What makes Style, Signature, Type etc.?
Jun 17, 2022 00:00:14 #
User ID wrote:
Your problem and your premise add up to nada, zilch, zero. Who cares what media allow what "artistic descriptions" ?
This is a discussion board and that thought was a matter raised for discussion. It is rude join from a high horse and troll the idea instead of being useful to the discussion.
User ID wrote:
Show me a classic statue that expresses "Rembrandt Light". Find some common descriptors between earthworks and stained glass (might be some, but its a stretch). Anywho, why make a problem outa stuff like that ? Different media will have different "artistic descriptors".
Just re-create the light-source with the statue and it would show the same light effect. The common descriptors you are looking for will inevitable apply as both would look the same. In fact, it is a common lighting technique for portraits and that the "Rembrandt Light" lighting technique was named after Rembrandt who captured the effect in his paintings.
This is a discussion, not a problem. Different media may indeed have "some specialized" descriptors limited within its sphere. But the point being discussed is "common/general" descriptors that seems improper to photography, when it is also being hailed as a form of art.
Jun 17, 2022 00:09:32 #
User ID wrote:
You want to re-create the styles of other photographers ?
Your question comes as if to mock people who wants to learn & understand what makes other do a good job.
Do you not learn to draw the letters and understand their meaning before you knew how to read then write?
Did you not copy those letters first?
Jun 17, 2022 06:56:36 #
Much of Amstel Adams work is recognizable as his unique style. While I can not explain what sets his work apart I know it’s his work when I see it, perhaps it’s his use of the full tonal scale. If style is the wrong descriptor what else should we call it?
Wallen wrote:
I understand your comment on being against the ide... (show quote)
Jun 18, 2022 20:31:58 #
RodeoMan
Loc: St Joseph, Missouri
Wallen wrote:
Your question comes as if to mock people who wants to learn & understand what makes other do a good job.
Do you not learn to draw the letters and understand their meaning before you knew how to read then write?
Did you not copy those letters first?
Do you not learn to draw the letters and understand their meaning before you knew how to read then write?
Did you not copy those letters first?
Wallen, "User" recently identified himself as "a well-honed professional" professional who could teach "old man Adam's a few things" He has made clear his feelings about the photographic abilities of regular folks. Thank you for your question. I'm not sure how particular terms should be defined in all cases, but I do know that certain photographers have a certain style that I usually know when I see it.
Jun 18, 2022 20:47:23 #
Wallen wrote:
Just re-create the light-source with the statue an... (show quote)
Rebrandt Lighting is name after Rembrandt ??!?! Whoodathunk it !
Jun 18, 2022 20:53:17 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Obviously there are personal styles. With some photographers personal style is well-defined and identifiable, with others not so much. But universal style categories? I don't think it would be particularly helpful to compartmentalize photography in that manner. To what purpose or benefit?
Handy for counting angels on pinheads.
Only recently does it occur to me that I tend toward a style easily described in verrrrrry few words.
Acoarst not every image of mine exhibits it, but I see it imposed by me on many various subjects. Its not borrowed from any other "art form", and is peculiarly photographic, not generally "approved" for other forms but I have seen some wonderful exceptions, usually in very realistic painting.
It does tend to make the paintings look somewhat photographic in style. IOW it really "belongs" to photography, and Im pretty sure painters didnt use it before the advent of photography.
Jun 19, 2022 09:13:37 #
wham121736 wrote:
Much of Amstel Adams work is recognizable as his unique style. While I can not explain what sets his work apart I know it’s his work when I see it, perhaps it’s his use of the full tonal scale. If style is the wrong descriptor what else should we call it?
I believe that is exactly the legacy he was most notable for. The process/technique on how to capture the widest tonal range in the available light. Calling that a style? I don't know. That is why we are talking about it. What should it be? What should be accepted to canon?
Should HDR photography be called a style?
And shall we henceforth call HDR, Amstel style?
Jun 19, 2022 09:37:16 #
Wallen wrote:
...
...
Should HDR photography be called a style?
...
...
Should HDR photography be called a style?
...
According to one definition of "style", yes.
"the manner in which something is expressed or performed, considered as separate from its intrinsic content, meaning, etc."
Jun 19, 2022 09:57:46 #
RodeoMan wrote:
Wallen, "User" recently identified himself as "a well-honed professional" professional who could teach "old man Adam's a few things" He has made clear his feelings about the photographic abilities of regular folks.
I have nothing against the person. Judgement is not mine but to the Gods, if they bother to.
I'm only reflecting on the action. "User" might be even better than you say he is, and I'd be happy if he was, but as of that moment, that better did not show up and was not helping with the discussion. Like even now, because of that, we are derailed and are discussing a totally irrelevant matter to the original post. Also, what has his feelings got to do with discussing why certain terminologies that generally apply to art does not fully fit photography?
RodeoMan wrote:
Thank you for your question. I'm not sure how particular terms should be defined in all cases, but I do know that certain photographers have a certain style that I usually know when I see it.
As earlier posted, It just came to my attention. I too have not the most definitive answers. I have ideas but I think it can be too biased by itself, hence I'm gathering others thoughts on the matter to arrive on something that holds water. Perhaps someone can make things clearer for us all.
Jun 19, 2022 10:26:04 #
Longshadow wrote:
According to one definition of "style", yes.
"the manner in which something is expressed or performed, considered as separate from its intrinsic content, meaning, etc."
"the manner in which something is expressed or performed, considered as separate from its intrinsic content, meaning, etc."
"considered as separate from its intrinsic content"
That's were I have incongruence with the definition.
When we perform/create an HDR, it is what it say it is. High Dynamic Range. What is the element that is "considered as separate from its intrinsic content"?
Jun 19, 2022 10:28:25 #
Wallen wrote:
"considered as separate from its intrinsic content"
That's were I have incongruence with the definition.
When we perform/create an HDR, it is what it say it is. High Dynamic Range. What is the element that is "considered as separate from its intrinsic content"?
That's were I have incongruence with the definition.
When we perform/create an HDR, it is what it say it is. High Dynamic Range. What is the element that is "considered as separate from its intrinsic content"?
The way it is created, modus operandi.
Jun 19, 2022 11:07:41 #
Longshadow wrote:
The way it is created, modus operandi.
In singing, it could be a warble in the voice, the delivery...it can be heard
In painting, we have realistic, expressionism, abstraction...it can be seen
These are qualities that can be distinct and are separate from the song or the painting itself.
"The way it is created, modus operandi" IMHO is too broad when it comes to photography.
Also some images can be very similar in outcome but have very dissimilar creation process.
IMHO, to some degree I agree, HDR maybe set as a style, but not because of the way it is captured but by the amount of dynamic range it has which do make it look different from normal photos.
If it was the way or technique that makes the style, I think there should be a set outcome that is distinguishable and makes the output unique, before that way/modus be called a style.
Jun 19, 2022 11:17:10 #
I am so glad that I enjoy taking and processing without worrying about all this stuff. Whew!
Jun 19, 2022 11:25:24 #
sodapop wrote:
I am so glad that I enjoy taking and processing without worrying about all this stuff. Whew!
DITTO!!!!!
I either like pictures or I don't.
Jun 19, 2022 11:34:47 #
User ID wrote:
Handy for counting angels on pinheads.
You can count angels? I'll leave that to you. You can find a far divergent use and for something quite fantastic too.
User ID wrote:
Only recently does it occur to me that I tend toward a style easily described in verrrrrry few words.
Acoarst not every image of mine exhibits it, but I see it imposed by me on many various subjects. Its not borrowed from any other "art form", and is peculiarly photographic, not generally "approved" for other forms but I have seen some wonderful exceptions, usually in very realistic painting.
Acoarst not every image of mine exhibits it, but I see it imposed by me on many various subjects. Its not borrowed from any other "art form", and is peculiarly photographic, not generally "approved" for other forms but I have seen some wonderful exceptions, usually in very realistic painting.
Cool. I see your much more accomplished than I am. I could not stick to one style at all.
User ID wrote:
It does tend to make the paintings look somewhat photographic in style. IOW it really "belongs" to photography, and Im pretty sure painters didnt use it before the advent of photography.
It does tend to make the paintings look somewhat photographic in style. IOW it really "belongs" to photography, and Im pretty sure painters didnt use it before the advent of photography.
Sorry but I'm pretty sure "Photo realistic painting" is a style developed after photography.
https://www.theartstory.org/movement/photorealism/
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.