Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

collectorsweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 184 posts

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

#101

Post by zokier »

jbtbfkkfmfne wrote: post #32
swiley wrote: post #27

Earlier 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.)

> 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

fashionable, popular, trendy, and common all mean different things even if they are somewhat interlinked concepts. High fashion then stands even more apart from the rest.

I kinda like this Cambridges definition[1] of fashionable more (even if isn't perfect)

> wearing clothes, doing things, and going to places that are considered stylish

There is clear difference of what is considered stylish and what is popular.

Macmillian[2] has even more poignant definition available:

> popular with rich and successful people, and often expensive

Which I might disagree on specifics, but it still carries the thought over. Fashionable is not (necessarily, or even commonly) popular with the common people, but of some sort of elite.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fashiona...

[2] https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fashi...

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

#102

Post by nemo44x »

deertick1 wrote: post #70
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

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.

I agree - the aesthetics are amazing here - uniquely stylized. It looks easy to do but I don’t think it was and to imagine this aesthetic in this medium is cool. I’d hang these.

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

#103

Post by falcrist »

wavefunction wrote: post #90
falcrist wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could have such an experience with nature, but nature isn't the same thing as art.

I just think art is poorly defined.

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

#104

Post by helloworld11 »

mslate wrote: post #85
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

You need to examine the visual history of street photography much better if this is the only silly summary you can come up with about generations of work done with all sorts of interesting concepts and themes. What an absurd, smarmy and parochial judgement of such a broad photographic field.

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

#105

Post by mslate »

helloworld11 wrote: post #104
mslate wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You need to examine the visual history of street photography much better if this is the only silly summary you can come up with about generations of work done with all sorts of interesting concepts and themes. What an absurd, smarmy and parochial judgement of such a broad photographic field.

Are you a woman? Who has been snooped on by men with zoom lenses they've made in their shed?

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

#106

Post by helloworld11 »

lmilcin wrote: post #64
helloworld11 wrote: post #54

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 each their own opinion I guess, but these photos are more than just random shots taken with a bad camera. Not all of them are especially good but there is a conscious intent of showing us the world through a slightly novel perspective and in some of the shots, with quite a visually poetic effect (the dancing feet are one good example).

Knowing the context and the work he must have put into building the camera, maintaining it and later developing his shots under the circumstances he worked with also helps. What I definitely don't see here is just a bunch of bad photos taken with a bad camera. I'd hardly call a homemade camera as simply bad, even imperfect it merits some respect.

I'd say they at least fit Susan Sontag's loose definition of photography showing others something novel.

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

#107

Post by soneca »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #94
soneca wrote: post #13

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.

I truly believe their are two kind of appreciators of art in the world. 1. People who like realism, photoshopped pictures, GGI in media, etc. vs. 2. Modern art, film noir, Black & white classical movies, etc. If you give the second a chance, you might be suprised what your imagination does. I used to be kinda a #1 guy with the exception of bad action filmed CGI movies, but completely changed as the years went by. I'v…

I truly believe that you can’t divide appreciators of art in simple, unnuanced, mutually exclusive categories. Specially just 2 like you did.

I don’t see myself in either category, at the same time that I do remember appreciating things that would fit both.

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

#108

Post by kazinator »

> “We have a situation today,” Beil says, “in which our smartphone cameras are producing pictures according to the criteria of software designers, who have made a lot of egregious assumptions about the tonality of skin color.”

Making any such assumption, of any quality, is egregious; it has no place in the camera application, other than as some opt-in configuration in the category of special effects.

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

#109

Post by IggleSniggle »

mdoms wrote: post #21
soneca wrote: post #13

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.

I agree that you can’t just take awful photos and say “these are good actually,” but I think these are incredible! Haven’t enjoyed a photo series as much as these in a long time.

I suppose, as they say, there really is no accounting for taste. My own included, of course.

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

#110

Post by dillondoyle »

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

That holds in other art too. there is a current trend in modern art to create the most child-like, simplest, crayon crap that you can still sell at a Mega for millions lol. Very easy to make fun of but people like it.

Here's a couple that I don't actually mind too much, but still not my cup of tea.

https://www.artsy.net/artist/misaki-kawai/works-for-sale https://www.artsy.net/artist/maja-djordjevic/works-for-sale

Post reply on HN