Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture • Hacker News Board

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#81

Post by kergonath » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #77

lmilcin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context. 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.

> You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.

There is nothing objective about art anyway.

I agree with you, though. There is something in these. Some kind of motion. Some kind of primitive, wild instincts as well. As if a bear had found a camera, and he were more interested by ladies than about anything else.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#82

Post by kergonath » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #27

jbtbfkkfmfne wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.)

“These things are not fashionable, they just wear them all the time”. There is a kind of contradiction there.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#83

Post by zimpenfish » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

knolan wrote: post #65

cryptoz wrote: post #31

Related: Do iPhone or Android cameras have a smoothing filter that is default-on and that cannot be turned off? Been wondering about this.

Yes, but some phones give you raw files and some apps can bypass the additional processing. iOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211965 Android https://www.androidbeat.com/2018/10/pixel-3-how-shoot-raw-dn... Alternative iOS camera app: https://halide.cam/

As a bonus, Halide also gives you proper control over which lens is being used in 2x mode - the iOS camera will flip between the 1x lens and 2x lens for 2x depending on focal distance - makes a right mess of things if you've got an extension lens screwed into 2x...

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#84

Post by pcrh » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:05 PM UTC

soneca wrote: post #13

twic wrote: post #11

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

Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.

>without context

That's an effect of perspective. Knowing the fact that the "home made" appearance is deliberate changes the photos from being random bad photos to being commentary.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#85

Post by mslate » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #11

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

Back when "street photography" meant snooping on unsuspecting women with zoom lenses

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#86

Post by stavros » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

kebman wrote: post #23

twic wrote: post #11

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

The imperfections serve as a kind of verfremdungseffekt, making the viewer aware that he's looking at a photograph, rather than at a person. As such René Magritte comes to mind. It is fascinating that he made his own camera, though. That certainly adds to the quality of the images, though it's of course a kind of non-diegetic contents. He said, with a wry smile.

Is it just me or has the quality of GPT-3 comments declined recently?

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#87

Post by dang » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

chefandy wrote: post #26

I 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."

Ok, we've changed the title above to use representative language from the article itself.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#88

Post by chakalakasp » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #52

twic wrote: post #11

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

Well, I took a look, they are just bad photos to me. I could not find any redeeming quality.

I'm a photographer and I'll be honest, I clicked on these fully expecting to not like them (usually when people say "look at these photos, they look like terrible photos taken with a bad camera until you, like, get it, man" what they really mean is that the photographer knew the right pretentious people at the right time in history)...

... but I actually like them. I wish I could explain why; he's doing some clever stuff here. Some of it is kinda pervy and it feels like TMI, but he's at least being clever. There are a few photos that feel like you are voyeuristically peeking through time, the defects in the photos are like peeking through bushes to see something interesting. But mostly I can't explain why I like it. I just do.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#89

Post by caconym_ » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

falcrist wrote: post #74

wavefunction wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like them and it's simply because they evoke an intellectual and emotional reaction. That's art.

I get nothing from them. Does that make them not art?

I would guess GP was trying to explain what they enjoy about these photographs in the context of their putative classification as art, not offering a definition of art itself. This would be in contrast with the comment they replied to, which implied that this photographer and his work are "famous" only thanks to an indulgent, masturbatory sort of appreciation among critics, other artists, and their general ilk.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#90

Post by wavefunction » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

falcrist wrote: post #74

wavefunction wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like them and it's simply because they evoke an intellectual and emotional reaction. That's art.

I get nothing from them. Does that make them not art?

For you, perhaps. I don't think there is an objective truth of "this is art, this is not art." I shared my experience of the pictures with you. Art is the experience of Art imo.