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

131–140 of 184 posts

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

#131

Post by zuminator »

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 don't have a professional eye but I'll try to explain why I like one of the photos, the one identified as Photo 20, in which there are two sunbathers, the one on the right flirtatiously peering at the camera. I like the way that their images are just barely recognizable as such but they still look like real people in a candid moment. The resolution is so poor can't even see where the second woman's back ends and where the background begins. But with just a hint you can make out a smile and a sparkling eye. It's similar to the way a clever caricature captures the essence of the subject with a few strokes. Are there flowers in their hair? A checkered blanket? The mind's eye starts to fill in the details as when reading a novel. You can't make out anything clearly but it still feels there's a whole story that the viewer is being invited to share in.

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

#132

Post by t-writescode »

WalterBright wrote: post #33
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.

The low point for me is when people get on an airplane wearing track shorts. Eech.

Sounds comfortable. How long of a flight are we talking?

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

#133

Post by t-writescode »

meowzero wrote: post #7

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.

I just appreciate that George Clooney is all "nah, I'm just going to wear my clothes"

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

#134

Post by aimor »

Something I've notice the past few years is how annoying it is to look at small highly compressed images. You can go to http://news.google.com and look at the thumbnails to get an idea of what I mean. Part of it is that pictures for digital consumption are taken with the belief that they'll be viewed at high resolution, and part of it is that the images are heavily compressed. It's not just that the detail is gone, but it's replaced with the vague hint of something. Sometimes I feel like I'm looking at GAN generated imagery because my brain is telling me there's something there, but I can't make out what it is.

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

#135

Post by WalterBright »

t-writescode wrote: post #132
WalterBright wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low point for me is when people get on an airplane wearing track shorts. Eech.

Sounds comfortable. How long of a flight are we talking?

So wear your pajamas, if comfort is the only thing that matters.

P.S. class aside, nylon is a bad choice to wear on an airplane. It melts into your skin. Cotton and leather are good choices if you want to survive an accident. Also decent lace up shoes can save your life if you need to exit a burning airplane. Try running over burning wreckage with flip-flops.

I take off my shoes for comfort when at altitude, but lace them up for takeoff and landing.

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

#136

Post by gorgoiler »

If you are disheartened by your photography then constrain yourself to people only. Once you have learned how to talk to your subjects, to get real emotion out of them, then you’ll never look back. Break through that say-cheese barrier and make eye contact. Get people to really look at you and trust you, know when they are ready, and get them to show you how they feel.

I used to pat myself on the back for artsy seashell misty forest autumn leaf postcard stuff. In a world of hyper technical gear none of that is exceptional any more.

The composition and lighting of people and their faces is all.

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

#137

Post by prox »

psychomugs wrote: post #114

Wim Wenders had some pretty strong words about phone photography, claiming it's no longer photography but a new medium itself [1]. "The less you have, the more creative you have to become." In On Photography , Susan Sontag argued that photography, which itself took a while to become considered an art form, gradually began to absolve painting of its duty to represent 'reality.' I can see 'phonetography' doing the same…

I also a return to analog in some who have grown up with cameras in their phones.

I guess the experience of only having 24 pictures and developing becomes meaningful/ interesting when you are used to unlimited and direct.

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

#138

Post by prox »

nbzso wrote: post #80

Photography as art was slightly popular in the age when regular people had crappy cameras and had to learn how to create a picture. In the process people learned to appreciate good composition and artistic interpretation of true professionals. 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 th…

The hobby / professional camera field has to my knowledge always been divided between technologists and artists. One group who doubled down on the technical side, and one group coming from an artistic background.

The Venn Diagram of where the two meet is not that big.

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

#139

Post by hyperbovine »

psychomugs wrote: post #114

Wim Wenders had some pretty strong words about phone photography, claiming it's no longer photography but a new medium itself [1]. "The less you have, the more creative you have to become." In On Photography , Susan Sontag argued that photography, which itself took a while to become considered an art form, gradually began to absolve painting of its duty to represent 'reality.' I can see 'phonetography' doing the same…

> I can see it doing the equivalent of buying a vintage roadster as a senior citizen

Funny you should put it this way, because it’s the same crowd buying both: wealthy old guys. Some time around the 1990s, Canon and Nikon made the fateful decision that photography would become stupid expensive and accessible only to those with money to burn. Don’t get me wrong, modern DSLRs and AF lenses are amazing feats of engineering and manufacturing, but the end result has been that “serious” photographers spend upwards of $10k on a nice body and not that much glass. You reap what you sow. All of the energy and excitement about taking pictures now surrounds phones. The idea of dropping $thousands on a “proper” DSLR setup probably seems laughable to most millennials and gen Z.

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

#140

Post by posterboy »

dillondoyle wrote: post #110
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

you mean like the curvy wall?

https://www.streetartbln.com/blu-murals-painted-over/

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/cuvry-brache-in-berlin-...

Post reply on HN