This video shows Diado Moriyama shooting with a P&S, which is a Nikon S9100 that only shoots jpg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWAs3V_lkg

It makes one feel really silly to think how much obsession there is for gear and yet here is one of the best happily shooting with a jpg-only zoom P&S.

It's just an aesthetic that he has chosen, the cartoon-ish, broad-brush aesthetic of a p&s. Previously, Daido M. was famous for shooting contrasty and grainy B&W in small format, then cropping it tiny and blowing it up to make it even grainier. Google images will show you many of them. Who knows, tomorrow he might have an inspiration that involves massive prints with tremendous detail, and he might switch to large format.

There's no right and wrong, you envisage what you want to do and then pick the tool that does it. The image is just a language of communication and there's no such thing as a better language. It depends who you want to talk to. You guys here are mostly landscape and cityscape shooters, it makes sense to be fussy about detail, because big prints and details are your language.

Spyro, I'm shooting a LF rangefinder now, you should get one

I'm sold!
Anyone wanna trade me their Holga for my Canon 1DmkIV?






I liked what he had to say. His photos kinda sucked butt tho. Just my 2¢.

Spyro P. wrote:
It's just an aesthetic that he has chosen, the cartoon-ish, broad-brush aesthetic of a p&s. Previously, Daido M. was famous for shooting contrasty and grainy B&W in small format, then cropping it tiny and blowing it up to make it even grainier. Google images will show you many of them. Who knows, tomorrow he might have an inspiration that involves massive prints with tremendous detail, and he might switch to large format.

There's no right and wrong, you envisage what you want to do and then pick the tool that does it. The image is just a language of communication and there's no such thing as a better language. It depends who you want to talk to. You guys here are mostly landscape and cityscape shooters, it makes sense to be fussy about detail, because big prints and details are your language.

The interesting bit is that being a famous photographer Moriyama often exhibits his images in galleries, which means that jpg-only P&S is sufficient for his needs.

But when I print jpeg is not at all sufficient. So how is this discrepancy explained?

Spyro just explained it.

Spyro P. wrote:
the cartoon-ish, broad-brush aesthetic of a p&s.

Do you have an example for this or you're just speaking out of basic amateur resentment of great photographers?

Go to his website and there is some example of his color work. http://www.moriyamadaido.com/english/#/gallery/

And I can assure you that those shots are freaking fantastic, especially from a guy who shot B&W most of his life.

So, I went to his website, and the images look like those posted anywhere else on the web. A P&S would be sufficient for those images.

Now, not to start a flame war, but what is so great about those images? Composition is mediocre. Nothing special about the color. There are photographers on this forum that create better images.

Seriously, is there a rational explanation of why those are great images?

carlitos wrote:
So, I went to his website, and the images look like those posted anywhere else on the web. A P&S would be sufficient for those images.

Now, not to start a flame war, but what is so great about those images? Composition is mediocre. Nothing special about the color. There are photographers on this forum that create better images.

Seriously, is there a rational explanation of why those are great images?

Not that I can think of.

carlitos wrote:
So, I went to his website, and the images look like those posted anywhere else on the web. A P&S would be sufficient for those images.

Now, not to start a flame war, but what is so great about those images? Composition is mediocre. Nothing special about the color. There are photographers on this forum that create better images.

Seriously, is there a rational explanation of why those are great images?

I'm not familiar with his color photography, but I think his b&w stuff is fantastic. I can understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I do think you need to leave room for the possibility that sometimes there is no rational explanation for why a particular photographer's work really resonates with a particular audience.

carlitos wrote:
So, I went to his website, and the images look like those posted anywhere else on the web. A P&S would be sufficient for those images.

Now, not to start a flame war, but what is so great about those images? Composition is mediocre. Nothing special about the color. There are photographers on this forum that create better images.

Seriously, is there a rational explanation of why those are great images?


One can say the same on any photographers. Ansel or Moriyama, it does not matter. If one sees beauty in one artist's work, that is all it takes. I like his work, and it is subjective.

That and the fact that people can be very fickle, sometimes the mere "being different" or "going against convention" is what they are enamored by ... that in itself becomes the "rationale" for some ... moreover than a substantive explanation rooted in objectivity. Toss on the fact that I can change my mind about a piece this year different from how I felt about it ten years ago ... and yup, people can be fickle.

My fav is the bathtub ... I'd like to hear the "artist's message" for his inspiration / message / intent and what he expects the viewer to derive from the image. So far, I'm going ... "Yeah, so". Maybe I could be better enlightened, but it's not doing a whole lot for me on its own, atm.

RustyBug wrote:

My fav is the bathtub ... I'd like to hear the "artist's message" for his inspiration / message / intent and what he expects the viewer to derive from the image. So far, I'm going ... "Yeah, so". Maybe I could be better enlightened, but it's not doing a whole lot for me on its own, atm.

Its a homage to William Eggleston famous shower picture from Eggelston's Guide:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_O-XgEdwtq-M/TUiXDfWq8II/AAAAAAAAEPE/r9ZBBVJYAPw/s1600/Eggleston%2BGreen%2BShower%2BMemphis%2B1973.jpg

But, but, but the water is pinkurple!

cogitech wrote:
But, but, but the water is pinkurple!



right, its not "rational" and simplistic like all other rational and simplistic boring stuff that is killing photography...

Exdsc wrote:
RustyBug wrote:

My fav is the bathtub ... I'd like to hear the "artist's message" for his inspiration / message / intent and what he expects the viewer to derive from the image. So far, I'm going ... "Yeah, so". Maybe I could be better enlightened, but it's not doing a whole lot for me on its own, atm.

Its a homage to William Eggleston famous shower picture from Eggelston's Guide:


Seriously?

They both suck.

cogitech wrote:
Exdsc wrote:
RustyBug wrote:

My fav is the bathtub ... I'd like to hear the "artist's message" for his inspiration / message / intent and what he expects the viewer to derive from the image. So far, I'm going ... "Yeah, so". Maybe I could be better enlightened, but it's not doing a whole lot for me on its own, atm.

Its a homage to William Eggleston famous shower picture from Eggelston's Guide:


Seriously?

They both suck.

Could it be that your taste in photography sucks?

A possibility, worth exploring...

I would rather have an opinion about a photo, than an opinion about another person's opinion about a photo.

Also, while both are entirely subjective, I think it is far more possible for a photo to objectively "suck", than for someone's personal tastes/preferences to objectively "suck".

Exdsc wrote:
Its a homage to William Eggleston famous shower picture from Eggelston's Guide:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_O-XgEdwtq-M/TUiXDfWq8II/AAAAAAAAEPE/r9ZBBVJYAPw/s1600/Eggleston%2BGreen%2BShower%2BMemphis%2B1973.jpg

The whole "color" set shown is strongly photography-themed; photos of images, torn film, photo booths, references to other famous photographs, etc. It's essentially the self-referential, inside-jokes, lolcats-equivalent for the "modern art" photo scene.