On 12/31/12 9:32 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
That wasn't meant as any sort of quality judgement. When you push film or digital beyond
their comfort zone, they "go nonlinear" in different ways. It is these ways
that give the images their character, rather than just being a matter of fact
documentation of the scene. Most of the art of the technical side of photography, in my
not at all humble opinion, comes from overcoming, or working with these issues.
ah, I see. I don't think in terms of film or digital, just in terms of
getting the shot I want, and I think pure record-keeping is pointless; I
want to show what it feels like to me to see what's going on.
As to retro composition, some of the photos have the feel of photos taken when I
was much younger. Looking through, 3,6,&7. I can't say what makes them look
like they might have been taken forty years ago. I suspect that there are two
factors at play. One is that any activity where you make aesthetic choices will
have styles and fashions. People do what they see/hear their social circle doing,
because that is what seems right. A corollary to this would be, if you want to
take better pictures, look at better pictures. I think that another factor is that
the care and thought that goes into a photograph is generally in proportion to the
cost, in money and in effort, of taking that photograph. Also, when each frame
cost a perceptible amount of pocket change (click, that cost as much as a cup of
coffee), the people being photographed took a bit more care either because they
didn't want to screw up the photo and cost the photographer extra money, or because
they knew that t
hey would
n't get a second chance and if they looked dorky, that's how they'd be
memorialized.
wow, you could have just said you didn't like them. But thanks for typing it
out.
Again, that has nothing to do with these photos. I'm just trying to explain why
I think that people presented themselves differently for photos forty years ago
than they do now. It used to be that getting a photo taken was almost a
special occasion, in the same way that people would dress up to fly someplace
on an airliner. It's all a lot more casual now.
Certainly cameras were not as ubiquitous as they are now, and a bowl of
cereal didn't constitute a Kodak Moment, so in that way pictures were
more special. They had significance, even those that were more casual,
because they existed. I have a photo of my younger sister and me when I
was maybe seven and she was around four. It's not a great photo
aesthetically, but it's probably the only photo taken of us together at
those ages.
Today, when everything is captured, it's more important to me to realize
the significance of moments and try to make photos that express that
significance.
I'm not saying that people consciously thought of these things, or that
everyone did, but over time, photos have become far less formal. People don't
get dressed up every time someone is going to take a photo of them.
I suspect you don't have a free-spirited five-year-old girl around the house.
Rather than me saying to her to get dressed up so I can take some photos, it's
that I notice she is being a princess so I get my camera.
Yes, and so many of the less formal photos from when I was a kid were when
parents were doing just that. That may also have contributed to the nostalgic
feel of your photos. They reminded me more of the photos I saw when I was a
kid, rather than the photos, casual or portrait, than I so often see now.
I *liked* the nostalgic feel to your photos. It wasn't anything I consciously
thought about when I first saw them, I just had the gut feeling that they
reminded me more of photos from my childhood than the vast majority of photos
that I see now.
Sorry I misunderstood. I get what you're saying now, and I think we're
somewhat in agreement.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
