subtlety

[william_frucht]

My new motto is, if less is more, just think how much more more is.

[b_hall1]

Painting with light ?

 

Yeah, a lot of these unbelievable or impossible digital images remined me of those framed flashy or glowing arts that are sold on the side of the road near a busy intersection...

 

But I'm just suggesting a criticism genre...and that genre would be right for some people to support and wrong for other people to support. (The criticism is "its not natural" or "its not possible" or "its not believable".)

[weezul]

"Less is more"? Well said in times of permanent information overload... What do we do when we make a photograph? We often use DOF to remove unwanted details, we often use black and white to get rid of distracting colors, we then crop, dodge, burn, PS, altering (usually decreasing) the amount of information contained in the picture. Having said that, I do admire pictures that retain depth of field, of colors, of shades and highlights and still remain art, not mere glamour or snapshot (IMHO two basic kinds of photography where "more is better" - more sharpness and resolution, more DOF, more colour, at least as a rule). The latter are like an orchestral piece, while the former are often beautiful, intimate solos. All depends on the kind of music you prefer to listen to (and to play yourself!).

[beeman458]

"(The criticism is "its not natural" or "its not possible" or "its not believable".)"

 

And a valid criticism your above is..... if the person sharing the shot thinks it looks "natural." I get the feeling you're trying to force photographic art into a staight jacket, as in, when did it become a requirement photography be only about "natural;" one light source; the sun?

 

The reason for my question, in my forty plus years of photographic experience, I don't recall there being a set of rules controlling this aspect of the photographic experience. There's journalistic and landscape; photographing the real and yes, that's a given, but what about artistic expression?

 

Is it possible your comments (which I'm missing) are intentionally limited in scope as I'm unintentionally taking your comments out of context and making them over arching in nature?

[b_hall1]

Criticism must have logic and fundamentals.

 

You can't say a subject is not pretty enough. You can't say a subject is uninteresting. You can say a photo is a snapshot.

 

You can't say you don't like something and then not be able to articulate why.

 

You can say a photo is out of focus. You can say a photo is underexposed. You can say that there is a glob of shadow. You can say that there is a blown highlight. You can say the composition is wrong. You can say that the background is unsuitable to the subject.

 

And you can say that the photo "is not possible (in nature)" or that the photo is "not believable (as a single event)". You don't have to criticize some elaborate digital creation but if you don't like it you need to use critical elements...

[b_hall1]

And you can say that the photo "is not possible (in nature)" or that the photo is "not believable (as a single event)".

 

You don't have to criticize some elaborate digital creation but if you don't like it and want to criticize it you need use of some critical elements...

 

Particular photographic art is either supported or criticized...in fact PhotoNet right here has a critique system.

[beeman458]

"Particular photographic art is either supported or criticized...in fact PhotoNet right here has a critique system."

 

There is no such thing as a valid critique as there's only personal bias. Even we, as we critique our own efforts are biased by that which we've been taught and our insecurities.

[neilpeters]

Simplicity is its own high art.

 

So is composition. You could overlay 10 tweaked layers, making a highly succesful impact; it might be the composition that grabs one's attention.