Les Klein

Montreal area
We went to a Monet exhibit earlier today. I’m not a fine art aficionado but I am familiar with impressionism. I thought of today’s quest in photography to capture the most accurate detail possible in our digital images. By contrast, Monet used dabs of paint to give rise to objects and colours in a scene, thereby challenging our brains to interpret the canvas and reconstruct its beauty. I know that pointillism is a closer comparison to digital photography, but that’s not my point. My point is that I spend too much time considering the mechanics of the imaging experience (cameras, lenses, sensors, screens, etc.), and not the same time on composition, rendering and the elicited emotions of a scene and subsequent image.

John King

Member of SOFA
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
John ...
Hear, hear. I can get caught up in the technical minutiae of rendering and sensor performance and image quality too, but literally none of my favorite photos from other photographers are favorites for those reasons. Seeing the big picture, that's what defines an artist, in a way. It's a good challenge.
Or the little picture within the scene, Andrew.

Photographing what we are seeing, not what we are looking at.

Freeman Patterson "Photography and the Art of Seeing" springs to mind ...


Top Veteran
Interesting tread, deserves a bump and a comment!

I have in my earlier "career" as a photographer, mostly done reportage stuff, it is somewhat limited in its scope as to illustrate something or the other on some sort of topic. Very little of what I have done has been in the terms of "art", and I am somewhat leery towards the term still but am working more along those lines these days. Then again, it is for me, not for some sort of media.

As for the technical bits, I joined here last year and dumped into the small sensor challenge, it both intrigued me and let me investigate a lot of the earlier stuff I did in digital as I used P&S for my personal photography with the analog SLRs for more "serious" work. I ended up retiring the analog stuff around 2005 going full digital and just P&S, even if some of them got a bit on the non-pocketable side of things. Not much of it is perfect, but some bits and bobs picks my interest and some I think is somewhat good even if they are small sensor painterly, or perhaps it is because they are painterly I like them?

Looking at at the portfolio of masters from the past, most of what is considered iconic images is rather "bad" from a modern technical viewpoint, but the images speaks volumes, even if they are not tack sharp to the tune of counting the hairs on the legs of the gnat in the background of Cartier-Bressons "Cloaked man".

As of today, my large format is M43, it has been that way since 2016 and I am having regrets for not getting onto the bandwagon with the GF1 back in 2009, but going with a Dslr instead. Big mistake on my part, as the Dslr spent most of its time in my ownership on a shelf while I brought along a Ixus100IS.
In hindsight, I have come to the conclusion that what is important is to bring a camera along and use it, and let the chips fall where it may. I haven't had copies made of anything of my stuff larger than A3, and even those prints are few and far between.

I really don't believe I will loose out of lifetime of international fame and luxury by not being able to blow up my "once in a lifetime" shot to 4X3 meters, due to sensor size or available pixels. :hiding: Now a-days, I am mostly irritated over not being able to pull off some shots I fancy making, but found that most of that is probably due to somewhat less than mediocre skills in post-processing, either that or not hitting the right time of day or the correct season. I can see the pictures all over, but cant see to capture them, but that is on me, not the gear I use.

What am I hunting for? Light filtration/spill through three branches or rays of light if that makes any sense. :drinks: