71–80 of 184 posts
But bromine, iodine, chlorine, and silver could not fix an even greater failing of early photographs, their impermanence Good pun.
I have to guess a little at what you mean. My guess is the word "fix", having only been tangentially involved with photography are these the chemicals that we now call "fixer"?
Talking 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
Kind of taken aback by all the people saying these are just shitty photos. I think they are gorgeous... Do y'all think Lo-fi music is just shitty music too? I guess its a little unsurprising coming from the usual HN crowd lmao.
The example of a selfie is in fact, not a selfie.
I frequently see people say online that they "took a selfie of" something else these days. This language really bothers me.
- I had a fie.
- ???
- Ah, it's just like selfie, but when someone else is making it for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd guess they invoked nostalgia in other photographers at the time about their old bad photos, so they thought it was brilliant. Like an inside thing only they understood.
I like them and it's simply because they evoke an intellectual and emotional reaction. That's art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.
Yup, you can't just take awful photos and say "these are good actually". Well, in the art world you can get away with that kind of nonsense. But to most people those are just terrible photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, show an example of what you consider to be good photos, if you don't mind taking a moment.
I don't think I can explain to you by showing an example. Also, I type this on a phone and don't have access to my collection. A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context. These are more or less random photos taken with a bad camera. That's it. Now, I don't say you need good camera for good photos. You can make interesting photos with any camera. And you ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, show an example of what you consider to be good photos, if you don't mind taking a moment.
I don't think I can explain to you by showing an example. Also, I type this on a phone and don't have access to my collection. A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context. These are more or less random photos taken with a bad camera. That's it. Now, I don't say you need good camera for good photos. You can make interesting photos with any camera. And you ca…
To my eye, these photos have all three of those things.
You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.
Yup, you can't just take awful photos and say "these are good actually". Well, in the art world you can get away with that kind of nonsense. But to most people those are just terrible photos.
There is not one kind of art.
Art does not need to be popular or broadly understood to be art.
You are not a majority anyway.
Good taste, feeling, and emotions are personal.
Another 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.
Other than that, this looks like someone with a smartphone trying a little too hard to "do photography" yet not bothering to travel to a nicer venue.
With advancements in digital photography and recently computational exposure all of this is gone. Over-saturation, Hyper contrast, HDRI corrections are the norm. People like things that are easy to understand and reproduce.
The next level of madness is GAS. There are thousands of "photographers" who are actually Technographers. Who are part of some "group" or brand tribe. And the taste of the tribe defines success.
The people who are learning composition, exposure or development are minority. And in this age of popularity contest photography is measured in likes, so there is no place for good photography in a classical sense. People have phones with AI and everybody is an "artist'. So be it.
But some of us don't care. Some of us shoot film for experience and challenge. Some of us read Ansel Adams books and try to create meaningful work. Some of us know who is Bresson, Robert Capa, and countless other masters. https://www.magnumphotos.com/shop/photographers/ And this is not bad thing.
Let people like what they can comprehend.