Do you think thing these recreations were done digitally?

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 18, 2014

If so, does it matter?

http://www.tylerorehekphotography.com/

DannL. · Aug 18, 2014

If you go into his/her gallery you will notice that some of the image files have a file name in the following format . . . DSC_XXXX, where XXXX is generally the current file name in the sequence on the camera. I have owned a number of SONY cameras that use this naming convention. I suspect they were initially exposed on a digital. Does it matter? In the realm of art, a modern contrivance or not, it does not matter in the slightest . . . in my humble opinion. Do I like them? No. I find them too contrived.

snapguy · Aug 18, 2014

hope so

I hope they are digital. I personally find them cornball and painful to look at.

Richard S. (rich815) · Aug 18, 2014

Awww...so cute.

Chris Lange · Aug 18, 2014

completely digital. the grays have "that look" and there's evidence of overuse of the "clarity" slider in ACR / Lightroom which can bring a flat-as-hell film scan back to life, but is very obvious on grainless, higher contrast digital files.

in the color photographs...there's too much variance in color style, no consistency with any sort of cross-process, or simple white bal. adjustment. I find the easiest way to tell them apart is simply by consistency of tonal/color quality. Funny how a lot of digital-only users, even with all their custom presets, have a hard time getting consistency...I guess all those sliders have them hooked.

Whatever the case, as an objectively viewed series of artworks...the photographs are...okay, but honestly it's a project that a sophomore college photo student would do for a semester final. Tepid and overly sentimental.

pdeeh · Aug 18, 2014

I just don't think they are very interesting photographs; the medium is irrelevant.
although i suppose it'll give a few people yet another opportunity to vent pointlessly about how ugly/stupid/awful/unphotographic anything digital is ...

Chris Lange · Aug 18, 2014

pdeeh said:
I just don't think they are very interesting photographs; the medium is irrelevant.
although i suppose it'll give a few people yet another opportunity to vent pointlessly about how ugly/stupid/awful/unphotographic anything digital is ...

QFE.

People seem to love to post digital pictures like those above, and never ones like this.

Photograph © Dead Link Removed

mmerig · Aug 18, 2014

As DannL points out, there are digital-sounding file names, so the original images were probably digital. That does not matter to me, nor does the inconsistency in color. I think consistent color would not make sense for photos representing different vintages.

The settings look interesting and realistic and probably took a lot of time to find or set up, and I appreciate that.

removed account4 · Aug 18, 2014

no idea if they are digital or film based
and it really doesn't matter .. they are kind of funny though.

rorye · Aug 18, 2014

I really like them.

pbromaghin · Aug 18, 2014

Sure they're cornball and contrived, but so are dogs playing poker with Elvis and Jacko painted on black velvet.

Trask · Aug 18, 2014

Yeah, this is kind of like "Dogs Playing Poker" -- fantasy images that are supposed to pluck that magic twanger in your heart, I guess. I'm sure the photographer enjoyed them since they're photos of his own children (see "About" on the website). And they fulfill his criteria of being somewhat "wistful." But I can't agree with his suggestion that using a child instead of an adult somehow "allows the viewer to focus on the 'essence' of these past environments." I mean, seeing a child in a sailor suit with a pack of Lucky Strikes -- I'm supposed to not focus on the fact that it's a child dressed up? Having an adult in that role would be much less distracting that using a child.

gone · Aug 18, 2014

They look like hell, whatever they are. I suspect digital, as there is absolutely no tonality.

Dogs playing cards on velvet, that are art.

http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?channel=789&format=tv&theme=guide

ParkerSmithPhoto · Aug 18, 2014

Chris Lange said:
completely digital. the grays have "that look" and there's evidence of overuse of the "clarity" slider in ACR / Lightroom which can bring a flat-as-hell film scan back to life, but is very obvious on grainless, higher contrast digital files.

Chris is correct. That mid tone "crunchiness" is a dead give away for Clarity, overuse of which is a flagrant violation of all standards of photographic decency.

You see that same effect in all the tasteless HDR garbage floating around these days. It used to be you put a trick filter on your camera to create some interest when your picture was going to fail. Now, you can do all your tasteless meandering in post. What a time saver!

Digital photography is really just a more efficient way of getting to the point where you realize you've failed, again.

cliveh · Aug 18, 2014

Does it really matter?

David Brown · Aug 18, 2014

No, it doesn't matter. And I have to ask: what does this have to do with "ethics (or) philosophy"? :confused:

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 18, 2014

That's my question too

cliveh said:
Does it really matter?

Eric Rose · Aug 18, 2014

Does it matter, no. Are they well done or not, not for me to say. If they realize the photographers goal and they satisfy him/her that's all that matters. I would suspect 80% of those saying the photos are crap could do no better themselves.

bsdunek · Aug 18, 2014

I too think they are overly 'cute'. If they were my kids or grand kids, I'd love them. Do what ever the market wants if you want to make a living.

Is my dog 'cute'? I like the photo because I love him.

Nuff · Aug 18, 2014

Initially mildly amusing. But after 3rd photo there's an obvious lack of composition (all subjects are dead centre). Excessive use of wide angle lenses to add a bit of wow factor and overall very cliche.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 18, 2014

Eric Rose said:
Does it matter, no. Are they well done or not, not for me to say. If they realize the photographers goal and they satisfy him/her that's all that matters. I would suspect 80% of those saying the photos are crap could do no better themselves.

A very good observation!

Alan Klein · Aug 18, 2014

Cute. I thought they were done well. Didn't think about digital vs. film. Who cares?

Nuff · Aug 18, 2014

Poisson Du Jour said:
A very good observation!

Probably not, I don't have kids

But... I'm looking at them from the same angle that I would at my own photos. I skipped making comments of photoshop esthetiques, since that is personal. But more about the rest of the image. I would say it's nice idea, but it could have been made a lot more interesting.

edcculus · Aug 19, 2014

I would have expected film with all this blathering about "the vintage project", but do not fault him for not doing it. I certainly wouldn't buy one of the prints, but it would be a fun thing to do with my kids (on film of course).

The Vintage Project The vintage portraiture work of Tyler Orehek began in early 2012. The series was created in part to pay homage to an era long gone through distinctive and wistfully crafted compositions using the artist’s then-three-year-old son and more recently his younger daughter as his exclusive models. By incorporating authentic antiques, period clothing and carefully selected backgrounds, reality is suspended if only for a moment. The photographs possess an undeniable sentimentality, which transports the observer to another time and place.

Jim Noel · Aug 19, 2014

Definitely digital and YES it matters to me. I don't like them.

Do you think thing these recreations were done digitally?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency