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

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 16, 2015

I didn't take it that way

Michael R 1974 said:
Hopefully my comment didn't come across as targeting you specifically. It just seems like regardless of the original point of the thread, everything ends up veering into analog v digital.

Hi Michael,

I didn't feel targeted at all. But you do have to understand that some folks on this thread loves analog photography. My intent and comment was mainly about our current visual culture where there more of a tendency to create overly retouched and stiled images. I'm sure there are photographers that shoot strictly digital that have the same opinion.

gone · Nov 16, 2015

Bottom line: They look like hell. I have no problem w/ any technique or medium, but the images just look really bad. As someone that painted and printed before coming to photography, honestly, if you can't draw, learn. It's a learned skill. But don't do this ugly crap, which looks like just what it is....poorly executed illustrations based on a photograph. This is the real downside of digital. It's a completely valid medium that attracts people w/ zero talent. They think the fantastic capabilities will somehow fix the fact that they have no eye and no talent. I mean, come on! You HAVE to understand what good stuff looks like and what bad stuff looks like. No technology on earth will help someone that basically has no talent, and no desire to learn to use hard work and determination to get a good image. But first, you have to understand what a good image is supposed to look like. That's the starting point.

I like petapixel by the way, although I only do analog work. It has a strange sense of humor that I like, and if you are willing to wade through all the lousy stuff you can find some real gems.

Jeff Bradford · Nov 16, 2015

Velvet paintings, HDR, and Screamo music are all fashions of the day. They come and they go. They are not art in and of themselves. They are embellishments to artwork. In the case of the photos linked in the OP, the photographer obviously went to some lengths to arrange a photo shoot with lighting, talent, props, and set-dressing. The end result of his artistic execution misses the mark in my book. The creative vision expressed seems juvenile - not just in the use of HDR, but in the idealized poses and video-game animation facade applied. All in all, what's not to dislike?

Coco Chanel: "When accessorizing, always take off the last thing you put on." In other words, don't over-do it. Simplicity in imagery allows the imagination to see that which it is already most familiar with.

MattKing · Nov 16, 2015

Somehow I don't think APUG is the target group for this publication: http://prophotoartistry.com/mag.html .

And then there is the radical responsible for this:

http://nashvillearts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Journey-into-Night-2006.jpg

gzhuang · 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.

Absolutely, I believe the process is called tone mapping.

skorpiius · Nov 16, 2015

My main dislike for HDR is how often it's used as an "turn it up to 11" method of making boring photos fake-dramatic.

eg

RobC · Nov 16, 2015

please move this topic to DPUG. It is ALL about digital processing techniques.

MattKrull · Nov 16, 2015

RobC said:
please move this topic to DPUG. It is ALL about digital processing techniques.

Funny, I thought it was about the asthetic choices. As a number of people have pointed out, over the top and garish images have been around longer than digital imagery.

bdial · Nov 16, 2015

It's an interesting direction this has gone in. The photos in question are composites illustrating a reality that doesn't quite exist. There is much more than HDR going on there.
As for film vs d, in this context, a lot of it could have been done on film, though it would have been a lot more difficult.

Many of these sorts of highly-processed images look more to my eye like photo-realisic paintings rather than photographs.
I'm not sure why, certainly they are missing the texture that grain imparts, but I think there is more to it than that.

gzhuang · Nov 16, 2015

skorpiius said:
My main dislike for HDR is how often it's used as an "turn it up to 11" method of making boring photos fake-dramatic.

That's the problem with digital photographers. Just shoot and post process. Nevermind the ND filter.

markbarendt · Nov 16, 2015

gzhuang said:
That's the problem with digital photographers. Just shoot and post process. Nevermind the ND filter.

Painters are even worse, they don't even shoot, just look at the scene and then paint whatever the heck they want.

Negative shooters are nearly as bad, redoing whatever they please with burn and dodge when they print in their darn enlargers.

OMG WTH is the world coming to?

pdeeh · Nov 16, 2015

Everything new is just awful, we're all Doomed ...

Sirius Glass · Nov 16, 2015

momus said:
Bottom line: They look like hell. I have no problem w/ any technique or medium, but the images just look really bad. As someone that painted and printed before coming to photography, honestly, if you can't draw, learn. It's a learned skill. But don't do this ugly crap, which looks like just what it is....poorly executed illustrations based on a photograph. This is the real downside of digital. It's a completely valid medium that attracts people w/ zero talent. They think the fantastic capabilities will somehow fix the fact that they have no eye and no talent. I mean, come on! You HAVE to understand what good stuff looks like and what bad stuff looks like. No technology on earth will help someone that basically has no talent, and no desire to learn to use hard work and determination to get a good image. But first, you have to understand what a good image is supposed to look like. That's the starting point.

I like petapixel by the way, although I only do analog work. It has a strange sense of humor that I like, and if you are willing to wade through all the lousy stuff you can find some real gems.

If they looked like hell, that would be an improvement.

gzhuang · Nov 16, 2015

markbarendt said:
Painters are even worse, they don't even shoot, just look at the scene and then paint whatever the heck they want.

Negative shooters are nearly as bad, redoing whatever they please with burn and dodge when they print in their darn enlargers.

OMG WTH is the world coming to?

WTH are the painters in this world?

markbarendt · Nov 16, 2015

gzhuang said:
WTH are the painters in this world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting

Theo Sulphate · Nov 16, 2015

MattKrull said:
...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.

In 2006 I was in Yosemite and was travelling heavy: two cameras. I've forgotten what one of them was, but the other was an SX-70 with slightly old Polaroid Time Zero film. I was pleasantly surprised with my shots of Half Dome and other landmarks: they all had a soft pastel look to them. I scanned the photos to 8x10 for my living room wall and they looked like paintings.

This "soft pastel" effect was a turning point for me since I began to look at the image as a whole rather than as a colorful well-composed resolution chart.

fdonadio · Nov 16, 2015

A couple of months ago, I went to an exposition in an art gallery in São Paulo (Brazil) about surrealist female painters from Mexico. The main attraction were Frida Kahlo's paintings...

But there were some beautiful photos by Lola Alvarez Bravo. Most of them were portraits of Frida and other artists. This photo of Frida caught my attention. It didn't look like a silver print. The colors were a little off and it looked like a painting. It was a color carbon print. And it was awesome.

MattKing · Nov 16, 2015

There is a good possibility that that print was either a vintage print, or one made by Todd Gangler.

I attended a presentation by Mr. Gangler at the 2012 North West Alternative Photography Symposium. He had been hired to produce three colour carbon prints from vintagei materials that had originally been used to prepare carbon prints (IIRC). We were given the opportunity to actually hold and closely examine several of his printer's proofs, including the Frida Kahlo prints. They were remarkable.

MartinCrabtree · Nov 16, 2015

That is a beautiful portrait. I do not think it should be categorized with the thread's subject.

blockend · Nov 17, 2015

The Freda Kahlo image has more in common with Eggleston's dye transfer photographs, or 5 x 4 Kodachromes, hyper-reality is an effect of the process.

fdonadio · Nov 17, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
That is a beautiful portrait. I do not think it should be categorized with the thread's subject.

For sure! My point is that it is possible to make an image with "surreal" colors in a way that it's not "over the top".

In fact, the print is even more beautiful when seen "in person".

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 17, 2015

Here's an interesting question. So do anybody think there's a demand for over the top photographers or photographers are just stretching the creative boundaries? How over the top can photographers get. Will consumers of photography of over the top photography can ever enjoy a subtle, well composed photo?
http://www.weddingomania.com/very-creative-and-unique-wedding-photography-from-eduard-stelmakh/

RobC · Nov 17, 2015

The question is: Where does photography stop and digital imaging take over?

I know its the old and tired analogue vs digital argument but I'm a bit of a purist and photography is writing with light and digital imaging isn't.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 17, 2015

A good philosophical discussion

RobC said:
The question is: Where does photography stop and digital imaging take over?

I know its the old and tired analogue vs digital argument but I'm a bit of a purist and photography is writing with light and digital imaging isn't.

To me, digital manipulations is just another tool. Photographers have always been able to manipulate photos in an analog way.

http://www.cvltnation.com/anti-nazi...artfield-photo-essay-documentary-now-showing/

Here's Steichen's portrait of JP Morgan. Steichen made the photo look Morgan was holding a knife while he was just holding on to a chair rail. These are manipulations that has a purpose that goes beyond just wowing the viewer.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/49.55.167

Sirius Glass · Nov 17, 2015

There is a difference between manipulation and leaving the realm of reality. Leaving reality is the part that I have a problem with. It has gotten so that I cannot trust that anything posted on the internet is real.

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

Mainecoonmaniac

gone

Jeff Bradford

MattKing

Moderator

gzhuang

skorpiius

Attachments

RobC

MattKrull

bdial

gzhuang

markbarendt

pdeeh

Sirius Glass

gzhuang

markbarendt

Theo Sulphate

fdonadio

MattKing

Moderator

MartinCrabtree

blockend

fdonadio

Mainecoonmaniac

RobC

Mainecoonmaniac

Sirius Glass

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

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency