Not only sharpness, but details is bourgeois concept?

[daveleo]

Photography is a big house, with rooms for all styles and preferences. I'll join you for tea in one of the more expressionist rooms. But let's mind our own business and live and let live. The house will be a better place for it.

John

Wonderful point of view !
I'll have my tea in the impressionist room.

 

[TXForester]

I agree that it is complicated. There is no correct answer.

I'm fine in some photos with little detail or sharpness as long as the photo evokes a feeling.

 

[Baipin]

I think the notion that "x" is a bourgeois concept applies only to a very specific set of criteria. For some styles (e.g. street photography) content should certainly trump any need for a technically perfect picture. I love it when such a photograph is sharp, but at the end of the day, it's composition that ultimately matters to me, even if other aspects of the image must suffer for it. Likewise, other forms of photography (Burtynsky's landscapes come to mind) inherently warrant a more technical approach. While composition is still of paramount importance, the line between it and technical perfection is blurred. In such a case, that technical perfection (resolution/sharpness) allows the viewer to read an image in a manner that best conveys the artist's intentions. It tells the story as it needs to be told.

With that said, I think people often become too hung up on a single hierarchy of photographic needs (putting sharpness, resolution, colour accuracy etc. first). While this hierarchy may be best in some cases, it is not in every one, and it is through this confusion - an application of one case to every context - that problems arise and bad photographs are created. For instance, when technical prowess is solely exhibited, the resulting photograph becomes unary and boring.

For me, this is where things become confusing. We all want to take photographs that make us happy, whether it be directly, or indirectly (e.g. likes and views on Flickr). But if its strictly technical perfection that makes someone happy, or any other unary pursuit for that matter, should their photographs be considered unanimously bad? Even if they are pursuing what is supposedly the ultimate goal - shooting what makes you happy - should they be frowned upon for what has resulted?

P.S. As an Ontarian myself, I too would love a Midland Leica!

P.P.S. Excellent discussion. I'm glad I joined this forum!

 

[benlees]

Photography is by nature/definition bourgeois. Run with it!

Painting on photographs has a long history. How about collages made from SD cards containing photographs? Hmmm... Or a painting made from a stamp that is shaped like an SD card traced from an image using a camera obscura? Endless...

 

[robur]

Only in rangefinderforum...Thanks to all of you.

Enviado dende o meu SM-G3815 usando Tapatalk

 

[Hsg]

I will refer you to Johnwolf's metaphor likening photography to a big house. There are a lot of different folks photographing in a lot of different styles for no other reason than that's the way they want to shoot at that time.

I agree with you, but I also feel that people should not think in linear terms. There is no reason you should not paint if you're photographing.

Photography could be a big house with many rooms or a gulag, depending on one's talent and intelligence.

Speaking of intelligence, photography is a far more intelligent medium than painting. And by that I mean its very close to observable reality--photo ID is a good example. You can't hack it with photography unlike painting. In a painting, if nothing else, the surface texture created by paint on the canvas is enough to appeal to a viewer. In photography you have to capture everything, texture, form, color, composition and light.

 

[Hsg]

But they certainly have influenced each other...

They have influenced each other in a strange way.

Once photography came about, painting stopped pursuing realism and became impressionist and expressionist. In other words, painting has always tried to distance itself from photography by any means for example cubism, abstract etc..

Photography on the other hand has always had a deferential attitude towards painting.

 

[jojoman2]

I agree with you, but I also feel that people should not think in linear terms. There is no reason you should not paint if you're photographing.

Yup! I have a great fascination with watercolor in particular.

 

[Hsg]

I'm not into painters circles either. My beard isn't long enough. 😀

Honestly, I don't care in which category it falls.

A beard can make one look noble or make one look like a terrorists or a Cossack.

A long beard has never been a gurantee of making one noble... And we know this thanks to photography.

 

[Oscuro]

Not only sharpness, but details is bourgeois concept?

Photography and painting are simply two different means of producing a two dimensional representation of something that may have existed two or more dimensions.

Neither is by definition art or journalism or anything else - it is what one DOES with the elements at their disposal which makes it into something - art, reportage, what-have-you.

But, and a very big but, the best photographers will almost always have an art or design background. Even just a course or two but usually more. Even the most hardened war photographer ....

Don't believe me? Make a list of your favorite photographers and explore their backgrounds, dearies!

From an alley in the Levant,

Mme. O.

 

[13Promet]

But, and a very big but, the best photographers will almost always have an art or design background. Even just a course or two but usually more. Even the most hardened war photographer ....

Don't believe me? Make a list of your favorite photographers and explore their backgrounds, dearies!

A couple of abused example, I know, but here they go: Vivian Maier and Dan Mc Cullin

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
Make a list of your favorite photographers and explore their backgrounds!..

Two I like. HCB and G.W.
One with education as an artist and did it lately, another studied painting and later taught the art photography classes.
Every time I revisit G.W. photographs I could feel his education as artist. Very strong evidence to me.

"Photographing America"
http://www.amazon.com/Photographing-America-Henri-Cartier-Bresson-Walker/dp/0500543704

One text in this book explains why HCB and Evans photos are different.
Because one has background as an artist and another in writing.

I don't remember from whom, but it was known photographer who was asked how to get good picture. He suggested to look at the image you are about to take as the painter.

 

[Oscuro]

A couple of abused example, I know, but here they go: Vivian Maier and Dan Mc Cullin

Yes, but little is known about Mme M.

This, from Wikipedia: "In the 1930 census, the head of the household was listed as Jeanne Bertrand, a successful photographer who knew Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney, founder of the Whitney Museum of American Art.[7][8]". So, mentorship, perhaps.

And in the case of Don, "He is dyslexic[2][3] but displayed a talent for drawing at the Secondary Modern School he attended. He won a scholarship to Hammersmith School of Arts and Crafts[3] but, following the death of his father, he left school at the age of 15, without qualifications, for a catering job on the railways.[2][3]" - also from Wikipedia.

Fascinating.

Warmest,
Mme O

 

[zuiko85]

Well, soft focus has become very important to the missus since she's almost 58 and starting to see a few wrinkles. Of course I have soft focus eyes and she will always be my gorgeous bride, even after 28 years.