Are we now seeking too much perfection nowdays ?
Aug 2, 2020 13:46:59 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Photography is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do.
The sax is possibly the easiest instrument to learn to play badly.
Aug 2, 2020 13:52:02 #
Aug 2, 2020 13:57:23 #
Longshadow wrote:
Tastes change, what's "cool" changes.
(I can't stand cutting the top inch or three off of someone's head for a portrait.
But that's just my taste.)
And "perfect" is relative.
(I can't stand cutting the top inch or three off of someone's head for a portrait.
But that's just my taste.)
And "perfect" is relative.
It’s an aesthetic derived from phone pix by drunks. It communicates that good times are on the roll.
Not referring above to the intense close up which also crops out the ears and tip of the chin. Thaz a special case and not to be judged by the “85/1.4 fuzzy background 7ft distance” standard portrait paradigm.
Aug 2, 2020 14:01:44 #
User ID wrote:
It’s an aesthetic derived from phone pix by drunks. It communicates that good times are on the roll.
Not referring above to the intense close up which also crops out the ears and tip of the chin. Thaz a special case and not to be judged by the “85/1.4 fuzzy background 7ft distance” standard portrait paradigm.
Not referring above to the intense close up which also crops out the ears and tip of the chin. Thaz a special case and not to be judged by the “85/1.4 fuzzy background 7ft distance” standard portrait paradigm.
At least there is a logical reason!
Aug 2, 2020 14:26:38 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Longshadow wrote:
At least there is a logical reason!
At least there is a logical reason!
I think a big reason for "crowding crowns" is traceable to the way that images in video productions have been framed for many, many years. As long as I can remember, television closeups have tended to provide very minimal space above the top of the head or even to sacrifice some of the hair from the top of the head. If that is the model, and then if the photographer/videographer gets a little careless, it's only a small step to partial decapitation.
Aug 2, 2020 14:30:21 #
Longshadow wrote:
At least there is a logical reason!
At least there is a logical reason!
Consider where aesthetic paradigms comes from. Some come from the flak media, some cross between disciplines, some from cave paintings etc. some come from daily life, such as the “snapshot aesthetic”. This can be well executed or be really shabby ... but it is an actual aesthetic.
Rhetorical question: Why is cross processing an “art filter” ? Why was the appearance of a culpable lab error elevated into an aesthetic ? The query stands regardless of whether any individual loves or despises the look.
Aug 2, 2020 14:43:34 #
User ID wrote:
Consider where aesthetic paradigms comes from. Som... (show quote)
Cross processing probably did start as an error, but some people liked the way it looks, and started doing it intentionally. So the digital version of it was not elevated from an error, but something people were doing intentionally.
Aug 2, 2020 14:45:10 #
What if the difference between your goals and your accomplishments is 30 megapixels?
Aug 2, 2020 15:37:54 #
Photo's are now, and always have been, like all great works of art, a personal preference decision. They always will be. We can constructively critique a persons style, quality, etc, but in the end all are really a matter of personal preference.
Aug 2, 2020 16:53:52 #
Lukabulla wrote:
Are we taking it a bit too far now ? Or is it that... (show quote)
I would highly recommend looking into the origins of Rembrandt and Paramount lighting. These two lighting patterns are commonly used today from days past. Rembrandt lighting has been used since the 16 hundreds whereas paramount (butterfly) lighting was a mainstay in the 1930 & 40's. In fact butterfly lighting was often written into movie star contracts without exception. Many photographers also use hard-light particularly in male portraits along with athletic images.
In some ways eyes were as sharp if not sharper by using hard-light. Look at the use of overhead paramount lighting. The shadows were so strong from the eyelashes, you could count the individual lashes projected on the cheek.
True, soft light is predominantly used nowadays in female portraits but any portrait photographer worth their salt uses variants to demonstrate their creative edge.
Aug 2, 2020 17:17:15 #
Longshadow wrote:
(I can't stand cutting the top inch or three off of someone's head for a portrait.
(I can't stand cutting the top inch or three off of someone's head for a portrait.
Sometimes you have to to make room for the nose, particularly when the nose is a distinguishing feature.
Aug 2, 2020 17:22:14 #
Bill_de wrote:
Sometimes you have to to make room for the nose, particularly when the nose is a distinguishing feature.
Still don't like it.
Jimmy or not.
Aug 2, 2020 17:24:38 #
Lukabulla wrote:
Are we taking it a bit too far now ? Or is it that... (show quote)
Not at all. Seeking perfection is the engine behind progress. If we didn't seek perfection, we'd all still be wearing fig leaves (or fur lined loincloths) and carving images on cave walls.
Aug 2, 2020 18:12:53 #
When I look at paintings, I see that there is room for a wide variety of styles to be considered "good".
Picasso
Monet
Basquiat
All of these are considered really good even though they don't show people and life in a sharp and literal way.
Rembrandt
Davinci
These are much closer to what your eyes would see, but still have an artistic mood and flavor...
People have their personal preferences, but the art world itself recognizes a large variety of different styles as being "good".
I think the original poster might be saying that the photography world seems to be moving toward appreciating and valuing a smaller and smaller variety of styles.
Ultra sharp and perfectly centered photos ARE "really good", but I personally miss ALSO seeing more mood, texture, lighting, and experimentation as well.
I personally like variety, both in photography, and painting.
Picasso
Monet
Basquiat
All of these are considered really good even though they don't show people and life in a sharp and literal way.
Rembrandt
Davinci
These are much closer to what your eyes would see, but still have an artistic mood and flavor...
People have their personal preferences, but the art world itself recognizes a large variety of different styles as being "good".
I think the original poster might be saying that the photography world seems to be moving toward appreciating and valuing a smaller and smaller variety of styles.
Ultra sharp and perfectly centered photos ARE "really good", but I personally miss ALSO seeing more mood, texture, lighting, and experimentation as well.
I personally like variety, both in photography, and painting.
Aug 2, 2020 18:34:41 #
Lukabulla wrote:
Are we taking it a bit too far now ? Or is it that... (show quote)
Interesting topic but I don't think "seeking perfection" is an issue. Did artists over the years seek perfection? I don't think so, unless you define "seeking perfection" as pursuing and refining your personal style and messaging and the craftsmanship needed to express it the way you want to.
And if contemporary photographers would consider old "classic" shots rejects today, well, that says something about these photographers and it ain't good... Does anybody really think that photographs are generally "better" today than in the 50s and 60s?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.