I was thinking about aesthetics. Wikipedia defines it as “a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty”.

Lots and lots of people like the look of film photos. Those, that are not lazy would take an analog camera and they would photograph on film. And they get the result they love. Some people don’t see the need to have analog camera to achieve film look. So those would use presets/filters and they make the photo look like film. They don’t don’t use film, but computer to achieve it that look.

Purists will say photos where filters are used don’t look exactly same as real analog photos.

This discussion is nonsense.

It just doesn’t matter.

Everybody does what they think is right. What they believe in. It is now such a strange time. Abundance of photography. So we look in the past to get inspired. To be anchored. Where we feel  home.

I’d rather look forward. No back.

No nostalgia.


But what?

I am in search for the answer.



9 thoughts on “Aesthetics

  1. Britstreet April 13, 2017 / 8:28 am

    Here’s a PetaPixel article from this week on the same topic. Don’t get conned, it’s all clickbait marketing shite to get you to buy more new gear. The “future” might be the end of photography for most people as I know it – cheap gags, 3D and little animated gifs to get your 5 seconds of attention span online and that will join the rest of the junk in this throw-away society. Leave them to it. Personally, I’m working backwards.

    • Pavel P. April 13, 2017 / 1:07 pm

      Hi Kevin! Thanks for the link on the article on Petapixel. I just finished reading it. I agree with the text 100 %. I don’t think it is marketing. Why should it be? That article doesn’t sell any gear.

      Could we say that analog photography in 2017 is a “cheap trick”? I have nothing against it. I love analog photos and how they look!

      • Britstreet April 13, 2017 / 10:55 pm

        Marketing is not selling. Phrases can sometimes sound intelligent and are written persuasively and with apparent insight, but they really are just soundbites. “Today, photography has become an omnipresent tool for capturing reality and to apply meaning to it.” Priceless drivel. Sorry.

      • Pavel P. April 14, 2017 / 3:27 pm

        You wrote that thing about marketing and buying new gear. I was reacting to your first comment.

  2. Britstreet April 14, 2017 / 12:03 am

    Okay, for what it’s worth I’ve thought about it a bit more about this as I can see it’s important to think about and there’s a cross-over with your discussion in your Lawn Mower post, so I’m going to link this business of aesthetics to concerns over gear.

    Let’s say you’re working as a journalist. Then gear matters. You will likely use an iPhone for convenient on-the-spot reporting and to “blend in” and because you need the comms to get those pictures to the agency or editor’s desk quickly and before someone else does. If you’re on a job freelance or staff job covering a specific event then you want to take a big DSLR with big lens and lots of megapixels because that’s what you’ve been given or had to buy to do your job and the bloke standing next to you has got one like it to take his pictures. What’s going on here is convenience and speed, and the fact that newspaper and magazine editors (and Joe Public who reads them) have become pixel peepers and they want to see hi-definition pictures like they see on their screens because magazine printing is digital and hi-definition and newspapers sales are declining in favour of online content.

    But if you are doing photography reasons other than this then gear matters less and aesthetics matters more. Most of what we as hobby photographers acknowledge as good pictures (say Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau and so on) would simply end up in editors’ wastepaper baskets today because media is technology-driven.

    But now here’s the key point. Study newspaper and magazine photographic content even from just a few years ago and even further back in time. Then compare those images with what you see published today.

    • Pavel P. April 14, 2017 / 3:40 pm

      I agree with what you say about photojournalism.

  3. Gary May 15, 2017 / 12:06 pm

    I make photos using film and digital. I don’t have a problem with either. I don’t see using a film camera as nostalgia or as looking back. I appreciate that some do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s