Tones are what you see. Aesthetics would be the (emotional, spiritual, intellectual) impact of what you see.
{Moderator's Note - these posts started out in the "Simplified Zone System thread, and were moved here}
Last edited by a moderator:
the choosen tones are the aestethics of your print
Tones are what you see. Aesthetics would be the (emotional, spiritual, intellectual) impact of what you see.
A full range of nice tones adds to the aesthetics.
Tones are what you see. Aesthetics would be the (emotional, spiritual, intellectual) impact of what you see.
the impact is formed by the tones you see and how they interact in the print. it's a black and white print: nothing to see except various shades of gray. more or less...
Is there such a thing as an "abstract" photo?
Is there such a thing as an "abstract" photo? If you took a picture of "something" - anything - then it's not an abstraction. But it's not visual reality either except in some derived sense of being re-appreciated in a different form, namely, as a print. And I can't personally imagine black and white photography, even in print fashion, without color vision. There are not only infinite "shades of gray", but many subtle hues at work too. Don't most of us tone them, and hopefully with purpose?
A full range of nice tones adds to the aesthetics.
There are no aesthetics without the tones. The point of my comment was to indicate the distinction between the two.
To clarify my point, well-presented mid-tones such as in Tmax can add to an aesthetic differently than a picture that is basically hard blacks and whites like Tri-X.
To clarify my point, well-presented mid-tones such as in Tmax can add to an aesthetic differently than a picture that is basically hard blacks and whites like Tri-X.
That's a misrepresentation of "seeing".
The image is formed by the tones you see. When you look at a black and white photo:
View attachment 377551
you don't call what you see "shades of grey" - in my example, you'd say you see a cow. Whether or not there is anything significant about it is a different matter. Whether or not there is any "aesthetic" to the image is tied up in the subject, the composition, the rendition, the viewer, etc. - all of which is conceptually well past perception of tones.
A person never sees without an attempt to identify. Even when confronted by a purely abstract photo, there will be an attempt to identify - which may be completely impossible -, which may leave the viewer dwelling only on shades and possibly shapes. But that will still come with the knowledge of the inability to identify, which is itself a form of identification: the abstract or unidentifiable, non-referential, just whatever it is named or what it is in itself.
Obviously forks, but not entire forks, and it's not a photo of forks-as-forks. They're not sticking food in someone's mouth - they've been abstracted from function and made to cast shadows.
My problem with your forks example
"Whether or not there is any "aesthetic" to the image is tied up in the subject, ..." The "aesthetic" is never tied up in the subject of an image. The subject "per se" has no aesthetic value, is neither beautiful nor ugly.
It's a seen tangible object with it's picture taken
"Whether or not there is any "aesthetic" to the image is tied up in the subject, ..." The "aesthetic" is never tied up in the subject of an image. The subject "per se" has no aesthetic value, is neither beautiful nor ugly.
What if the subject of the photo is the shadow of the fork, not the fork itself? The shadow only exists because of the fork and light and a surface, but none of those are depicted.To clarify. When you talk about the subject of a work of fiction, you're not expecting that to be sitting out in the world somewhere. Because it's whatever the book is about - in this instance, something imaginary - but the point is you only get what the book gives you.
Similarly, the subject of a photo is what the photo gives you. You can distinguish it from the object of the photo, which is something you could possibly see from a different angle.
Also, a photo of a fork is not itself a fork. It's a photo. A photo of a scenic view is, likewise, not itself a scenic view, even if you frame it as though it were a window and pretend it is one.
So, feel free to discuss the aesthetic of a subjectless photo as much as you want. It's otherwise known as unexposed photo paper. You can argue whether the eventual fogging counts as a scenic view.
All prints have tones and aesthetics. What is the point, here?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?