Aesthetics and digital photography

[eikin]

what's in it for people who like imperfections?
How about just stylistic differences in photography. These differences make photography interesting. 10 people can take a picture of the same person and come out with totally different pictures. Or they could take pictures which you can't differentiate from the next.

given 10 persons who have no interest in photography, you'll still get 10 uninteresting shots of the same object, though some unintentional stylistic accidents might be produced and be of interest to some. people who make digital photographs do produce accidental stuff, like how many film users are also technical perfectionists, just that digital accidents are different from that of film. i think it's not fair to compare the consumer digital photographer (who reads the advices off magazines) to the artist film photographer (who experiments in the darkroom.)

 

[mattlock]

given 10 persons who have no interest in photography, you'll still get 10 uninteresting shots of the same object, though some unintentional stylistic accidents might be produced and be of interest to some. people who make digital photographs do produce accidental stuff, like how many film users are also technical perfectionists, just that digital accidents are different from that of film. i think it's not fair to compare the consumer digital photographer (who reads the advices off magazines) to the artist film photographer (who experiments in the darkroom.)

one thing I'm saying is that actually playing up the specific nature of digital photography and making use of its quirks is something worth exploring, having the mentality of not needing technical perfection in terms of exposure, histogram etc.

 

[eikin]

one thing I'm saying is that actually playing up the specific nature of digital photography and making use of its quirks is something worth exploring, having the mentality of not needing technical perfection in terms of exposure, histogram etc.

intentionally or unintentionally, i'm sure there're people doing it. perfect exposure and histogram are subjective to begin with.

 

[pai]

one thing I'm saying is that actually playing up the specific nature of digital photography and making use of its quirks is something worth exploring, having the mentality of not needing technical perfection in terms of exposure, histogram etc.

interesting. maybe it's would be a start if we could identify some of these quirks?

the "plastic" look has already been mentioned

i'm trying to think how digital behaves different from film... sharper?... and the way it handles highlights...

limited dynamic range? or the opposite, HDR pix...

digital noise?

the possibility of perfect and predictable multiple exposures?