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

[removed account4]

photographs have never been about reality.
there is an old saying, believe half of what you hear
and none of what you see ... or maybe it was the other way around ..
anyways fauxtography has been around since 1839

 

[markbarendt]

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/

That's a cute shot.

Yes stretching.

 

[RobC]

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

I don't think anyone is denying that photographs have always been "manipulated" but back in the day it was done photographically. Nowadays it's done on a pc. The craft skills of photography have been replaced with digital imaging. They are not the same thing. If you had made those HDR images photographically at least I could accept them as being a photograph even if I do find them rather sickly to look at. But as output from a computer program I can't see them as a photograph.

 

[DannL.]

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.

It's all "Imaging". Creating images for presentation. For the most part they all tickle the brain's vision center. Does it really matter if the image was created via an etching, a wood block print, a tempera painting, a chalk drawing, a pencil drawing, a photographic image, or ink sprayed on paper? I personally embrace most forms of imaging. And when you start to mix multiple methods in the same image, it's even more intriguing. For example, I have a fondness for hand color black & white (SG) prints. I guess it's the soft colors that have an appeal. On the other hand, I have little interest in the HDR stuff. I don't find it very appealing.

 

[blansky]

I think a number of things are happening....

We are overexposed to too many pictures, causing some to hate seeing too much of one thing.

Some people are just old and grumpy and hate new things.

Photography never was about reality, it's always been about expression. It's just that now there are more tools to express yourself. Don't like them, then don't use them.

Some people here are Photographic ISIS. Who only want things to be the way we think they used to be.

 

[RobC]

I see my photography as a craft. I don't do "art". Digital imaging is a different craft than photography is. It's as simple as that.
If people don't understand the craft of photography and think they can call anything photography then fine. But I will continue to tell them they are talking bollocks (when I can be bothered).

 

[fdonadio]

I see some people saying "photography is not about reality" and I agree and disagree with that.

Photojournalism is one use of photography... and it's all about reality. Portraits and landscapes are, most of the time, about reality... but can be made in a non-realistic way. Fortunately, photography is not limited to these uses and other uses can or cannot be about reality.

About the issue raised by the OP, I think it's a matter of taste. I, for one, don't like these surreal (or "hyper real", whatever it means) images. Most of the time, they look too artificial for my taste.

And taking half a dozen photos to "make" one image through digital manipulation is, in my opinion, lack of photography skills.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I don't mind extreme digital HDR so much if it reflects what the photographer really intended to convey. The overuse of HDR is annoying when relatively new photographers do it simply because they think it's a necessary thing to do.

 

[DannL.]

I see my photography as a craft. I don't do "art". Digital imaging is a different craft than photography is. It's as simple as that.
If people don't understand the craft of photography and think they can call anything photography then fine. But I will continue to tell them they are talking bollocks (when I can be bothered).

I would like to see some of this craft of yours. Who knows, it might just rise to the level of being considered art. Wouldn't that be a surprise. Then we'll know who understands the craft of photography, and who doesn't.

 

[RobC]

I would like to see some of this craft of yours. Who knows, it might just rise to the level of being considered art. Wouldn't that be a surprise. Then we'll know who understands the craft of photography, and who doesn't.

I post the occasional image topics for illustration purposes from time to time. Infact I posted a couple today if you look.

 

[DannL.]

I post the occasional image topics for illustration purposes from time to time. Infact I posted a couple today if you look.

Exactly as I had suspected . . . Art! You're gonna have to change your stance.

 

[RobC]

Exactly as I had suspected . . . Art! You're gonna have to change your stance.

Nope, not art.

 

[rpsawin]

Most HDR photos I have seen are, IMHO, the digital version of "poker playing dogs on velvet". I have seen a few photographers who use the technique sparingly and achieve good results. For the most part it strikes me as employing technology for the sake of technology with little or no regard for the image.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Relevant?

http://hypebeast.com/2015/11/reuters-raw-ban

 

[pdeeh]

I don't mind extreme digital HDR so much if it reflects what the photographer really intended to convey. The overuse of HDR is annoying when relatively new photographers do it simply because they think it's a necessary thing to do.

It's a good thing that we all know what a photographer's intentions were before we look at a photograph, otherwise we'd have a hell of a problem distinguishing proper use of hdr from awful rotten naive use of hdr ...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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

It's a good thing that we all know what a photographer's intentions were before we look at a photograph, otherwise we'd have a hell of a problem distinguishing proper use of hdr from awful rotten naive use of hdr ...

I see your point. However I rarely look at a photograph, dislike it, and then someone tell me what the intention was and THEN like it or change my opinion much. A photograph, unless purposely part of a series or a collection, should stand on its own and not require detailed explanation or history or some kind of statement of intention.

Ctein once did a post somewhere (and I'm totally paraphrasing here and might get some details wrong) about how hard he worked on a particular photograph, from the difficulties of getting to the location, to the challenging lighting that existed, to how hard it was to print in the end. He said he would discuss this as if this was an important part of the final image. To his chagrin no one really cared, nor should it matter what went into making the photo, it's the end result that counted and that should stand in its own.

 

[removed account4]

hi richard:

like you, i think that photographs should be able to stand on their own,
and then i think the back-story makes things even more interesting. the idea that
taken in a remote area or difficult to make ( for whatever reasons ) should 1-up
the vitality or ability of an image to have interest i think is something that photographers in this
day and age believe in. there are many photographers who go to remote locations, fine pristine untouched nature
or do an arcane process, use dangerous materials or spend a king's ransom and think the backstory, process &c
should take precedence ... when the images or image isn't as interesting as the backstory+process &c.
relating to the OP ...
the fact that the imagery is eye catching serves a purpose, it is an ad, and we live in a time where
outrageous sometimes is more important than anything else. it is a way for things to be remembered.
highly saturated, high contrast, (excessive to some ) post processing is just a way to be flashy, like a car salesman
in a flashy tie to be noticed. or a roadside establishement with a lighted sign with neon to catch the attention of someone driving by ...
i don't think advertising has come even close to jumping the shark yet, its all about getting noticed, and even if
an ad campaign did something outrageous ( like have brook shields say nothing comes between her and her calvins, or a nearly naked woman
wearing her lover's van heusan shirt, or waif, heroine chic models, or 900 or something photoshop actions rebuilding a model's physique so she looks
beautiful ( more beautifuller ) pushing beauty ideals beyond reach for normal people ) these campaigns are so short lived people forget about them within
a few weeks or months until the next advertising photography fad arrives ... and like you said, and especially in advertising, image is everything.

ymmv

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

That's me

Some people are just old and grumpy and hate new things.

I have to admit that I don't watch much TV or know about the latest trends. But I'm wondering if being over the top is just for it's own sake. Folks are wowed and the image just doesn't go beyond that. It seems to me that there's an arms race with effects. This could really reflect current trends with our culture which makes it valid. But I don't have to participate in it or like it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

hi richard:

like you, i think that photographs should be able to stand on their own,
and then i think the back-story makes things even more interesting. the idea that
taken in a remote area or difficult to make ( for whatever reasons ) should 1-up
the vitality or ability of an image to have interest i think is something that photographers in this
day and age believe in. there are many photographers who go to remote locations, fine pristine untouched nature
or do an arcane process, use dangerous materials or spend a king's ransom and think the backstory, process &c
should take precedence ... when the images or image isn't as interesting as the backstory+process &c.
relating to the OP ...
the fact that the imagery is eye catching serves a purpose, it is an ad, and we live in a time where
outrageous sometimes is more important than anything else. it is a way for things to be remembered.
highly saturated, high contrast, (excessive to some ) post processing is just a way to be flashy, like a car salesman
in a flashy tie to be noticed. or a roadside establishement with a lighted sign with neon to catch the attention of someone driving by ...
i don't think advertising has come even close to jumping the shark yet, its all about getting noticed, and even if
an ad campaign did something outrageous ( like have brook shields say nothing comes between her and her calvins, or a nearly naked woman
wearing her lover's van heusan shirt, or waif, heroine chic models, or 900 or something photoshop actions rebuilding a model's physique so she looks
beautiful ( more beautifuller ) pushing beauty ideals beyond reach for normal people ) these campaigns are so short lived people forget about them within
a few weeks or months until the next advertising photography fad arrives ... and like you said, and especially in advertising, image is everything.

ymmv

You make some very valid points. I agree that a back story can often make an image more interesting, however I should not need the backstory first and the image should pretty much stand on its own before I need to hear any back story to "help"...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It's a good thing that we all know what a photographer's intentions were before we look at a photograph, otherwise we'd have a hell of a problem distinguishing proper use of hdr from awful rotten naive use of hdr ...

When a photographer is using HDR with the intentions of creating a particular effect and it is executed well (that is, the consensus is the photo looks good), then I'd say the photographer knows what he's doing. If it's the common case of a bunch of new photographers doing it on every single photo, many of which look like crap, then they don't know what they're doing and that's what I don't like.

 

[blansky]

I have to admit that I don't watch much TV or know about the latest trends. But I'm wondering if being over the top is just for it's own sake. Folks are wowed and the image just doesn't go beyond that. It seems to me that there's an arms race with effects. This could really reflect current trends with our culture which makes it valid. But I don't have to participate in it or like it.

It really comes down to tools or toys.

I don't look at amateur stuff like Facebook but do look at a number of sites like flicker sites. There the sites I follow, content is mostly professional advertising pictures, commercial photographers or fashion and commercial scenic spots. The expertise level is more in the tool category than I'm sure people see in other places, where they are toys, overused with little expertise.

HDR is very often used in architectural and commercial applications as a perfect tool. In scenic photography it's often overused, but is actually comparable with traditional black and white dramatic with over burning and dodging, which in both cases created hyper realism. How much you like either is just a matter of taste.

But I always go back to the argument that it's not the tools or toys issue, but just the fact that we are inundated with images these days and we feel overwhelmed with it all.

 

[NB23]

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

You will be accused of promoting Digital Vs. Film war.

 

[blockend]

HDR is what I imagine hell to look like, though I suspect its users think they're showing heaven. The disparity between the two should be a warning to us all.

 

[MontanaJay]

It sort of reminds me of the good old days when I used to drop acid.
Then again, it may be a symptom of a general societal urge to escape reality. Much of American political discourse is fully disengaged from facts, and we do love our scripted "reality" TV shows.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know who "we" implies. I can't stand "reality/stupidity" TV shows for even two minutes. Primetime news is at least 50% dumbed-down and more interested in entertainment rating than facts. Cable news can be vastly worse. But more on topic: it really doesn't matter whether we're talking about current digital preferences or older film and darkroom techniques. Every time some new toy or medium comes to market, there will be a very self-conscious adolescent phase where kindergarten mentalities take everything over the top. Way back when, every photo in National Geographic had to have someone in a red sweater somewhere in the scene. Nowadays there are plenty of fake-looking HDR images being published in the same magazine. Doing something corny is not restricted to amateurs. It comes in waves.