Skip to main content
Photography

Return to Answer

"Its" is the posesive pronoun (plus finding enough to meet the minimum)
Source Link
edit approved Jan 14, 2015 at 22:27
JDługosz
edit approved Jan 14, 2015 at 22:27
JDługosz
  • 4.4k
  • 1
  • 20
  • 38

I think think it was really the development of photographic aesthetics. The early work was perhaps pivotal in it'sits definition, but it was quickly discovered that composition and selection of subject has more impact on how the image tells a story than the more laborious aspects of careful photo manipulation. It was simply more bang for the buck in terms of effort to choose the right aspect of what is in front of the lens than it was to try and control the development so tightly. It may also be that due to their heightened realism, photos didn't resonate in the same way that similar concepts applied to painting would.

That said, with the advent of digital tools that allow photographers a far greater degree of control and ability to refine their work. I think we are seeing more of a different kind of return to some of the concepts behind Photo-Secession. It's becoming less a matter of capturing what is in front of the lens and more a matter of improving on what is in front of the lens or even inventing something that doesn't exist as it is displayed through photographic tools. It still seems to be a mixed bag in terms of popularity, but does seem to be a growing trend.

I think it was really the development of photographic aesthetics. The early work was perhaps pivotal in it's definition, but it was quickly discovered that composition and selection of subject has more impact on how the image tells a story than the more laborious aspects of careful photo manipulation. It was simply more bang for the buck in terms of effort to choose the right aspect of what is in front of the lens than it was to try and control the development so tightly. It may also be that due to their heightened realism, photos didn't resonate in the same way that similar concepts applied to painting would.

That said, with the advent of digital tools that allow photographers a far greater degree of control and ability to refine their work. I think we are seeing more of a different kind of return to some of the concepts behind Photo-Secession. It's becoming less a matter of capturing what is in front of the lens and more a matter of improving on what is in front of the lens or even inventing something that doesn't exist as it is displayed through photographic tools. It still seems to be a mixed bag in terms of popularity, but does seem to be a growing trend.

I think it was really the development of photographic aesthetics. The early work was perhaps pivotal in its definition, but it was quickly discovered that composition and selection of subject has more impact on how the image tells a story than the more laborious aspects of careful photo manipulation. It was simply more bang for the buck in terms of effort to choose the right aspect of what is in front of the lens than it was to try and control the development so tightly. It may also be that due to their heightened realism, photos didn't resonate in the same way that similar concepts applied to painting would.

That said, with the advent of digital tools that allow photographers a far greater degree of control and ability to refine their work. I think we are seeing more of a different kind of return to some of the concepts behind Photo-Secession. It's becoming less a matter of capturing what is in front of the lens and more a matter of improving on what is in front of the lens or even inventing something that doesn't exist as it is displayed through photographic tools. It still seems to be a mixed bag in terms of popularity, but does seem to be a growing trend.

Source Link
AJ Henderson ♦
AJ Henderson ♦
  • 35k
  • 5
  • 55
  • 92

I think it was really the development of photographic aesthetics. The early work was perhaps pivotal in it's definition, but it was quickly discovered that composition and selection of subject has more impact on how the image tells a story than the more laborious aspects of careful photo manipulation. It was simply more bang for the buck in terms of effort to choose the right aspect of what is in front of the lens than it was to try and control the development so tightly. It may also be that due to their heightened realism, photos didn't resonate in the same way that similar concepts applied to painting would.

That said, with the advent of digital tools that allow photographers a far greater degree of control and ability to refine their work. I think we are seeing more of a different kind of return to some of the concepts behind Photo-Secession. It's becoming less a matter of capturing what is in front of the lens and more a matter of improving on what is in front of the lens or even inventing something that doesn't exist as it is displayed through photographic tools. It still seems to be a mixed bag in terms of popularity, but does seem to be a growing trend.