Related: Do iPhone or Android cameras have a smoothing filter that is default-on and that cannot be turned off? Been wondering about this.
Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
31–40 of 184 posts
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#33Another 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 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.
The low point for me is when people get on an airplane wearing track shorts. Eech.
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.)
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.
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#35Another 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.
What's good about these pictures? If you released them on Instagram on an anonymous account, nobody would give a shit.
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
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.
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#38Talking 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
Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.
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?
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#39I 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.
Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture
#40Another 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.
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/