Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It just came to me what sharpness and distortion control, CA and such; all of it is somewhat related to photography. But it is not something which is the photography of the image.
To me image on photo is better outcome if it shows the image of how author see it inside, how author of picture feel something and it is in the picture.
And then it is up to viewer to catch the sync.
Maybe sharp, easy to digest pictures are so popular here and where because no synchronization of inside visions are involved. Just plug and play...
To me image on photo is better outcome if it shows the image of how author see it inside, how author of picture feel something and it is in the picture.
And then it is up to viewer to catch the sync.
Maybe sharp, easy to digest pictures are so popular here and where because no synchronization of inside visions are involved. Just plug and play...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I've resigned myself to the apparent fact that this is more a camera forum than a photography forum.
Indeed a few here seem to have an outright disdain for photography.
It's easier to discuss quantifiable things like lines per millimeter than it is to discuss subjective things like boke' which is still easier than discussing or attempting to discuss things likes concepts or aesthetics.
Indeed a few here seem to have an outright disdain for photography.
It's easier to discuss quantifiable things like lines per millimeter than it is to discuss subjective things like boke' which is still easier than discussing or attempting to discuss things likes concepts or aesthetics.
Dwig
Well-known
Quite true.
While there are a wide range of members, this is more of a community of gadget freaks and tinkerers than of artists.
cz23
-
In fairness to forum members, what's inside us is hard to talk about. Not many are skilled at that, and it may not even be suitable for a large group discussion. When that type of discussion is done, it can also start to sound pretentious.
But there are quite a few folks here who respond to photographs at that level. I always appreciate it for my postings.
John
I prefer talk of art, content, aesthetics, etc., but have yet to find a forum that focuses on these elements. In photography, the technical aspects have always been easier to talk about for most. Cameras are cool tools / instruments and I do enjoy talking about them as well sometimes (especially if a new Leica or Fuji comes out)... but not about creamy bokeh, macho exposure techniques, brick wall lens sharpness, etc.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Why it has to be dark inside and come out naked? I would like to dare to use Helen Hill photos here at this forum as example of my nothing new manifesto.
Dark and primitive part of me always wanted write something about Helen's pictures not to be in focus or sharp or something else technically not perfect. But I always knew here is something I must understand in HH photography instead of writing something obvious. Despite what HH photos aren't always perfectly in focus technically, many of Helen pictures are in sync with inner me. This is what I realized. HH pictures are perfectly in focus in how I feel. And here is nothing dark. I just feel it as the picture which resonate with me.
And here is another thing to me still to learn from Helen. She posts some of her work with particular lens example in the threads where someone is asking about this particular lens. I think, Helen Hill is one of the few photographers who is able to feel something else in the lens rather than just sharpness and distortion correction. HH feels something deeper what lens could bring to make some of us resonate or at least guess, instead of straight digestion of the technically perfect image.
So, you like your photography RAW and loose? Nothing wrong with that. I like a lot of different styles. However, I don't make any connections between technical geeking out about gear / lenses and technically perfect images. Some projects require certain looks and that might be everything lined up, in focus, and a seemingly perfect formal composition.
PS: There's also nothing wrong with discussing equipment if that is what does it for you.
PS: There's also nothing wrong with discussing equipment if that is what does it for you.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
My introduction to visual art came by paintings. Sometimes it comes with formal composition and kind of sharpness. I'm entirely not holgalized.
Look how Surrealist Photography photogaphy thread started. I send my hugs and kisses to OP who has started it, but within my limited PoV it really started with post #23. Sharp image, composition, but it is a lot more in the picture, than composition and sharpness or just "RAW und Loose".
I don't even dare to post in the this thread (yet
), because where are really good ones and most of them came with images in focus, but I don't want to be one of those who are not resonate with me.
Look how Surrealist Photography photogaphy thread started. I send my hugs and kisses to OP who has started it, but within my limited PoV it really started with post #23. Sharp image, composition, but it is a lot more in the picture, than composition and sharpness or just "RAW und Loose".
I don't even dare to post in the this thread (yet
), because where are really good ones and most of them came with images in focus, but I don't want to be one of those who are not resonate with me.mich rassena
Well-known
Where are the photography forums? I'm looking for one as well. Maybe somewhere with strict rules that gear and procedure isn't to be discussed, lest everything slide into the technical side of things. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love gear and gadgets, but you and I can't be the only ones who want to talk about photography in depth.
I suppose what I'm really after is an art forum where photography is the art form under discussion. I don't feel entirely qualified to discuss art, but I'm willing to learn.
back alley
IMAGES
Me too... ...
antiquark
Derek Ross
That being said... I think that RFF has a higher degree of artistic quality than, say, flickr or instagram.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Unsurprising. This is rangefinderforum, not rangefinderimagesforum, and it is run by the owner of a camera store, not an art gallery.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Excuse me, but you are too short on (or for) this forum to judge it like this.
In fact, RFF is one of the very few forums where I feel comfortable to have talks like this about not just the gear or Trump thing.
CMur12
Veteran
This is a good thread. Thanks, Ko, for opening an interesting topic.
I find that this forum has way more depth and variety than I have found in any photo magazine. Such publications test lenses purely on easily measured criteria, such as sharpness and resolution, with a little contrast here and there. That is all I ever saw in photo magazines.
It wasn't until I came here that I found conversations about different lenses and how they render an image - discussions of lens character - that I found refreshing, as some of my favorite cameras have simpler lenses. This is still discussion about equipment, but it draws a connection between equipment and the resulting aesthetic of an image.
We also have some good how-to threads.
Beyond that, there are many threads about equipment that contain a lot of useful information to those contemplating a purchase.
- Murray
I find that this forum has way more depth and variety than I have found in any photo magazine. Such publications test lenses purely on easily measured criteria, such as sharpness and resolution, with a little contrast here and there. That is all I ever saw in photo magazines.
It wasn't until I came here that I found conversations about different lenses and how they render an image - discussions of lens character - that I found refreshing, as some of my favorite cameras have simpler lenses. This is still discussion about equipment, but it draws a connection between equipment and the resulting aesthetic of an image.
We also have some good how-to threads.
Beyond that, there are many threads about equipment that contain a lot of useful information to those contemplating a purchase.
- Murray
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The forum over at filmwasters used to be pretty strict about keeping threads from veering into camera-centric discussion (and they're still strict about keeping digital off-topic). But they've loosened up a lot in recent years. I wouldn't call it an art forum, but it is definitely more centered on taking pictures than it is on discussing cameras/equipment.
Ranchu
Veteran
I feel talking/writing about photography is somewhat anathema to photographs. When people talk about gear they are talking about the intangible things you mention, as every lens is different, and every camera/lens affects the ioperation of your mind differently. Like paintbrushes, without the mess. No big deal, but I would go out of my mind trying to read someone's descriptions of photographs, etc, even with the photograph in front of me. Foaming at the mouth.
I never got the impression that "sharp, easily digested" photographs were any more popular here than any other kinds. The nature of photograph is all of it, not just it's sharpness or unsharpness. "Easily digested" is just some random value judgement you're making, sounds snobbish. What you are doing is expressing a preference for certain types of photographs, and then coming up with a theory to explain it. You don't need to, you can just go ahead and like them better. A theory about it isn't going to do anyone any good, imo, just add more noise.
http://cdn2.filmsnotdead.com/wp-con...u_Dragon_Paris_VIe_par_Eugène_Atget_19131.jpg
I never got the impression that "sharp, easily digested" photographs were any more popular here than any other kinds. The nature of photograph is all of it, not just it's sharpness or unsharpness. "Easily digested" is just some random value judgement you're making, sounds snobbish. What you are doing is expressing a preference for certain types of photographs, and then coming up with a theory to explain it. You don't need to, you can just go ahead and like them better. A theory about it isn't going to do anyone any good, imo, just add more noise.
http://cdn2.filmsnotdead.com/wp-con...u_Dragon_Paris_VIe_par_Eugène_Atget_19131.jpg
RichC
Well-known
Not of much help with an online forum, but some local photographers (Brighton, UK) set up group for photography talks and events, and two of the core principles are absolutely no gear talk plus no entry fee.
Miniclick has been going for over five years now, and they've gone from strength to strength, even being invited by The Photographers' Gallery (the UK's foremost photography gallery) to put on events for a week!
So, there's definitely a desire by folk for photography as something more than gear related or pretty but empty pictorial images...
Miniclick has been going for over five years now, and they've gone from strength to strength, even being invited by The Photographers' Gallery (the UK's foremost photography gallery) to put on events for a week!
So, there's definitely a desire by folk for photography as something more than gear related or pretty but empty pictorial images...
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Ko.Fe. you raise a good topic. I say, let's talk about it.
My take:
- There's something inside the photographer.
- Making an image is creative act.
- The image connects what's inside the photographer to what is inside the viewer.
- Successful images bring out something interesting for the viewer.
- The creator and the viewer are jointly participants in this process; neither fully controls the outcome.
Often we look at an image as something "out there." We might judge it, "nice shot!" without making an inner connection, maybe marvel at the DOF control, the full range of tones, the sharpness, the lens and camera, wonder about the settings. I think that's admiring craft and tool, perhaps even sharing elements of craft and tool, but it's not an art experience.
The best images, the most successful, go much further. The best images connect. Then it's an art experience involving both.
My take:
- There's something inside the photographer.
- Making an image is creative act.
- The image connects what's inside the photographer to what is inside the viewer.
- Successful images bring out something interesting for the viewer.
- The creator and the viewer are jointly participants in this process; neither fully controls the outcome.
Often we look at an image as something "out there." We might judge it, "nice shot!" without making an inner connection, maybe marvel at the DOF control, the full range of tones, the sharpness, the lens and camera, wonder about the settings. I think that's admiring craft and tool, perhaps even sharing elements of craft and tool, but it's not an art experience.
The best images, the most successful, go much further. The best images connect. Then it's an art experience involving both.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Honorable Col. Sebastian Moran, thank you!
It is exactly what is sitting in my head, but I can't put it as you did in words.
It is exactly what is sitting in my head, but I can't put it as you did in words.