Why are there more photos that have to be "over the top" these days

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 15, 2015

I'm sounding old, I hate overly exaggerated HDR shots and "over the top" photos like these. They're called "Cinematic". Ugh.

http://petapixel.com/2014/04/19/cin...onors-first-responder-heroes-dont-wear-capes/

DWThomas · Nov 15, 2015

+1 It's like website design where I see a tendency to include gratuitous animation and music or whatever not because it does something useful but just because it can be done.

(But then I am well into Curmudgeonly Olde Farthood meself, yes!)

Sirius Glass · Nov 15, 2015

Digital still playing the film wantabe tune.

ic-racer · Nov 15, 2015

I think they are promoting something for monetary gain. Advertising photography had always been like that. Only difference now is the over use of digital image manipulation. But in the old days it was re-touching.

DannL. · Nov 15, 2015

It's a good reminder to eat your Wheaties and vegetables when you're young. Otherwise you'll end up making cartoons for a living. No disrespect to cartoonists, but that field of endeavor must be saturated by now. ;-)

mooseontheloose · Nov 15, 2015

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I'm sounding old, I hate overly exaggerated HDR shots and "over the top" photos like these. They're called "Cinematic". Ugh.

http://petapixel.com/2014/04/19/cin...onors-first-responder-heroes-dont-wear-capes/

+1

Couldn't even look past the first couple of images. I'm not an old fart (fartette? fartesse?) but I'm not afraid to say I hate that HDR crap.

Theo Sulphate · Nov 15, 2015

Although photographs have been manipulated for a long time (contrast, dodging, burning, Velvia saturation), I think what we're seeing with HDR is a bit different. People will buy a $3500 DSLR that gives them a perfectly exposed landscape (well, at least the jpg looks good) and they'll spend two days massaging the .raw to extract detail from zone I to zone IX because that's what they think they're supposed to do.

I know a photographer older than I am, Mr. I'll Never Go Back To Film, who has a good sense of subject and composition, but can't make this simplest of photos without spending two days manipulating it in Lightroom to get that HDR.

I might just form a reactionary movement and switch to using blue-green orthochromatic film and print with high contrast.

MattKing · Nov 15, 2015

I've seen some very effective HDR work where photographers have subtly blended two or more exposures to end up with a very realistic and yet "transparent" look. Some of the best examples being shots used for architectural illustrations, where the exterior and the interior are both important.

I think the key is that HDR is a tool with a purpose, and when used well, gives useful results.

But not when it is used merely for effect.

uniondale · Nov 16, 2015

I think this whole HDR thing started because digital had less exposure range than film. Something like five stops to film's twelve.

Dr Croubie · Nov 16, 2015

Seriously, is this one not just a screenshot from Fallout or Halo or something?

NB23 · Nov 16, 2015

Killl meeeee

Sirius Glass · Nov 16, 2015

MattKing said:
I've seen some very effective HDR work where photographers have subtly blended two or more exposures to end up with a very realistic and yet "transparent" look. Some of the best examples being shots used for architectural illustrations, where the exterior and the interior are both important.

I think the key is that HDR is a tool with a purpose, and when used well, gives useful results.

But not when it is used merely for effect.

uniondale said:
I think this whole HDR thing started because digital had less exposure range than film. Something like five stops to film's twelve.

HDR is a crutch because digital cannot keep up with the big boy, film. Another crutch Faux$hop filters to make "grain"; actually oatmeal for breakfast, lunch and dinner might be a good start.

markbarendt · Nov 16, 2015

I know, this fabricated darn modern nonsense doesn't even look real.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 16, 2015

I think that the public is consuming a visual diet of saturated colors and overly dramatic images and thoughtful well composed images seem blah and prosaic. It's probably like kids eating fast food and sugary cereals and any well cooked meal tastes yucky to them.

Theo Sulphate · Nov 16, 2015

markbarendt said:
I know, this fabricated darn modern nonsense doesn't even look real.

Typical failed attempt at Cubism by Picasso. It isn't reality. This is reality:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Salvador_Dali_A_(Dali_Atomicus)_09633u.jpg

Slixtiesix · Nov 16, 2015

Awesome :-D Dali was known for doing weird things...

As for the HDR: Not my taste either because it looks too artificial. However I think it is a trend like they come and go from time to time. I´m sure that 50 years from now they will say: "Look, that´s a picture from the turn of the century. How awkward!"

markbarendt · Nov 16, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Typical failed attempt at Cubism by Picasso. It isn't reality. This is reality:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Salvador_Dali_A_(Dali_Atomicus)_09633u.jpg

Thank you for finding that for me Theo, when I was replying last night I thought of that photo but Dali simply wouldn't fall off the tip of my tongue into the search bar.

Dali did fun stuff, so did Picasso; both are reasonable examples here. Artists going over the top (by the old guard's standards) has a very long tradition.

Dali, Picasso, and the people doing this cinematic style stuff all "fabricated" their images; and none of them represent reality. The artifacts they leave behind for us to look at express ideas, not reality. I actually believe that to be true of all photo's. We choose the idea we want portray every time we make a photo.

removed account4 · Nov 16, 2015

i kind of like the photographs.
it is nice to see people being creative.
i'd rather look at stuff like that than some
wannabee answerll adddams rocks and trees
faux wessten trunkated nudes or nude peppers/sexy vegetables
or some equally eye bleeding velveeta landscapes

MattKrull · Nov 16, 2015

I've had this discussion a number of times with my non-photgraphically inclinded friends. Even they are noticing this trend. It's the visual equivalent of the Loudness Wars in music.
Basically, the louder something is (loud in this case might better be described as "sensory dense", instead of just high volume), the more it grabs and keeps attention. Listen to any Top 40 song today and you'll hear layers and layers of sound, you'll also hear compression (which is not file compression, but the audio equivalent of HDR). What they found in the 80s when CDs allowed an audio dynamic range much larger than vinyl was that wide dynamic range music grabbed people's attention and made them less likely to change the radio station. It is the same as high fat high sugar food - it may not actually taste great, but it grabs us and addicts us.
First there was dodging and burning, then highly saturated colors (ever notice that Kodak consumer films are higher contrast and saturation than their pro C41 films?), eventually he had HDR (which is just an extension of or replacement for dodging and burning), then came heavy handed use of complimentary colours (the so called "cinematic colors"; everything being blue and orange), and now we are back to lots of lens flares (those really seem to come and go in popularity every couple of years). In the end, you stack it all together and you get this massively garish sensroy dense image that grabs people by the eyeballs and shakes them. I'm sure some people use these techniques because it is what they are used to and think they are supposed to, but the advertising agencies are using it knowning full well how and why it works.
For all the hatred against the hipsters and their lo-fi low-contrast, flare prone, lomo images, I much prefer those "simple" dreamy photos to what I'm seeing commercially.

Ko.Fe. · Nov 16, 2015

I'm maybe old to sound, but petapixel is load of crap. The link OP provided is no exclusion. Weak and crappy postprocessing. I have seen better done by regular amateurs at P.O.T.N.

removed account4 · Nov 16, 2015

i don't really see what the problem is ..
let the advertising people make this stuff
let the regular amateurs at P.O.T.N ( whatever that means )
make this stuff ...
don't waste energy hating / disliking it ...
the more people doing that stuff the better as far as i am concerned.
more velvia overly saturated overly contrast chromes, 8x10 or 11x14 even better !
more wessteon and adddams rip offs, get a giant camera it will make things better !
make it all with a digital camera, awesome !
shave half your face and glue nails to a iron, make a fury cup and saucer ...

the answer is just keep making good, strong silver prints
( or whatever it is you make ) don't pay attention to what they are doing ..

Hatchetman · Nov 16, 2015

to the original OP, you have to be bizarre to garner any interest in a world awash in photos. Kind of like old time circus side shows.

FujiLove · Nov 16, 2015

Not my taste, but each to their own. What really puzzled me about the images was why they needed to create a composite of the three people pushing a hospital trolley? Now I can understand composites when you need, say, a building on fire: you have fire, you have a building, but you can't set the building on fire. Fine. But three people pushing a trolley?!

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 16, 2015

That's not my intention of this thread

Michael R 1974 said:
Agree, John. This is yet another (thinly) veiled anti-digital thread. Maybe not OP's original purpose, but it ALWAYS ends up going that way regardless.

Full disclosure of how I sometimes work. I do shoot digital and I do sometimes use HDR. When I worked commercially 30 years ago, I did some interior shots that required lots of polaroid and tons of filling dark areas of interiors with film cards and lights. I think if I was assigned an architectural job, I'll be using digital cameras and using HDR. It's how it's used and not the tools.

Digital is useful and has it's place. However, I think this trend by some photographers use it as a creative crutch. There are example of over the top photos that are done well. Like the portraits of Philippe Halsman and Mark Seliger. Just like digital technology, being over the top is a tool, not a crutch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phili...le:Salvador_Dali_A_(Dali_Atomicus)_09633u.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/0jwS8IDgk...7uC3j7fK1DARnESnN27FF1YRO4f/markseliger08.jpg

skorpiius · Nov 16, 2015

Why did velvet paintings sell back in the day? this is the same thing.

Why are there more photos that have to be "over the top" these days

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency