Philosophical discussion on “looks”.

[blansky]

Hurrell said he was light on the makeup--a clean scrubbed face for a natural glow and makeup to define the eyes and lips. Tons of retouching, however, and I'd say that that's been part of the art of portrait photography since the beginning.

If you scroll down to the middle of this page, you can find a good comparison of Joan Crawford, retouched and unretouched, which appears in a number of places.

Yeah but tons on lips and eyes. And skin done with retouching instead of pancake.

I didn't really want to get into Hurrell et all too much because I believe his style is different than the "look" achieved by process.

To some it may sound like a distinction without a difference. But I believe them to be different.

 

[blansky]

Personally I don't count this stuff as photography or the people doing it as photographers. It is digital picture-making and it offers wonderful visual effects. But it's all touched with the curse of the hidden pixel: never existed, didn't happen, never looked like that.

Of course you don't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Personally I don't count this stuff as photography or the people doing it as photographers. It is digital picture-making and it offers wonderful visual effects. But it's all touched with the curse of the hidden pixel: never existed, didn't happen, never looked like that.

Fauxography

 

[Bill Burk]

Some printers can sometimes ... become so enamored of the precious print, that the image may or may not deserve such careful treatment.

There is always a risk that the print I make will not be worth the cost of the material. But I consider it a risk that must be taken, or else I will only leave precious boxes of paper.

When I see textbook examples I think teachers and students have a pretty bad deal, because the teacher is showing a process and only needs the photograph to be good enough to be printed...(the examples in the textbook I have in mind are better than I can do, so I have no room to talk... but I get the general impression that sometimes authors have to make an example image). The student then has to produce a suitable negative on short order, regardless of what other classwork demands and social events might pull them away from making a great shot. (Here I am thinking of how bad my photographs were when I was in school shooting classwork).

You might not think it's worthwhile, but your Coney Island shots might be fun. To me it's an exotic location.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Are all these tools not just ways for photographers to express themselves, set themselves apart from their peers and ways to explore different or hyper reality?

For me, yes. I don't believe there is an inherent right or wrong in the process of making images. If the final result is what the photographer / artist intended, who am I to judge it?

Consider painting: in one area you've got impressionism, in another you've got photorealism, and so on. One is no more valid or invalid than the other.

Although I dislike the way many photographers misuse HDR, I think they do so because they are still learning and experimenting. The example you gave (and it looks like Reykjavík to me) typifies a lot of what I see today. Your last example, while not to my taste, intrigues me greatly because I'm trying to figure out the algorithm that's being applied.

 

[blansky]

The example you gave (and it looks like Reykjavík to me) typifies a lot of what I see today. Your last example, while not to my taste, intrigues me greatly because I'm trying to figure out the algorithm that's being applied.

The example I used is a Lucas plug in and Topaz Labs has similar one. You can google their sites for more examples.

They've been primarily used in advertising applications and high school senior trendy stuff.

 

[Bill Burk]

I suppose the HDR photographers who shoot RAW have their unprocessed original files to rework in case their future taste changes.

Shooting slides with a Galen Rowell ND Grad was about as close as I ever got to that look.

 

[blansky]

I suppose the HDR photographers who shoot RAW have their unprocessed original files to rework in case their future taste changes.

.

Yeah, much like Ansel could reprint Moonlight Over..... as many different ways as his whim dictates. HDR is a great tool, and as someone mentioned it's been sort of abused in landscape stuff, but so great with other genres, especially architectural.

My opinion on the tools in analog and digital is when the tool draws attention to itself.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, much like Ansel could reprint Moonlight Over..... as many different ways as his whim dictates. HDR is a great tool, and as someone mentioned it's been sort of abused in landscape stuff, but so great with other genres, especially architectural.

But the Moon would have moved between HDR shots so then Photo$hop would have to cut and paste the Moon. How would Phot$hop deal with the Moon's libations? Duh, I doah know just hit dat paste button and move on.

 

[Bill Burk]

To fill in the story about HDR. On a camping trip a couple weeks ago I chatted with a nice photographer who was taking some HDR shots. I admired his getting up early to catch the sunrise, since that's a good thing. A bit later I was looking at some pretty iPhone pictures taken by a friend's wife.

Later on my buddy said to me "Bill, you really need to be more accepting of technology" and my reply was to tell him about the two earlier conversations that prove how open I can be...

But I couldn't resist the urge to add... "It's OK with me if they want to shoot that crap"

 

[Bill Burk]

Yeah, much like Ansel could reprint Moonlight Over..... as many different ways as his whim dictates.

My opinion on the tools in analog and digital is when the tool draws attention to itself.

Ah but his interpretations got more dramatic over time. I am hoping some Landscape photographers who you might say are overdoing it now will revisit their shots in the future and make them look more like the Architecture shots are being done - realistic.

There is one photographer I like who works in the intense look, Bill Ratcliffe Landscape Photography, grandson of a well-known Arizona Highways photographer. Considering his heritage, it's totally appropriate to me that he works that way.

But I totally agree, you shouldn't draw attention to the technique... unless it's your signature look and you are consistent about it.

 

[pbromaghin]

No 1 - it only matters what the 2 people in the picture care. They're paying for it. No 2 - A perfect example of commercial real estate photography that satisfies the client's need for a photograph showing the property at its best. No 3 - overdone special effect failure. No 4 - who cares? Today's fad gone awry as almost always happens.

 

[blockend]

Photography at its best explores the extraordinary nature of visual reality. Anything that attempts to impose an additional subjective layer of surreality will quickly pall after the novelty has worn off. The discussion goes back to the earliest days of realist vs pictorialist photography, with pictorialists declaring there was nothing artistic about a bald representation of reality, and only with manipulation by the hand of man could the medium consider itself art. That is to misunderstand the nature of photography, and its unique ability to show how curious moments of visual reality are.

 

[blockend]

My problem with digital is that it's so much easier than film. It's like I'm running a 26km marathon with film and darkroom prints, while a digital photographer is finished after 100 meters. That's why it feels like cheating to me. Especially when the digital photographers say that's all the same and that digital is just as difficult.

I think it's harder in many ways to make a great digital picture. There is no texture to rely on, or any visceral film aesthetic to engage the eye except the power (or otherwise) of the image itself. I find myself being far more ruthless in disposing of digital images than film ones. Film photographs often have something to like even if the shot isn't very good. Digital photos have no "carrier signal" to redeem them except the kitsch effects people add retrospectively. That's like putting lipstick on a pig. Let the hog be a hog.

 

[removed account4]

this guy is a master of collaging new aspects and lighting and
parts of the photo that are from other images to blend them into
a view that is totally different than anything that existed before.
photographer i met over coffee is taking workshops with him far away
in exotic places to learn the technique which seems to blend
HDR and old fashioned collage techniques.
Dead Link Removed
there is a slider so you can see the before and after.
when i first saw the images ( not with the slider )
i thought they were all HDR because of the weird contrast and light
but it isn't ... maybe pieces of the images are, others aren't
it is nice advertising photo illustration.
its funny, the guy i know who took the workshops is learning
how to do this ultra modern slick interior work
and he does tintypes/ambrotypes and uses a 11x14 camera too.

 

[blansky]

....and he does tintypes/ambrotypes and uses a 11x14 camera too.

Perhaps it's because when someone is experimental in one form of photography they are that way with other forms as well.

 

[blansky]

this guy is a master of collaging new aspects and lighting and
parts of the photo that are from other images to blend them into
a view that is totally different than anything that existed before.
photographer i met over coffee is taking workshops with him far away
in exotic places to learn the technique which seems to blend
HDR and old fashioned collage techniques.
Dead Link Removed
there is a slider so you can see the before and after.
when i first saw the images ( not with the slider )
i thought they were all HDR because of the weird contrast and light
but it isn't ... maybe pieces of the images are, others aren't
it is nice advertising photo illustration.
its funny, the guy i know who took the workshops is learning
how to do this ultra modern slick interior work
and he does tintypes/ambrotypes and uses a 11x14 camera too.

It looks like he uses a lot of multi exposure on the same frame, that I used to see in analog a few years ago. Meaning setting the camera, locking it down, then shoot short exposures from evening to dark, on the same sheet of film.

Actually one of my favorite techniques and rather a mind bending one is long exposure photography of scenes and buildings. It's surrealness comes from the long exposure but still we can never actually see that way in real life. It's the classic thing of looking at a common thing in a new way.

http://briansmith.com/long-exposure-photography-thibault-roland/

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Where are tiny amount of photogs who produce tinypes. And damp load of digital pictures with distasteful (Instagram crowd likable) HDR, vignetting (I do it with my digital pictures all the time ) and fake film structure, colors and else. Added by phone app or in photoshop, plug-ins, etc.

I'm digital shooter as well, but could we, PLEASE, keep APUG free of digital pictures and threads related to digital photography.

 

[removed account4]

Perhaps it's because when someone is experimental in one form of photography they are that way with other forms as well.

maybe ... i think he just likes having a good time though, and collage or whatever it is called isn't something a lot of local interior specialists
are doing ...

It looks like he uses a lot of multi exposure on the same frame, that I used to see in analog a few years ago. Meaning setting the camera, locking it down, then shoot short exposures from evening to dark, on the same sheet of film.

Actually one of my favorite techniques and rather a mind bending one is long exposure photography of scenes and buildings. It's surrealness comes from the long exposure but still we can never actually see that way in real life. It's the classic thing of looking at a common thing in a new way.

http://briansmith.com/long-exposure-photography-thibault-roland/

that is what it reminded me of too, but from from what he told me it also more involved like feathering in other things into the image
like what jerry uelsmann does or the people making hand tinted post cards in 1910 dropping in
women with baby carriages and factories with smokestacks in streetscape views . seemed interesting what he was doing, or wanted to do ( the coffee guy )

i think it is great how everything that is old is new again.

 

[PinRegistered]

Back in the 80s, we could make all of those images with masking and darkroom techniques. It simply took time. Time and money. I am glad I learned the tricks. Today the real trick is sifting through the barrage of fancy images and finding that which succeeds in its purpose.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[michr]

Lost in a stack of my books is a 1970s era book on special effects in photography. Covered are various printing techniques, using lith film, Sabatier effect, etc. It's amazing how hackneyed and amateurish these techniques look from today's perspective. In most cases, they do not add substance to the photograph, or convey a message. Rather, the look these effects give fixes the photograph to an era.

It's much the same with HDR and other digital effects, such as faux tilt-shift, turning the saturation to 11, along with LOMO techniques of cross-processing and soft, poorly-framed, vignetted snapshots. These fads will be recognized as belonging to these early years of the 21st century and will look as dated as Alien Skin plugins do today.

It seems that when a new tool or technique becomes available and catches on, there's a period where it becomes overused and it falls from favor. I don't see a lot of ring-lights used in portrait photography anymore, for example.

The perspective I try to hold when using these tools, analog or digital, is to imagine how they'll look from tomorrow's point of view. So, in my estimation, the question doesn't really concern which tools to use, rather, how to use the tools in a way that reflects one's personal (good) taste. Often this means being restrained and not cranking the HDR tone-mapping up to make the scene look like a cartoon, or not over-applying an unsharp mask, or not toning a print to give it sepa-toned nostalgia.

But, if I were a better photographer I'd be better at this, the most important thing is to take risks with one's choice of subjects, viewpoints and ideas. Part of the reason these special effects techniques fall on their face is the subject matter. A photograph of a rusty old pickup enhanced by vivid colors and weird faux lighting at its core is a boring old photo of a rusty pickup. No amount of window-dressing or makeup is going to cover up that fact.

There are those that use these tools well, and their imitators. It all comes down to what is actually difficult about photography, using it as a medium for communication, finding one's voice, and learning to engage the world, versus clicking a button, or blindly applying techniques in the darkroom.

 

[Hatchetman]

That's a great post michr!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't think using digital tools as "cheating". The main thing for me is having a vision and using the tools to pull it off. My issue is that some photographers are just concerned with the tools and not concerned with composition. Tools are fetishized with our consumer culture. I've seen too many photographers with too much gear and little talent. Home cooks with fancy kitchens that don't have a palette. Whatever you passion is, take time to know the rules, learn from the masters and take time to go to galleries and museums to see great art. Also take chances and give yourself permission to fail. Be yourself and try not to be a derivative of another photographer. Try to please only yourself when you've reached a high level of your craft.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To fill in the story about HDR. On a camping trip a couple weeks ago I chatted with a nice photographer who was taking some HDR shots. I admired his getting up early to catch the sunrise, since that's a good thing. A bit later I was looking at some pretty iPhone pictures taken by a friend's wife.

Later on my buddy said to me "Bill, you really need to be more accepting of technology" and my reply was to tell him about the two earlier conversations that prove how open I can be...

But I couldn't resist the urge to add... "It's OK with me if they want to shoot that crap"

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think it's harder in many ways to make a great digital picture. There is no texture to rely on, or any visceral film aesthetic to engage the eye except the power (or otherwise) of the image itself. I find myself being far more ruthless in disposing of digital images than film ones. Film photographs often have something to like even if the shot isn't very good. Digital photos have no "carrier signal" to redeem them except the kitsch effects people add retrospectively. That's like putting lipstick on a pig. Let the hog be a hog.

+1