{"id":123681,"date":"2018-12-25T20:30:51","date_gmt":"2018-12-26T04:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/erickimphotography.com\/blog\/?p=123681"},"modified":"2018-12-25T20:37:33","modified_gmt":"2018-12-26T04:37:33","slug":"there-is-no-perfect-aesthetic-in-photography","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/erickimphotography.com\/blog\/2018\/12\/25\/there-is-no-perfect-aesthetic-in-photography\/","title":{"rendered":"There is No Perfect Aesthetic in Photography"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What makes art (or life) beautiful or ugly? It all comes down to aesthetics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Aesthetics are all subjective.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I believe all aesthetics are subjective. There is no ultimate standard for what “beautiful” or “ugly” is. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I forget which pre-socratic philosopher who said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most beautiful ape is ugly to a human being. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most beautiful human being is ugly to a donkey. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I generally think that aesthetics are probably rooted in some sort of sexual<\/a> desire. For example, to a man, a “beautiful” woman is a woman he thinks he can procreate strong children with. And to a woman, a strong man (physically or economically) is a “beautiful” or attractive partner for her future offspring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Much of fashion is about increasing your sex appeal. For example a fashionable watch for men = sex appeal. Purses for women = sex appeal. Fancy cars = sex appeal. I consider almost everything fashion, from clothes, to lifestyle, to homes, to devices, accessories, and generally anything material (besides food).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Ignore the theories <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Anyways let us not get too much into theory; theory is overrated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, let us look at our own photographs and ask ourselves:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which of my own photos do I consider beautiful, and why? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For myself I consider a “beautiful” photo of mine as a photo that I like to look at, over and over again, for reasons I’m not sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For myself, I like photos that are simple and elegant<\/a>. That is the aesthetic I like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For monochrome, I like “crushing the blacks<\/a>“, and adding extreme contrast<\/a>. To me, I like the look.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this is what it is all about in photography aesthetics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you like how your photos look, they are aesthetically beautiful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Your tastes will change and evolve.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It took me a while to get accustomed to to the taste of black coffee, then later light roast ‘bright’ espresso. Now I’ve gone black, I can’t go back. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In college it took me a while to enjoy the taste of beer. Before I built the taste for beer, it tasted like piss. Now I enjoy the taste of beer, although I abstain mostly for aesthetic reasons (I don’t want to gain excess body fat, and I have a weak alcohol tolerance anyways).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But anyways I encourage you to always experiment with your aesthetic. Rappers went from baggy clothes to wearing tailored suits (JAY Z). The aesthetics of sports cars are always changing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don’t impose self-tyranny on yourself (like Henri Cartier-Bresson<\/a>)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I think in your photography, you should allow yourself to change and evolve. If your aesthetic tastes evolve, go with the flow!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the tip:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the aesthetic look of your photos no longer pleases you, switch it up! <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This can mean processing your photos with different presets<\/a> or a different aesthetic style.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can also try shooting film<\/a> (35mm, medium format<\/a>, large format), shoot with different phones (Google Pixel 3<\/a>, Huawei P20 Pro<\/a> in Vivid mode), shoot with different digital sensors (digital medium format<\/a>, RICOH GR II<\/a>, Fujifilm<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no perfect aesthetic <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I’ve pretty much shot with all the cameras and sensors and films out there, and to be honest, there isn’t a perfect aesthetic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However here are some of my honest appraisals off the top of my head:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Monochrome on RICOH GR II<\/a>, shot on RAW, and with ERIC KIM MONOCHROME 1600<\/a> looks phenomenal. Even better with a flash<\/a>. <\/li>
  2. Huawei P20 Pro<\/a> has the best color aesthetic on a phone camera, when shot in “Vivid” mode. <\/li>
  3. Google Pixel 3<\/a> has best monochrome look, with “Vista” Google Photos preset. <\/li>
  4. For iPhone<\/a> and Samsung devices, VSCO A6 preset<\/a> is the best color filter. <\/li>
  5. Digital medium format looks epic in color. I love the look of the Pentax 645z<\/a> film JPEG preset. <\/li>
  6. The positive film color jpeg on RICOH GR II (with contrast and saturation on maximum) looks fantastic. Especially good with flash. <\/li>
  7. Color film simulations (Classic Chrome) look fantastic on Fujifilm X-series cameras (like X100F<\/a>). <\/li>
  8. No matter what, aesthetics of film will always look better than digital, because of the random and organic nature of film. I prefer Kodak Portra 400<\/a> for color and Kodak Trix 400 pushed to 1600<\/a> for monochrome. But digital will always be more convenient. I think the monochrome Ricoh GR II looks 90% good enough when compared to black and white film. And RICOH GR II in color JPEG looks 85% good enough when compared to Kodak Portra 400 film. Thus for now I’m probably sticking (mostly) to digital. But I will always keep shooting film<\/a>, for fun, and for the fun of the randomness of film! <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Below are some aesthetic looks I like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    Samsung Galaxy x Vsco A6 filter <\/h2>\n\n\n\n