Perspective for Thought

(Jigsaw Puzzle in Linear Perspective: These two are the unmistakeably modern buildings sitting atop the groovy glass-panelled Shenzhen public library. Like almost any cities in China, Shenzhen has kept changing for the better. I was amazed to see the city's fast-tracked progress everytime I went there. This image represents how I see Shenzhen: It rises from ground zero with a history of different trials, probably represented by respective grids. The grass could represent its agricultural past; the mud its poor past; the pebble stones a smoother period of development; the reflected image on the marble floor it grandeur present)

In the era of digital photography there are some frequently asked questions like "Which camera (brand) do you use to take these cool photos?", "What are your in-camera image settings?" or "Which programme did you use to post process the photos?", etcetera.

These questions are usually asked when the askers come across some intriguing photos and wish to do the same. The intention is good but the questions are not.

(Now I added an image of a kid reaching up to the sky which was opening up to give a slightly different connotation: a budding Shenzhen full of hopes)

These questions epitomises a common fallacy: there is only one paramount standard of photography. And the standard is this: a perfect photo afforded by a specific camera or certain ways of handling a photo.

This fallacy is not obvious unless we do some reverse thinking: When is the last time you read a camera review? It can be just a week ago. Now, when is the last time you read an article on colours or perspectives, if ever?

(Bicycles somehow remind visitors to China of its more difficult, poor times. The contrast here can connect the viewers from Shenzhen's wealthy present to its less hopeful past)

I mean, there is a dearth of awareness in the importance and practices of aesthetics in photography. Our main concern is on the technical side of photography, our usual practice clicking the camera shutter and our last straw the snappy post processing.

(The title "Perspective for Thought" is intended as a play of word. The photos in this post are interesting in their linear perspective to give a illusionary sense of scale and distance of the image which is a reflection. Here the lady passing by sort of punctures the illusionary scales of the buildings)

There is nothing wrong about all these. It is the preponderance of some aspect over the other which contributes to such an increasingly deep-rooted fallacy.

So, for the two things I wrote about learning photography yesterday, "the seeing" should be given more attention.

(On Monday I wrote about making this a week or reflection. So all images are reflected here)

---- Postscript: A recent question asked by a reader on my GX200 image settings rang a bell of my fainting memory of the film years. But film photographers asked questions about brands of films mostly because different films boost unique characters suitable for specific photo subjects and themes. They also asked questions about the darkroom techniques. But unlike the costless PP software, the film photographers had to study the steps and their aesthetic results much more carefully or it would cost them their photos. They were less casual in my mind.