these are good actually". Well, in the art world you can get away with that kind of nonsense. But to most people those are just terrible photos.
There is no contradiction between something being both a terrible photo (or painting or sculpture) from a technical perspective and art.
There are various philosophical and artistic movements for which art should not look like art. Others are about art being abstract, inaccessible and incomprehensible. Others yet are about use of archaic techniques to blend a modern eye with faux nostalgia (proto-hipsters, one could say).
There is not one kind of art.
Art does not need to be popular or broadly understood to be art.
You are not a majority anyway.
Good taste, feeling, and emotions are personal.
There is not one kind of art.
Art does not need to be popular or broadly understood to be art.
You are not a majority anyway.
Good taste, feeling, and emotions are personal.
I agree that you can’t just take awful photos and say “these are good actually,” but I think these are incredible! Haven’t enjoyed a photo series as much as these in a long time.
I suppose, as they say, there really is no accounting for taste. My own included, of course.
I suppose, as they say, there really is no accounting for taste. My own included, of course.
Adding context does little to change that, unfortunately.
I could understand if they evoked some kind of emotions or served as a deconstruction of photography technique, but most of them just look like deliberately bad photographs to me.
Then again, I'm only an amateur at photography.
I could understand if they evoked some kind of emotions or served as a deconstruction of photography technique, but most of them just look like deliberately bad photographs to me.
Then again, I'm only an amateur at photography.
I'd guess they invoked nostalgia in other photographers at the time about their old bad photos, so they thought it was brilliant. Like an inside thing only they understood.
I like them and it's simply because they evoke an intellectual and emotional reaction. That's art.
I get nothing from them. Does that make them not art?
For you, perhaps. I don't think there is an objective truth of "this is art, this is not art." I shared my experience of the pictures with you. Art is the experience of Art imo.
A large part of how you experience something is the context though. If people tell you something is great before showing then you are more likely to find something great about it, etc. So with that reasoning a large part of art is just telling people that it is art, it isn't the work itself but the belief that it is art that creates the art.
Context matters immensely. That’s why I can’t imagine posting an thought-provoking non-ironic short on, e.g., YouTube, knowing that it will be immediately accompanied by calls to watch 100 funniest fails and (with all my love for these creatures) wild foxes being pet or cockatoos mimicking cat meowing, and that a significant number of viewers will watch it while sitting in a toilet.
Contrasting with galleries, museums, private exhibitions surviving off subsidies or entrance fees—and I don’t think it’s as simple as “it’s just a new way of viewing that you don’t like because it’s new”—what we have settled for are “free” ad-supported platforms that are in effect much closer to casinos and malls, and to which convincing a visitor to not leave directly equals revenue.
There is, of course, this flip side, where presenting any visually unoriginal, self-gratifying, etc. work in context of an exhibition gives it not-necessarily-deserved value; and it could be that the ability to make the viewer feel something you want them to feel despite all that widely varying context is a valid skill.
Contrasting with galleries, museums, private exhibitions surviving off subsidies or entrance fees—and I don’t think it’s as simple as “it’s just a new way of viewing that you don’t like because it’s new”—what we have settled for are “free” ad-supported platforms that are in effect much closer to casinos and malls, and to which convincing a visitor to not leave directly equals revenue.
There is, of course, this flip side, where presenting any visually unoriginal, self-gratifying, etc. work in context of an exhibition gives it not-necessarily-deserved value; and it could be that the ability to make the viewer feel something you want them to feel despite all that widely varying context is a valid skill.
I could have such an experience with nature, but nature isn't the same thing as art.
I just think art is poorly defined.
I just think art is poorly defined.
Having seen 100s of high def birds, mountains, weddings, even pro photos are pretty repetitive.
These say interpretive art to me more than every pixel of yet another nature shot, or airbrushed person. They make my imagination curious about the world within.
When all the details are there just as they would be outside, why not just go outside?
These say interpretive art to me more than every pixel of yet another nature shot, or airbrushed person. They make my imagination curious about the world within.
When all the details are there just as they would be outside, why not just go outside?
I think many of them are great and it has little to do with the “quality” being bad.
It looks to me like the pictures may have been for his... uhh... own self-gratification.
Had that reaction too, and it's not just us :)
"Tichy was frequently arrested for hanging around the local pool and snapping pictures of unsuspecting women."
https://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/miroslav-tich
Though he seems to have made quite a lot of effort in the handmade cameras and deliberate processing techniques.
"Tichy was frequently arrested for hanging around the local pool and snapping pictures of unsuspecting women."
https://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/miroslav-tich
Though he seems to have made quite a lot of effort in the handmade cameras and deliberate processing techniques.
>without context
That's an effect of perspective. Knowing the fact that the "home made" appearance is deliberate changes the photos from being random bad photos to being commentary.
That's an effect of perspective. Knowing the fact that the "home made" appearance is deliberate changes the photos from being random bad photos to being commentary.
I truly believe their are two kind of appreciators of art in the world.
1. People who like realism, photoshopped pictures, GGI in media, etc.
vs.
2. Modern art, film noir, Black & white classical movies, etc.
If you give the second a chance, you might be suprised what your imagination does. I used to be kinda a #1 guy with the exception of bad action filmed CGI movies, but completely changed as the years went by. I've even gotten to the point where I think color in film has ruined a lot of movies, along with digital.
1. People who like realism, photoshopped pictures, GGI in media, etc.
vs.
2. Modern art, film noir, Black & white classical movies, etc.
If you give the second a chance, you might be suprised what your imagination does. I used to be kinda a #1 guy with the exception of bad action filmed CGI movies, but completely changed as the years went by. I've even gotten to the point where I think color in film has ruined a lot of movies, along with digital.
I truly believe that you can’t divide appreciators of art in simple, unnuanced, mutually exclusive categories. Specially just 2 like you did.
I don’t see myself in either category, at the same time that I do remember appreciating things that would fit both.
I don’t see myself in either category, at the same time that I do remember appreciating things that would fit both.
The imperfections serve as a kind of verfremdungseffekt, making the viewer aware that he's looking at a photograph, rather than at a person. As such René Magritte comes to mind. It is fascinating that he made his own camera, though. That certainly adds to the quality of the images, though it's of course a kind of non-diegetic contents. He said, with a wry smile.
Is it just me or has the quality of GPT-3 comments declined recently?
I'm almost certain the parent is not an AI. Perhaps it's just that I have no idea what they are talking about.
I don't think even Alan Turing himself ever envisioned this.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I already passed the Voight-Kampff test. Didn't even need to fire my gun! :) As for GPT-3, well, it needs real input—like the above—to generate its contents. Here's a crude fore-runner taking postmodern discourse to the extreme: https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Cheers. I genuinely can't tell the difference between the artificially generated postmodern discourse that is supposed to be just gibberish and real postmodern discourse that is not. Perhaps this is just a case of extreme jargon overload that makes it unintelligible for anyone who is not part of the group?
Or is this some commentary on the futility of the discourse, and postmodern discourse is just a performance art?
Or is this some commentary on the futility of the discourse, and postmodern discourse is just a performance art?
I'm not even sure myself, and I spent two years studying it.
Had to look these up:
verfremdungseffekt = distancing effect, something devised to cause you to not identify on an emotional level with the subjects or the action in the scene, but to see the image from a more dispassionate intellectual perspective. Magritte was mentioned because his work often "breaks the fourth wall," directly addressing the viewer instead of the more traditional painterly approach of creating drama in the scene.
non-diegetic content = content which is not part of the world of the scene itself. The scratches on the photos aren't part of the world that the subjects live in.
verfremdungseffekt = distancing effect, something devised to cause you to not identify on an emotional level with the subjects or the action in the scene, but to see the image from a more dispassionate intellectual perspective. Magritte was mentioned because his work often "breaks the fourth wall," directly addressing the viewer instead of the more traditional painterly approach of creating drama in the scene.
non-diegetic content = content which is not part of the world of the scene itself. The scratches on the photos aren't part of the world that the subjects live in.
Curious, is "more badly" here an intentional joke? Or did he mean "want it badly" in the sense of really wanting something?
It's itentional. He starts with, "First of all, you have to have a bad camera".
Just a rough translation of "Když chcete být slavní, musíte něco dělat tak blbě, že tak blbě to nikdo ve světě neudělá". "...you have to do something in such a silly manner, that nobody in the world did it so silly" or such.
Well, I took a look, they are just bad photos to me. I could not find any redeeming quality.
I'm curious, show an example of what you consider to be good photos, if you don't mind taking a moment.
[deleted]
I don't think I can explain to you by showing an example. Also, I type this on a phone and don't have access to my collection.
A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context.
These are more or less random photos taken with a bad camera. That's it.
Now, I don't say you need good camera for good photos. You can make interesting photos with any camera. And you can also use bad camera for interesting effect.
But, again, these photos don't show any kind of plan, thought, deliberation, interesting subject, context, technique, nothing.
A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context.
These are more or less random photos taken with a bad camera. That's it.
Now, I don't say you need good camera for good photos. You can make interesting photos with any camera. And you can also use bad camera for interesting effect.
But, again, these photos don't show any kind of plan, thought, deliberation, interesting subject, context, technique, nothing.
A good photo does not need to be interesting, since it doesn't need to appeal to intellect to be good. A photo can be good just by provoking an emotional reaction in the viewer.
> A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context.
To my eye, these photos have all three of those things.
You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.
To my eye, these photos have all three of those things.
You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.
> You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.
There is nothing objective about art anyway.
I agree with you, though. There is something in these. Some kind of motion. Some kind of primitive, wild instincts as well. As if a bear had found a camera, and he were more interested by ladies than about anything else.
There is nothing objective about art anyway.
I agree with you, though. There is something in these. Some kind of motion. Some kind of primitive, wild instincts as well. As if a bear had found a camera, and he were more interested by ladies than about anything else.
To each their own opinion I guess, but these photos are more than just random shots taken with a bad camera. Not all of them are especially good but there is a conscious intent of showing us the world through a slightly novel perspective and in some of the shots, with quite a visually poetic effect (the dancing feet are one good example).
Knowing the context and the work he must have put into building the camera, maintaining it and later developing his shots under the circumstances he worked with also helps. What I definitely don't see here is just a bunch of bad photos taken with a bad camera. I'd hardly call a homemade camera as simply bad, even imperfect it merits some respect.
I'd say they at least fit Susan Sontag's loose definition of photography showing others something novel.
Knowing the context and the work he must have put into building the camera, maintaining it and later developing his shots under the circumstances he worked with also helps. What I definitely don't see here is just a bunch of bad photos taken with a bad camera. I'd hardly call a homemade camera as simply bad, even imperfect it merits some respect.
I'd say they at least fit Susan Sontag's loose definition of photography showing others something novel.
From the wikipedia article: "...using homemade cameras constructed of cardboard tubes, tin cans and other at-hand materials"
I mean... I don't know if I'd take perfect pictures with such equipment, especially not if I'm trying to do it secretly.
I mean... I don't know if I'd take perfect pictures with such equipment, especially not if I'm trying to do it secretly.
This is not about technical quality. They just don't look or have anything interesting in them.
I'm a photographer and I'll be honest, I clicked on these fully expecting to not like them (usually when people say "look at these photos, they look like terrible photos taken with a bad camera until you, like, get it, man" what they really mean is that the photographer knew the right pretentious people at the right time in history)...
... but I actually like them. I wish I could explain why; he's doing some clever stuff here. Some of it is kinda pervy and it feels like TMI, but he's at least being clever. There are a few photos that feel like you are voyeuristically peeking through time, the defects in the photos are like peeking through bushes to see something interesting. But mostly I can't explain why I like it. I just do.
... but I actually like them. I wish I could explain why; he's doing some clever stuff here. Some of it is kinda pervy and it feels like TMI, but he's at least being clever. There are a few photos that feel like you are voyeuristically peeking through time, the defects in the photos are like peeking through bushes to see something interesting. But mostly I can't explain why I like it. I just do.
I don't have a professional eye but I'll try to explain why I like one of the photos, the one identified as Photo 20, in which there are two sunbathers, the one on the right flirtatiously peering at the camera. I like the way that their images are just barely recognizable as such but they still look like real people in a candid moment. The resolution is so poor can't even see where the second woman's back ends and where the background begins. But with just a hint you can make out a smile and a sparkling eye. It's similar to the way a clever caricature captures the essence of the subject with a few strokes. Are there flowers in their hair? A checkered blanket? The mind's eye starts to fill in the details as when reading a novel. You can't make out anything clearly but it still feels there's a whole story that the viewer is being invited to share in.
I think I've used that 'homemade camera' Instagram filter.
Kind of taken aback by all the people saying these are just shitty photos.
I think they are gorgeous...
Do y'all think Lo-fi music is just shitty music too?
I guess its a little unsurprising coming from the usual HN crowd lmao.
I guess its a little unsurprising coming from the usual HN crowd lmao.
Agreed, they are really beautiful. The bike in motion and dancing feet in particular
I agree - the aesthetics are amazing here - uniquely stylized. It looks easy to do but I don’t think it was and to imagine this aesthetic in this medium is cool. I’d hang these.
> Do y'all think Lo-fi music is just shitty music too?
Yes.
Yes.
Back when "street photography" meant snooping on unsuspecting women with zoom lenses
You need to examine the visual history of street photography much better if this is the only silly summary you can come up with about generations of work done with all sorts of interesting concepts and themes. What an absurd, smarmy and parochial judgement of such a broad photographic field.
Are you a woman? Who has been snooped on by men with zoom lenses they've made in their shed?
And how exactly is that specific context relevant to the rest of my point? Is this site saturated by people with null artistic appreciation outside an obsession with highly specific criticisms of very particular things?
It's specific to the context of discussing Miroslav Tichý's art, which is what this thread is about. Street photography is great, not sure where you mistook me
That holds in other art too. there is a current trend in modern art to create the most child-like, simplest, crayon crap that you can still sell at a Mega for millions lol. Very easy to make fun of but people like it.
Here's a couple that I don't actually mind too much, but still not my cup of tea.
https://www.artsy.net/artist/misaki-kawai/works-for-sale https://www.artsy.net/artist/maja-djordjevic/works-for-sale
Here's a couple that I don't actually mind too much, but still not my cup of tea.
https://www.artsy.net/artist/misaki-kawai/works-for-sale https://www.artsy.net/artist/maja-djordjevic/works-for-sale
The oil painting looking like ms paint scribbling is kind of interesting. I wouldn't hang it up though.
These are just creepshots.
Another recent example of how "bad photography" inspired "good photos" is Juergen Teller's shoot with W magazine. https://www.wmagazine.com/culture/best-performances-portfoli...
The photos are typical of Juergen's style. But his style has been evolving more into casual snapshot aesthetic, but in more ironic way.
The photos are typical of Juergen's style. But his style has been evolving more into casual snapshot aesthetic, but in more ironic way.
The same thing happened in fashion.
High fashion is always copying what the regular unfashionable people on the street are wearing, in the eternal search for authenticity.
Which is why things like bubble jackets, sweat pants, crocs and dad sneakers evolved from being laughed at to being very fashionable.
High fashion is always copying what the regular unfashionable people on the street are wearing, in the eternal search for authenticity.
Which is why things like bubble jackets, sweat pants, crocs and dad sneakers evolved from being laughed at to being very fashionable.
I must be out of touch, those aren’t fashionable and I don’t think most people in their 20s would think they are (sure they wear them all the time but that’s because of a rejection of fashion in favor of comfort.)
> wear them all the time
That's kind of what fashionable means.
Oxford dict:
Fashionable - characteristic of, influenced by, or representing a current popular style
That's kind of what fashionable means.
Oxford dict:
Fashionable - characteristic of, influenced by, or representing a current popular style
fashionable, popular, trendy, and common all mean different things even if they are somewhat interlinked concepts. High fashion then stands even more apart from the rest.
I kinda like this Cambridges definition[1] of fashionable more (even if isn't perfect)
> wearing clothes, doing things, and going to places that are considered stylish
There is clear difference of what is considered stylish and what is popular.
Macmillian[2] has even more poignant definition available:
> popular with rich and successful people, and often expensive
Which I might disagree on specifics, but it still carries the thought over. Fashionable is not (necessarily, or even commonly) popular with the common people, but of some sort of elite.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fashiona...
[2] https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fashi...
I kinda like this Cambridges definition[1] of fashionable more (even if isn't perfect)
> wearing clothes, doing things, and going to places that are considered stylish
There is clear difference of what is considered stylish and what is popular.
Macmillian[2] has even more poignant definition available:
> popular with rich and successful people, and often expensive
Which I might disagree on specifics, but it still carries the thought over. Fashionable is not (necessarily, or even commonly) popular with the common people, but of some sort of elite.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fashiona...
[2] https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fashi...
The important aspect of what.you describe is that fashion is more aspirational than popular.
A lot of what is "popular" is still recognized by the wearer themselves as not fashionable, and is worn despite that (and sometimes because of that) for various reasons.
A lot of what is "popular" is still recognized by the wearer themselves as not fashionable, and is worn despite that (and sometimes because of that) for various reasons.
Rejection of fashion in very specific trendy ways is fashionable right now. It’s more a rejection of “runway inspired” trends than a rejection of fashion itself.
Haute couture is almost all nutty stuff that no normal person wears anyway. It's like art for art's sake, not clothes.
Is it not art to demonstrate the capability of the designer? And what’s expected to follow is that they can put a great looking “regular” item together too
In this current internet age, there's a lot of trends of fashion. There was even a trend called normcore (https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/what-is-normcore/) that rejected typical fashion trends at that time.
“These things are not fashionable, they just wear them all the time”. There is a kind of contradiction there.
The low point for me is when people get on an airplane wearing track shorts. Eech.
Sounds comfortable. How long of a flight are we talking?
So wear your pajamas, if comfort is the only thing that matters.
P.S. class aside, nylon is a bad choice to wear on an airplane. It melts into your skin. Cotton and leather are good choices if you want to survive an accident. Also decent lace up shoes can save your life if you need to exit a burning airplane. Try running over burning wreckage with flip-flops.
I take off my shoes for comfort when at altitude, but lace them up for takeoff and landing.
P.S. class aside, nylon is a bad choice to wear on an airplane. It melts into your skin. Cotton and leather are good choices if you want to survive an accident. Also decent lace up shoes can save your life if you need to exit a burning airplane. Try running over burning wreckage with flip-flops.
I take off my shoes for comfort when at altitude, but lace them up for takeoff and landing.
What's good about these pictures? If you released them on Instagram on an anonymous account, nobody would give a shit.
It's hard to say. But I've been a fan of Juregen Teller for a while. He wants to break all the "rules" of fashion photography and photography in general.
You're right, if you post these anonymously to IG, no one would bat an eye. But it's published in a prominent fashion magazine, it's taken by the famous Juregen Teller, it features celebrities posing in an unflattering way, they're wearing the latest designer clothes, and it got a ton of negative attention on Twitter and other social media (all attention is good attention).
A typical amateur won't be able to do that (they probably think they can). I consider his style to be real and "amateurish" in a deliberate way. In some ways, I feel he's parodying amateur photos and putting famous celebrities in situations that normal pros don't usually would or can. Here is another site that tries to describe it: https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/juergen-teller-w-magazine/
You're right, if you post these anonymously to IG, no one would bat an eye. But it's published in a prominent fashion magazine, it's taken by the famous Juregen Teller, it features celebrities posing in an unflattering way, they're wearing the latest designer clothes, and it got a ton of negative attention on Twitter and other social media (all attention is good attention).
A typical amateur won't be able to do that (they probably think they can). I consider his style to be real and "amateurish" in a deliberate way. In some ways, I feel he's parodying amateur photos and putting famous celebrities in situations that normal pros don't usually would or can. Here is another site that tries to describe it: https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/juergen-teller-w-magazine/
Thanks for clarifying this. The link is quite interesting.
I didn't find the photos necessarily bad or easy to replicate at all. Taking pictures of people is intimate and challenging thing to do, especially if you don't know them well.
I'm also not one to critique photos from a technical perspective, and tend to go by feel in my own and others photos.
I'm also not one to critique photos from a technical perspective, and tend to go by feel in my own and others photos.
I'm similar. Critiquing a photo from a technical perspective is the low-effort way to do it. Getting a technically good photo is probably the easiest thing to do.
When I was more serious into photography back in the day, getting a photo that can express what I wanted it to feel or the story I wanted to convey was much harder.
When I was more serious into photography back in the day, getting a photo that can express what I wanted it to feel or the story I wanted to convey was much harder.
There's nothing good about them. They have celebrities and are ostensibly about "fashion", but they don't otherwise have anything to recommend them.
Well they were decently lit and in focus...
That used to take skill, before autofocus and digital cameras able to shoot at ISO 6400+ with post-processing to smooth out the noise. Now we're at a point where if the picture our phone takes is out-of-focus and too dark, we blame the phone.
The only really interesting thing here that cameraphones have sort of pushed photography to use shorter focal lengths more often. Some photographers feel the shorter focal lengths feel "more authentic" somehow.
Other than that, this looks like someone with a smartphone trying a little too hard to "do photography" yet not bothering to travel to a nicer venue.
Other than that, this looks like someone with a smartphone trying a little too hard to "do photography" yet not bothering to travel to a nicer venue.
I love using wide angle lenses, but yes, some of them have distortion that will make people look weird. You also need to know that you have to get super close to your subject to fill the frame for a traditional portrait framing.
To check out a good example for a movie, watch The Frighteners of doing traditional close ups with wide angles. This allows for normal framing of your talent while giving lots of room in the frame for the background gags.
To check out a good example for a movie, watch The Frighteners of doing traditional close ups with wide angles. This allows for normal framing of your talent while giving lots of room in the frame for the background gags.
I'm not saying short lenses are necessarily bad, btw. I just think it's interesting that smartphones have had this effect.
I'd argue that this started earlier, with the snapshot aesthetic pioneered by street photographers like Garry Winogrand and Daido Moriyama who often used wide <28mm lenses. The human field of vision is pretty wide at 120º, which equates to a ~12mm; wider is closer to what we "authentically" see. Then there's the obvious technical limitation of always being able to digitally zoom in but never out.
Shorter focal lengths have other purposes in street photography, where composing shots in crowded areas can be difficult or impossible with longer lenses like 85mm.
In terms of which focal lengths produce perspectives that make the most sense to our eyes, people usually point towards 35-50mm lenses. Supposedly the formula is something like "focal length = diagonal measurement of the format".
In terms of which focal lengths produce perspectives that make the most sense to our eyes, people usually point towards 35-50mm lenses. Supposedly the formula is something like "focal length = diagonal measurement of the format".
I'm well-versed on the benefits of shorter lenses.
Look through a "normal" lens (~42mm equiv) and you'll realize that it's actually nowhere near our field of vision (FOV), peripheral included. What a normal lens does is take a very narrow slice of our FOV and represent it neatly and proportionally, i.e. given two similarly framed portraits, a 40mm would make your nose look "normal" whereas a 28mm would make it look larger [1]. The shorter focal length dramatizes while also being closer to what we actually see; this wide perspective is why the two most venerable "street" cameras, the Ricoh GR and Leica Q, have fixed 28mm lenses.
[1] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/1/17059566/pla...
Look through a "normal" lens (~42mm equiv) and you'll realize that it's actually nowhere near our field of vision (FOV), peripheral included. What a normal lens does is take a very narrow slice of our FOV and represent it neatly and proportionally, i.e. given two similarly framed portraits, a 40mm would make your nose look "normal" whereas a 28mm would make it look larger [1]. The shorter focal length dramatizes while also being closer to what we actually see; this wide perspective is why the two most venerable "street" cameras, the Ricoh GR and Leica Q, have fixed 28mm lenses.
[1] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/1/17059566/pla...
I know how lens compression works. Though I specifically used the 35mm-50mm range because it depends on whether you take the diagonal directly, the diagonal of a square with edge length equal to the long edge of a 35mm sensor, or the diagonal of a square with edge length equal to the short edge of a 35mm sensor. Something in this range will produce an image that has a "normal" amount of compression.
However, these lenses will obviously not produce a human field of view. In fact, AFAIK, you cannot reproduce the field of view of a human eye without pretty severe distortions. Your eyes aren't rectilinear, so using very short rectilinear lenses don't really get you any closer to how a human sees. This choice is therefor aesthetic.
However, these lenses will obviously not produce a human field of view. In fact, AFAIK, you cannot reproduce the field of view of a human eye without pretty severe distortions. Your eyes aren't rectilinear, so using very short rectilinear lenses don't really get you any closer to how a human sees. This choice is therefor aesthetic.
Hence my persistent usage of 'closer;' no camera or lens will reproduce our eyes' field-of-vision or depth-of-field or color rendition exactly, but we can approximate them to the best of our technical capacity.
Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.
Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.
> Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.
I agree about color, but not focal length. Using very short focal lengths introduces highly distracting distortions. "Normal" focal lengths (35-50mm) are closer to what we experience, despite not having the wide field of view.
I agree about color, but not focal length. Using very short focal lengths introduces highly distracting distortions. "Normal" focal lengths (35-50mm) are closer to what we experience, despite not having the wide field of view.
Yet this experience is subjective; the cone of visual attention is a selective cocktail party effect. In an objective measure of the physical optics, wider is truer, but note that I'm not necessarily saying 'better.'
Again, I disagree with the assertion that wider is any more true to human vision, primarily since distortions are immediately apparent as the focal length gets shorter than 24mm or even 28mm. Using very short focal lengths just compresses what would otherwise be peripheral vision towards the center. This isn't somehow "more true" to human vision.
In order for such short focal lengths to truly be representative of human vision, you'd have to abandon rectilinear optics and flat media; and you'd have to graduate the level of detail such that most of the resolution was concentrated in the center rather than the periphery. If you're not willing to do so, a "normal" focal length reproducing the central vision will always be truer to human vision due to having a more reasonable perspective.
In order for such short focal lengths to truly be representative of human vision, you'd have to abandon rectilinear optics and flat media; and you'd have to graduate the level of detail such that most of the resolution was concentrated in the center rather than the periphery. If you're not willing to do so, a "normal" focal length reproducing the central vision will always be truer to human vision due to having a more reasonable perspective.
I can't tell if you're arguing for or against barrel distortion to improve accuracy, but both exist in either case [1,2].
Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. Wide lenses invite the photographer to work with juxtaposition and layering, and the viewer to selectively attend to different elements, which is actually in agreement with your closer-to-experience angle, i.e. the viewer must decide where to focus their cone of attention in a wide-angle photograph, just like they would in real life.
Again, I am not dealing with an absolute capital-T True representation of human vision. We are constrained to modern optical formulae and 2D mediums of commercially available photographic equipment. You could snowball this all the way into stereoscopic 3D fisheye videos livestreamed from eyewear, to get even closer to True human vision.
I still maintain that wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements we once and will attend to; a more convincing simulacrum. It's no coincidence that 35mm and 28mm and wider are used by so many photojournalists and street/documentary photographers, often exclusively in the latter case.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8...
[2] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_1...
Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. Wide lenses invite the photographer to work with juxtaposition and layering, and the viewer to selectively attend to different elements, which is actually in agreement with your closer-to-experience angle, i.e. the viewer must decide where to focus their cone of attention in a wide-angle photograph, just like they would in real life.
Again, I am not dealing with an absolute capital-T True representation of human vision. We are constrained to modern optical formulae and 2D mediums of commercially available photographic equipment. You could snowball this all the way into stereoscopic 3D fisheye videos livestreamed from eyewear, to get even closer to True human vision.
I still maintain that wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements we once and will attend to; a more convincing simulacrum. It's no coincidence that 35mm and 28mm and wider are used by so many photojournalists and street/documentary photographers, often exclusively in the latter case.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8...
[2] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_1...
I'm arguing that wide angles are only more representative if you use fisheye distortion and project the image onto a curved media.
If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision.
> the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at.
This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto.
> ...wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements...
Shorter lenses do incorporate more into the image. That doesn't make them more or less representative of human vision.
If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision.
> the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at.
This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto.
> ...wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements...
Shorter lenses do incorporate more into the image. That doesn't make them more or less representative of human vision.
I just appreciate that George Clooney is all "nah, I'm just going to wear my clothes"
I liked Scott Alexander's take on it. You only need to distinguish yourself from the class below, because no one would mistake you from someone two classes below.
The rich or famous can cosplay poverty, but the people in between can't, for fear of being mistaken as poor.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/
The rich or famous can cosplay poverty, but the people in between can't, for fear of being mistaken as poor.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/
Yes the craft of photography has gone mainstream with digital.
Easier to use for the average person, with filters and effects, but doesn't make the average users professionals.
Mobile phone images are the new throwaway polaroid.
However, the professionals with digital equipment do some incredible things.
The business of photography is more marketing than craft these days. Even professional photography is a commodity.
There are some people that stretch the art of photography, but they are more digital artists than photographers. They take a lot of the creativity into the post-processing and Photoshop stage. Most professional photography these days is just right-place-right-time and tweaking in Lightroom.
There are some people that stretch the art of photography, but they are more digital artists than photographers. They take a lot of the creativity into the post-processing and Photoshop stage. Most professional photography these days is just right-place-right-time and tweaking in Lightroom.
It's worth noting that even quite famous photographers from before the digital era would spend a LOT of time doing post-processing in the darkroom.
I'm thinking specifically of Ansel Adams, who famously said “You don't take a photograph, you make it.”
Of course darkroom tools had to be supplemented with special techniques and filters applied at the time of exposure. Digital photography is orders of magnitude easier.
I'm thinking specifically of Ansel Adams, who famously said “You don't take a photograph, you make it.”
Of course darkroom tools had to be supplemented with special techniques and filters applied at the time of exposure. Digital photography is orders of magnitude easier.
Great quote. I meant to imply that post-processing is a plus. A good percentage of people still think post-processing is cheating (i.e., #nofilter) but it's where the creativity actually comes into play.
The hard thing about digital photography is that it's easier, but that means you have to be that much better to stand out, because it's easier for everyone.
The hard thing about digital photography is that it's easier, but that means you have to be that much better to stand out, because it's easier for everyone.
But bromine, iodine, chlorine, and silver could not fix an even greater failing of early photographs, their impermanence
Good pun.
Good pun.
I have to guess a little at what you mean. My guess is the word "fix", having only been tangentially involved with photography are these the chemicals that we now call "fixer"?
Fixer is a class of chemicals used in wet photography to reduce impermanent, light-sensitive silver ions to permanent metallic silver.
That is actually done by the developer. The fixer washes away the remaining unexposed silver ions that were not reduced to metallic silver by the developer.
Ah, so it does.
The fixer stabilises the image, removing the unexposed silver halide remaining on the photographic film or photographic paper, leaving behind the reduced metallic silver that forms the image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_fixer
The fixer stabilises the image, removing the unexposed silver halide remaining on the photographic film or photographic paper, leaving behind the reduced metallic silver that forms the image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_fixer
The example of a selfie is in fact, not a selfie.
My most upvoted reddit comment ever was when I posted a "Sacagawea selfie"... by sticking my camera at the end of a statue's arm: https://i.imgur.com/UXRUx8q.jpeg
It's a picture of people taking a selfie. I think that communicates what a selfie is better than an actual selfie.
The caption says, somewhat ambiguously, "Example of a selfie".
That could mean "this image is an example of a selfie" (which is false). Alternatively it could mean "this image shows an example of a selfie being taken" (which is true).
That could mean "this image is an example of a selfie" (which is false). Alternatively it could mean "this image shows an example of a selfie being taken" (which is true).
[deleted]
Ha. Now I want to see the photo of that one being taken.
Something like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/_/c0tpyls/
EDIT: If you don't want to wade through that thread, here's a single image strip of that OP descending into madness as he shows how he took the "k-1" photo: https://i.imgur.com/Z12CC.jpg
Something like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/_/c0tpyls/
EDIT: If you don't want to wade through that thread, here's a single image strip of that OP descending into madness as he shows how he took the "k-1" photo: https://i.imgur.com/Z12CC.jpg
Sure but they are showing someone who we can presume completed taking a selfie. Though, arguably, the photographer we do not see, being further away would have taken a better (less distorted) picture, if the self photographer hadn’t hogged up the view.
In any case, I’d be curious to have joerg colberg’s take on this. Looks like he touches upon it tangentially[1] but not full on.
[1]https://cphmag.com/real-world/
In any case, I’d be curious to have joerg colberg’s take on this. Looks like he touches upon it tangentially[1] but not full on.
[1]https://cphmag.com/real-world/
Statue selfies should become a genre ! I will contribute.
That’s the point. You accept it as a picture of someone taking a selfie. Not just of someone taking a selfie but doing it competently.
It’s how I am supposed to picture myself to make a good selfie…and also how selfies are cast as shallow to make them easy to dismiss.
Even though Ansel Adams’ self portraits will hang on gallery walls as dearly priced artifacts.
It’s how I am supposed to picture myself to make a good selfie…and also how selfies are cast as shallow to make them easy to dismiss.
Even though Ansel Adams’ self portraits will hang on gallery walls as dearly priced artifacts.
[deleted]
It's right under the paragraph about the "plandid," and it seems to be a perfect example of that, though the caption makes it ambiguous re: intent.
I frequently see people say online that they "took a selfie of" something else these days. This language really bothers me.
I took a self-portrait of... It's people not thinking through what they are saying and rather relying on stock phrases to relay information.
> relying on stock phrases to relay information
You can see this in other common phrases.
Take "miles per hour" for example. I've met plenty of people who can't figure out how long it would take to get from A to B at X mph. They'll deliberate over how they know from running on their treadmill that they run (on average) at 8 mph, and they recall that it usually takes them Y minutes to run Z miles, and then they factor in the diameter of their car's wheels (because surely a car with larger wheels gets there faster for the same mph vs a car with smaller wheels), and finally sprinkle in a bit of multiplication to arrive at their best guestimate.
That is, plenty of people don't realize that "per" means "for each", and that it's not some singular word "milesperhour", but a phrase meaning "miles traveled for every hour spent travelling".
Other fun phrases thrown around without understanding (or with similar words mistakenly swapped in):
Miles per gallon.
For all intensive purposes.
Nip it in the butt.
Bone apple tea.
You can see this in other common phrases.
Take "miles per hour" for example. I've met plenty of people who can't figure out how long it would take to get from A to B at X mph. They'll deliberate over how they know from running on their treadmill that they run (on average) at 8 mph, and they recall that it usually takes them Y minutes to run Z miles, and then they factor in the diameter of their car's wheels (because surely a car with larger wheels gets there faster for the same mph vs a car with smaller wheels), and finally sprinkle in a bit of multiplication to arrive at their best guestimate.
That is, plenty of people don't realize that "per" means "for each", and that it's not some singular word "milesperhour", but a phrase meaning "miles traveled for every hour spent travelling".
Other fun phrases thrown around without understanding (or with similar words mistakenly swapped in):
Miles per gallon.
For all intensive purposes.
Nip it in the butt.
Bone apple tea.
Maybe, but it’s way more likely that they mean “I took a picture of something with myself in the frame.”
A selfie can really be any picture where you’re holding the camera and in the frame. The subject of the photo can be something other than you.
“I took a selfie with…” means that I and the other thing are the subjects.
“I took a selfie of…” means that the other thing is the subject I’m just in the picture.
A selfie can really be any picture where you’re holding the camera and in the frame. The subject of the photo can be something other than you.
“I took a selfie with…” means that I and the other thing are the subjects.
“I took a selfie of…” means that the other thing is the subject I’m just in the picture.
No, I very often see people say things like "I took a selfie of my dog" and only the dog is in the picture.
I have heard that as well, but the selfie in those cases was them with whatever they said. So it is more a short form of "took a photo of me with..." which I think is OK.
This points to a deep rooted problem. Probably OCD.
(Ha, you expected me to write about a problem in how people use language, got ya :-)
(Ha, you expected me to write about a problem in how people use language, got ya :-)
Or, a deeply-rooted assumption that "conformance to some arbitrary rules that have been adopted as signifiers of intelligence and class" is in some way an admirable quality, rather than the abilities to infer meaning in the face of ambiguity and to update one's mental model in response to new information (also known as "intelligence")
At a restaurant someone from a group of youngs once handed me her phone and asked me to "take a selfie of us".
In my native language we have a running joke that goes like this:
- I had a fie.
- ???
- Ah, it's just like selfie, but when someone else is making it for you.
If you are disheartened by your photography then constrain yourself to people only. Once you have learned how to talk to your subjects, to get real emotion out of them, then you’ll never look back. Break through that say-cheese barrier and make eye contact. Get people to really look at you and trust you, know when they are ready, and get them to show you how they feel.
I used to pat myself on the back for artsy seashell misty forest autumn leaf postcard stuff. In a world of hyper technical gear none of that is exceptional any more.
The composition and lighting of people and their faces is all.
I used to pat myself on the back for artsy seashell misty forest autumn leaf postcard stuff. In a world of hyper technical gear none of that is exceptional any more.
The composition and lighting of people and their faces is all.
I recently started making photographic images with pinhole lenses exposing directly to photo paper. It certainly changed what I pursued as 'good' photograph. To even think about composition, texture, tone, subject you first have to get past the difficulty, and ease of making mistakes in the technical process. It certainly gave me great respect for people who make art photography in the pre-digital era.
A large part of my motivation for trying this was looking at all everyone (myself included) snapping away all day every day making photos .. for what? .. It was hard to not just see them as habitual Trojan metadata carriers.
( here is one of the earlier works I actually scanned and inverted. https://mega.nz/file/1RhWwRTZ#q7jD9rbC2kph5VmX9q1Zv0ju-035HB... )
( here is one of the earlier works I actually scanned and inverted. https://mega.nz/file/1RhWwRTZ#q7jD9rbC2kph5VmX9q1Zv0ju-035HB... )
Something I've notice the past few years is how annoying it is to look at small highly compressed images. You can go to http://news.google.com and look at the thumbnails to get an idea of what I mean. Part of it is that pictures for digital consumption are taken with the belief that they'll be viewed at high resolution, and part of it is that the images are heavily compressed. It's not just that the detail is gone, but it's replaced with the vague hint of something. Sometimes I feel like I'm looking at GAN generated imagery because my brain is telling me there's something there, but I can't make out what it is.
For whatever if anything it might be worth, I would recommend Beil’s book if you find the ideas in the article interesting.
I mean the American Method is still running round in photographic circles as obsession with corner sharpness as a marker of self seriousness…and that’s where the book starts.
If I had an unmet need, it is the entirety American focus of the book leaves me a bit blind to the bigger picture. What was it like, I wonder, in Japan?
But then again, good books should raise new questions because new questions are the mark of learning. Beil’s book certainly feels like a potentially “important book” on US photographic history to me. YMMV.
I mean the American Method is still running round in photographic circles as obsession with corner sharpness as a marker of self seriousness…and that’s where the book starts.
If I had an unmet need, it is the entirety American focus of the book leaves me a bit blind to the bigger picture. What was it like, I wonder, in Japan?
But then again, good books should raise new questions because new questions are the mark of learning. Beil’s book certainly feels like a potentially “important book” on US photographic history to me. YMMV.
Related: Do iPhone or Android cameras have a smoothing filter that is default-on and that cannot be turned off? Been wondering about this.
All camera phones do heavy processing of the captured pixels. This is known as "computational photography". The camera software is the only thing that keeps the average camera phone picture in the realm of "that's a picture of the thing I meant to take a picture of".
Yes, as noise removal.
Yes, but some phones give you raw files and some apps can bypass the additional processing.
iOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211965
Android https://www.androidbeat.com/2018/10/pixel-3-how-shoot-raw-dn...
Alternative iOS camera app:
https://halide.cam/
iOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211965
Android https://www.androidbeat.com/2018/10/pixel-3-how-shoot-raw-dn...
Alternative iOS camera app:
https://halide.cam/
As a bonus, Halide also gives you proper control over which lens is being used in 2x mode - the iOS camera will flip between the 1x lens and 2x lens for 2x depending on focal distance - makes a right mess of things if you've got an extension lens screwed into 2x...
Apple ProRAW is not a real raw file and will include a lot of processing.
Worse, advertising photography has influenced what people consider good looking people.
Movies and TV have a much bigger impact on this than ads. Ads in general are worse at changing opinions than most people think. They are better at getting people to act on what they already agree with.
> “We have a situation today,” Beil says, “in which our smartphone cameras are producing pictures according to the criteria of software designers, who have made a lot of egregious assumptions about the tonality of skin color.”
Making any such assumption, of any quality, is egregious; it has no place in the camera application, other than as some opt-in configuration in the category of special effects.
Making any such assumption, of any quality, is egregious; it has no place in the camera application, other than as some opt-in configuration in the category of special effects.
I believe you have to make assumptions. AFAIK the data being picked up by the sensor can't map 1 to 1 with a display screen or a jpg or a print. So there has to be some mapping involved. Some cameras will give a RAW file, but developing a raw file isn't really a special effect.
I think there is a difference between applying some gamma curve or removing noise or whatever, versus somewhat understanding the image semantics and going after fixing skin tones.
Everybody can press the shutter button, far fewer press that button with intent.
I don't think this is a good title for the article. It probably generates more clicks than "how trends and technology influenced our perception photographs."
I'm no art historian, but from one point of view, good photography demonstrated qualities you'd find in good painting. Then the medium took on its own aesthetic with camera angles or color saturation of various films. Fast forward to today and between "vertical" compositions (screen orientation) and live photo (very short video) and let's face it, upvoting, our world is less about bad photos than it is about popular photos. From a collector's point of view, I'd think one would align with that more than, say, a contest winner's photo. And, an element of this has always been there, just not as amplified and dominant as it is in this social media era.
@chefandy suggested a better title, and I'd agree. I'd suggest however that his/her title is too gentle. I'd say "How Mass Popularity and Tech Influenced Perception of Photography" because it speaks to the culturally aggregating effect of the Internet.
@chefandy suggested a better title, and I'd agree. I'd suggest however that his/her title is too gentle. I'd say "How Mass Popularity and Tech Influenced Perception of Photography" because it speaks to the culturally aggregating effect of the Internet.
"The less you have, the more creative you have to become."
In On Photography, Susan Sontag argued that photography, which itself took a while to become considered an art form, gradually began to absolve painting of its duty to represent 'reality.' I can see 'phonetography' doing the same: dedicated photojournalists with dedicated cameras are losing ground to amateurs with just a phone and social media account.
Painting didn't die and neither will photography, but it's definitely going through some sort of midlife existential crisis. I can see it doing the equivalent of buying a vintage roadster as a senior citizen, i.e. return to its youthful state (film and mechanical/chemical processes) and explore its own unturned stones.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ezzpuOqkX4