Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I thought I was with you until I looked at the shots of the link. What you show is pure representation. (Sometimes) extremely beautiful on its own, indeed. But weren't we talking about embellishing an object or person to render it more 'aesthetic' (some different interpretations of that word possible if you Wiki it) through techniques such as ambiance or light? Taking it back to costume photography: if the costumes on themselves were truly beautiful, would they need this embellishment? Our would they stand out through neutral representation as these flowers are? Maybe for those into costumes, the latter would be enough. Not attacking your reasoning, just looking for common grounds. Cheers, Philippe Op 10-jul-06, om 23:08 heeft Lottermoser George het volgende geschreven: > Some may. However I think they simply have not seen the best of the > best. This assertion brings to mind scientific photography and > illustration; which when one delves into the depths of > astronomical, electron microscopic, and some of the other > scientific stock sources will reveal some of the most > extraordinarily beautiful images. > > Check out: http://db2.photoresearchers.com/search?key=orchids&pg=2 > > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > > > > On Jul 10, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Philippe Orlent wrote: > >> some might argue that aesthetics can get in the way of accurate >> representation. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >