Quoted By:
Which do you think is more useful for Architecture photography - a Panoramic tripod head? Or A Tilt Shift lens?
Threads by latest replies - Page 12
So is everyone using Lightroom or what? I already have Affinity 2 and would like something with a permanent license for library as well.
Quoted By:
This is my new project, Homemade Piss Christ, inspired by Andres Serrano.
Quoted By:
User:
Can photography become an art like painting?
GPT:
That is one of the fundamental questions in modern aesthetics. Painting and photography share an image-bearing medium, but they differ in intentionality. Painting begins from nothing—it is an act of creation. Photography begins from the world—it is an act of selection. For that reason, photography has long been regarded as “an imitation of seeing” rather than a self-sufficient art. However, when photography becomes aware of its own mechanism of seeing—when it reflects on the act of capturing itself—it can indeed reach the same level as painting. That is when photography transcends documentation and enters the realm of metafictional art.
User:
Painting and literature reached art by having a modulus. Photography lacks a modulus.
GPT:
Yes—that is a precise way to put it. Painting and literature both have internal systems of modulation—structures that transform meaning through form (syntax, rhythm, color, composition). Photography, in its mechanical nature, lacks that intrinsic “modulus.” It borrows order from the external world, rather than constructing it. Thus, unless photography creates its own language—its own symbolic modulation—it remains within the realm of reproduction, not creation. The challenge, then, is whether photography can invent a grammar of light.
Can photography become an art like painting?
GPT:
That is one of the fundamental questions in modern aesthetics. Painting and photography share an image-bearing medium, but they differ in intentionality. Painting begins from nothing—it is an act of creation. Photography begins from the world—it is an act of selection. For that reason, photography has long been regarded as “an imitation of seeing” rather than a self-sufficient art. However, when photography becomes aware of its own mechanism of seeing—when it reflects on the act of capturing itself—it can indeed reach the same level as painting. That is when photography transcends documentation and enters the realm of metafictional art.
User:
Painting and literature reached art by having a modulus. Photography lacks a modulus.
GPT:
Yes—that is a precise way to put it. Painting and literature both have internal systems of modulation—structures that transform meaning through form (syntax, rhythm, color, composition). Photography, in its mechanical nature, lacks that intrinsic “modulus.” It borrows order from the external world, rather than constructing it. Thus, unless photography creates its own language—its own symbolic modulation—it remains within the realm of reproduction, not creation. The challenge, then, is whether photography can invent a grammar of light.
this was the absolute peak of digital photography and its all been downhill after here. seriously look at the shots on flickr with this tag and how good they look. mirrorless is super sterile and fake looking, and older than the mkii just were shit to use and had too much noise.
seriously dont sleep on these, 5d mkii and some EF L glass has u covered and then u can spend the rest of the money on travel and taking kino shots.
seriously dont sleep on these, 5d mkii and some EF L glass has u covered and then u can spend the rest of the money on travel and taking kino shots.
Quoted By:
As a relative noob to photography, I'm afraid I may have made an early overcorrection. There's a style I'd like to learn to shoot (picrel), and what I've basically gathered is that in order to preserve the details of shop signs and neon lights in dark environments, you can underexpose your images by 1-2 stops to protect the highlights, and then you pull up the shadows in post.
I was amazed by how much detail was hiding in the shadows when I tried it, despite my photos seeming unusably dark in preview. But now I've gotten into the habit of basically underexposing EVERYTHING regardless of light situations, and I can't help but feel like I'm leaning too much on post-processing. Barring stylistic choices and just focusing on getting photos to be as 'correct' as possible, should daytime photos generally look serviceably decent right out of the camera, or is it typical to preserve highlights to the point of being dark? Is there a typical amount of information loss that's tolerated in standard photography, or is the goal to only allow the sun to be pure white?
I was amazed by how much detail was hiding in the shadows when I tried it, despite my photos seeming unusably dark in preview. But now I've gotten into the habit of basically underexposing EVERYTHING regardless of light situations, and I can't help but feel like I'm leaning too much on post-processing. Barring stylistic choices and just focusing on getting photos to be as 'correct' as possible, should daytime photos generally look serviceably decent right out of the camera, or is it typical to preserve highlights to the point of being dark? Is there a typical amount of information loss that's tolerated in standard photography, or is the goal to only allow the sun to be pure white?
Quoted By: >>4481232
any fellow third world photography aficionados? how do you deal with the fear of your gear getting stolen? what kind of precautions do you take?
Quoted By:
Quoted By:
Own and have used them all - Sony, Canon, Leica, Fuji. Nothing compares to this little guy. Has reignited my passion to shoot and is now always in my back pocket. Any other shooters feel the same?
What events/activities/resources do you use to find good subject matter? I don't want to hire models because that's pervy, but I want to take better photos of people. Pic not related
