Do you sometimes feel out of touch with popular photography?

[Arcturus]

I don't mean the magazine, but photography that is popular today. Talking to people and watching their reactions at galleries or showings, or even on photo sharing sites online, it has become clear that perhaps I'm out of touch with what people like. I enjoy classic photographers like Weston where the images seem real, sometimes straight on, and with subtle nuances. I'm not too sure what that style is, but I try to emulate it with my photography. What seems to be the most popular today though is flashy, high contrast, and heavily saturated. I feel like I very much accomplish my vision when I shoot film and print in the darkroom, but embarrassingly my most popular photos are digital images I shot a long time ago that are so heavily manipulated they can induce dizziness and nausea. I've always felt that photos like that are the low hanging fruit, the easy shots with lots of color and contrast that are pleasing but can be found in any collection of stock photography and ultimately lacking creativity. The sugary candy of photography if you will. But perhaps I'm totally out of touch of what everyone considers good photography, does anyone else feel this way?

Not to turn this into a digital hate thread, I believe this type of photography predates digital, probably arising around the time of the widespread use of automatic 35mm slrs.

 

[Rick A]

I never follow fad, I shoot how what pleases me.

 

[pdeeh]

I've no idea what "popular photography" is.

I think there's just photographs, and some are rather marvellous, and some photographers seem to be able to make a lot of marvellous photographs, and there are are a much larger number which are not marvellous ... and this has been so since Fox Talbot and the rest got us all going.

Not to turn this into a digital hate thread,

yeah, well, good luck with that

 

[cliveh]

Art goes through cycles of fashion. You can produce an artistic image that may not be in fashion, but is still art.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never follow fad, I shoot how what pleases me.

The Mamas and Papas said it well:

[h=1]Make Your Own Kind Of Music Lyrics[/h] "Make Your Own Kind Of Music" was written by Mann, Barry / Weil, Cynthia.​

Nobody can tell ya
There's only one song worth singin'
They may try and sell ya
'Cause it hangs them up to see someone like you
But you've gotta make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Make your own kind of music
Even if nobody else sing along
You're gonna be knowing
The loneliest kind of lonely
It may be rough goin'
just to do your thing's the hardest thing to do
But you've gotta make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Make your own kind of music
Even if nobody else sings along
So if you cannot take my hand
And if you must be goin', I will understand
You gotta make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Make your own kind of music
Even if nobody else sings along
You gotta make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Make your own kind of music

Read more: The Mamas & The Papas - Make Your Own Kind Of Music Lyrics | MetroLyrics
​

 

[Peltigera]

Several film manufactures made films that gave lurid colours - I remember a quote from a Fuji chap who said he had designed the film (Velvia?) to make skies look like people remembered them, not like they actually were - so I don't think this over-saturated look is at all new.

As to the colours in my photography - I rather like monochrome.

 

[Alan Klein]

There are so many people experimenting with different concepts, styles, etc.. It will add to creativity and reduce boredom. That's great.

 

[Pioneer]

I enjoy popular and unpopular photography.

Don't be misled when I stand in front of a photograph for awhile. It doesn't necessarily mean I like it.

Sometimes I just can't figure it out!

 

[snapguy]

hope

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy I certainly hope so!

 

[nbagno]

I was just looking at my images tacked on the wall. I put them there while I decide if I like them or not. Most of my stuff is from color film and thinking how I like that look vs. that "overly angular, pin sharp, non-realistic scenery type shots that seem popular. I'm all for a dramatic look but give me a touch of reality please. So yes, maybe out of touch or I just prefer looking at my creations which I'm sure says something about me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Several film manufactures made films that gave lurid colours - I remember a quote from a Fuji chap who said he had designed the film (Velvia?) to make skies look like people remembered them, not like they actually were - so I don't think this over-saturated look is at all new.

As to the colours in my photography - I rather like monochrome.

That is how I described Ektachrome - it has the color sky I remember. While the undeservedly over praised besottedly canonized Kodachrome specialized in muddy and soot be-smudged skies.

 

[bsdunek]

I was just looking at my images tacked on the wall. I put them there while I decide if I like them or not. Most of my stuff is from color film and thinking how I like that look vs. that "overly angular, pin sharp, non-realistic scenery type shots that seem popular. I'm all for a dramatic look but give me a touch of reality please. So yes, maybe out of touch or I just prefer looking at my creations which I'm sure says something about me.

I tend to think that also. So much work today is really 'pretty', but doesn't say much. But then, I'm not sure what my photographs say either - I just do what I like. If you like it, great, if you don't, that's OK too.

 

[gone]

Styles, and what is fashionable, change. Quality lasts.

 

[dreamingartemis]

I never follow fad, I shoot how what pleases me.

upvote by 10+ please

 

[ambaker]

I shoot what I like. I'm the one that has to live with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I think the most that I could ever have been accused of being in touch with any version of 'Popular Photography' would be in viewing it. I photographically grew up to Galen Rowell, Dewitt Jones and William Neill monthly via Outdoor Photographer. I craved for the mag every month and my mother (whose subscription it was) would see it, rifle through the pages quickly and then hunt me down if she ever wanted a second look. I horded and still have most of those issues.

For me, I was and am continually inspired by the works of photographer including, but not limited to, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, et al. And I generally follow their direction in my own vision both in subject matter and perspective. It is what moves me and the direction I love to be headed. Today, years after either have passed on, I would hardly call their photography 'Popular', excepting calendars and museum exhibits. Pleasing indeed. And that is what holds the charm for me personally.

Popular? I would not be being asked where the screen is on the back of the Calumet.

 

[chip j]

I have been running away from anything that smacks of commercialism since 1966, and have journeyed far & wide because so.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't mean the magazine, but photography that is popular today. Talking to people and watching their reactions at galleries or showings, or even on photo sharing sites online, it has become clear that perhaps I'm out of touch with what people like...

Not to turn this into a digital hate thread, I believe this type of photography predates digital, probably arising around the time of the widespread use of automatic 35mm slrs.

I admit, I like lomography done with their plastic cameras!

Yep, I also often think what something is wrong with me. I don't like what masses likes and like some pictures nobody does.
Statistically where are a lot more digital and SLR shooters, so it is norm to see more crap shots.

But, I believe due to technical differences between RF and SLR in the flange focal distance and how you see it in VF where are different photography styles and even pictures.
I started with RF and maybe this is the reason why I'm not with taste of the crowd.

 

[destroya]

i can't stand the look of modern DLS HDR manipulated shots. they, as mentioned above, look so fake. make velvia look like astia or the likes. but it is a fad and the majority of DSLR shooters follow the crowd. i have a friend who gets the stuck in customs email letter and while there are some decent shots in it, the majority are just ghastly looking to me, as are many of the shots on flickr. just overdone over the top. but if thats what the shooter wants, then thats great. after all, its about what you see, envision or expect from your shot, not what I want.

I'll admit though, I have seen many real nicely composed shots ruined by over processing.

 

[blansky]

We are all inundated with over saturated and HDR photography now but all this is, is the photographer attempting to make the shots surreal. Most people don't want their pictures to represent "reality" but instead a hyper reality or a dream reality. We can bemoan this trend but almost all acclaimed black and white photography is also tarted up to do the same thing.

Ansel Adams photography was not what was there but was his vision of what the scene could be. All you have to do is look at his darkroom work to see that the over dramatization of the scene was his goal.

Look at some of the black and white on this site and you'll find the same thing. Surrealism of a scene.

When I look through the viewfinder I don't go, "oh this look nice", I go " lets see, I'll darken the sky, make the clouds more contrasty, burn in here, dodge here" etc etc.

Even color photographers of the past tarted up the saturation and "impact" of the shot.

So what we are seeing a lot of now, is not new. We are just seeing more of it because there are more photographers out there.

 

[Rick A]

Just this morning, on a 'film'(some shots look like dig to me) group, I responded to a landscape photo of the south west, if left alone would have been a dramatic shot--but over sharpened and color enhanced--made me wanna puke-- my response was I didn't like it and thought it over done, while everyone else "loved" it. I'm sure if I took a crappy shot of a turd everyone there would "like" it.

 

[Regular Rod]

Does it matter whether anyone else likes your photographs or not? Unless you are working for a client surely the only view that bears any weight is your own?

RR

 

[removed account4]

i like photography, all kinds, and i don't really care what the fads are
... or if it is digital or made with a plastic camera or a 150 years old shoebox or a $25,000 view camera.
i find it interesting how people are able to make photographs ... no matter the type ...
and i find it equally as interesting when i watch a television and see a show like "gotham" where they are able to
create a weird surreal 1930s film-noire in a contrast-mutedcolor world with imagined skylines and everything else.
these days it's fun ...

 

[Pioneer]

I do find some images are overly adjusted in processing and they have a plastic look, almost like someone had built a model and someone else had photographed it. It is an HDR look and a lot of people do like it. To me it is unnatural. I often wonder what the photograph originally looked like.

 

[DWThomas]

Heh, I was never in touch, so I don't really notice anything different. I don't feel I have any Grande Vision or lofty long term goals. When I see something that interests me, I photograph it. A few of those become fodder for trying to make an interesting print. The ones I'm happy with, I show. If somebody buys one, cool; they don't, onto my walls or into the closet.

"It's like sandbox -- we can do what we want." to quote a software developer fielding complaints about his new system.

And yes, I've even taken a few pretty decent shots with my iPhone 5c, although it's certainly not my go to macchina fotografica for serious work!