Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Keep it up, George! Good candidates for Lightroom tagging ... Daniel On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote: > It seems to me that photography falls into the following genres: > > Documentary: > ? ? ? ?Events > ? ? ? ?News > ? ? ? ?Sports > ? ? ? ?Travel > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Landscapes > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Cityscapes > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Street life > Portraiture (individuals and/or groups): > ? ? ? ?Formal > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Studio > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Environmental > ? ? ? ?Candid (generally also environmental) > Fine Art: > ? ? ? ?Conceptual > ? ? ? ?Experimental > Artsy: > ? ? ? ?HDR, iPhonography, and other special effects > Scientific: > ? ? ? ?Astronomical > ? ? ? ?Macro > ? ? ? ?Micro (including electron microscopy) > ? ? ? ?Heat, IR, UV, etc. > Illustration: > ? ? ? ?Opinion / Editorial > ? ? ? ?Fictional narrative > ? ? ? ?Advertising: > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Fashion > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Product > Archival: > ? ? ? ?Family Snapshots > ? ? ? ?Museum Catalogs > ? ? ? ?Archeological records > ? ? ? ?Etc. > > I may be overlooking a genre or three; and invite suggestions. > Within each genre the history of photography has high-water marks; > examples of greatness. > And each of these genres can of course overlap. > An advertising concept, portrait, document or scientific image can reach > for and achieve Art. > A documentary image may reach for and achieve op-ed, humor, irony, etc. > > As we consider photographs within the various genres > we can compare our, and other's, work with the high-water marks > and evaluate on the basis of: > > Socially > ? ? ? ?extremely important > ? ? ? ?important > ? ? ? ?neutral > ? ? ? ?unimportant > Historically > ? ? ? ?extremely important > ? ? ? ?important > ? ? ? ?neutral > ? ? ? ?unimportant > Aesthetically > ? ? ? ?gorgeous > ? ? ? ?beautiful > ? ? ? ?pleasing > ? ? ? ?bland > ? ? ? ?weak > Emotionally > ? ? ? ?extremely moving > ? ? ? ?moving > ? ? ? ?inert > Conceptually > ? ? ? ?profound > ? ? ? ?outstanding > ? ? ? ?fresh > ? ? ? ?derivative > ? ? ? ?weak > Technically > ? ? ? ?superb > ? ? ? ?well done > ? ? ? ?adequate > ? ? ? ?weak > > So > I may think of Howard's recently posted "Vancouver sunrise pano" as a > travel, cityscape, document; > historically important, aesthetically beautiful, conceptually derivative > and technically superb. > or > Ric's body of work documenting local street life > as socially and historically important, aesthetically beautiful, > conceptually fresh and technically well done. > or > his musical performance archives as socially and historically extremely > important > aesthetically pleasing, conceptually derivative, and technically adequate. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >