What are some current photography trends that you can't stand?

mikekelley wrote in post #12760944
people hem and haw about this, but i still haven't seen it in practice. everyone cites ansel adams. we get it, he could probably do amazing work with an XT.

While I'm certain Adams would have embraced digital technology, I don't think the XT would have been something he'd have done any craft with. Perhaps 8 or 9 stops of dynamic range with the XT; the Zone System can capture 14 or more stops with subtle tonal gradations with appropriate metering, exposure and development. Or it can expand the contrast in a low contrast scene using the same approach. While the latter is approachable with digital, the former is not; not without taking multiple images and having competence with HDR software.

mikekelley wrote in post #12760944
people hem and haw about this, but i still haven't seen it in practice.

And around here (POTN) it's unlikely that you ever will.

I honestly don't know what the actual percentage might be but I think it's safe to say that POTN represents an extremely small percentage of photographers world-wide.

The percentage of those working in MF and LF are probably represented here by a number that's certainly larger than zero but just barely.

There's a much wider world of very high-end commercial work that happens strictly between photographer and client that doesn't get trumpeted on POTN, MF, DPReview, Photo.net, etc... I have no doubt that a significant amount of that work is still done on film. Particularly the LF work.

It may come as a surprise to you that POTN isn't the extent of my photographic world. Every year, more and more commercial photographers are using MFDB or Small Format (135) digital than the previous year.

I am also confident that those commercial photographers you speak of are more than capable of producing absolutely top notch, stunning imagery, regardless of the format. Whether it be small format digital or large format film.

mikekelley wrote in post #12761127
It may come as a surprise to you that POTN isn't the extent of my photographic world. Every year, more and more commercial photographers are using MFDB or Small Format (135) digital than the previous year.

My intent was not to say that participants here have a myopic view of photography. I was simply trying to make the point that there are far, far more photographers who've never been on any kind of internet board than have been.

If you don't believe me, do your own survey. Ask 10 other photographers to which sites do they contribute and I think you'll be surprised at the number of blank stares you get. I know that of the 40 members of the flesh and blood photo group to which I belong, virtually none of the Canon shooters have ever heard of POTN and only a handful of the entire membership were aware of any of the "brand-neutral" sites like Fred Miranda, Photo Camel or DPReview.

POTN (et al) are microcosms of the larger photography world.

Being Capable =/= What Is Required. At the pinnacle of commercial, you do what the client wants or you don't do the gig. If that means burning north of $250/frame for LF film, you better know what you're doing so you don't nuke your profits before you nail the shot.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12761161
My intent was not to say that participants here have a myopic view of photography. I was simply trying to make the point that there are far, far more photographers who've never been on any kind of internet board than have been.

Understood.

i'm also aware of this - a lot of the younger shooters i know are aware of the internet communities, but they don't take part. many (not all) of the older guys don't even know/care.

At the pinnacle of commercial, the client is hiring you because of your vision. Perfect example that people here are familiar with: Chase Jarvis. He shoots for a wide variety of companies and bills six figures in many cases for his shoots. He has done work for Microsoft that looks like work he's done for The North Face. They are hiring him because they want HIS ideas and HIS vision applied to their product, because it is what the owners of the company hiring Chase believe will help them. Yes, they give him a brief, and a general outline of their vision, but they are not hovering over his shoulder at every move. They hired him because they trust him and HIS vision to upgrade the image of their company. If this weren't the case, high end commercial photography would be nothing more than a bunch of lemmings setting up lights while the client directed them.

The most miserable assignments I do are the ones where the clients are hovering over my shoulder telling me exactly what they want. And, surprise surprise, those are the only assignments that I ever get negative feedback on. When a high-end photographer is left to do the work that is in their head, the results are much better. Yes - you "do" what the client wants, that's the point, to execute the brief - but more importantly - the client KNOWS your style and is giving you the yoke, so to say, to produce images for them. Otherwise, why the heck are they hiring you?

Which brings me to my next point - if that vision includes using a LF camera, then so be it, if that vision includes small format digital, so be it - if the photographer can execute the brief with a 35mm digital, he probably will.

Tony-S wrote in post #12760216
I guess you don't know much about the advantages of film.

Yes, taking my quote out of context sure makes it seem silly! Gee golly!

My statement was in no way denigrating film photography, only denigrating the first poster's attitude that recreating film's effects digitally is worthless. Improving photo editing skills is far from worthless, whether you shoot digitally or on film.

I actually do (sometimes) shoot film and have done darkroom work, but it's a pain in the ass that I wouldn't advise people step casually into.

bior wrote in post #12761469
I actually do (sometimes) shoot film and have done darkroom work, but it's a pain in the ass that I wouldn't advise people step casually into.

If i't a pain in the arse, you either need more practice, or perhaps that part of the process just isn't your thing and you should find a good lab to work with. There are still a few high end labs that have the skills and knowledge to give you exactly what you want.

Developing B&W negatives are about as simple as it gets. Takes close to no time, and it's always rewarding.
Some more advanced or specialized film types, can be quite a challenge though and I admit that there are two types that I would never even try to develop myself.

Developing B&W negatives is only a simple process compared to developing other types of film. It is very complicated and time-consuming compared to developing a digital photo, which is done in milliseconds automatically by the camera.

For photographers who are working on learning composition and lighting, working with film adds a step that isn't necessary and slows their learning. Learning to work with film is a great resource and can be very rewarding, but only once you've already got the basics of photography figured out.

This is all I'm saying -- criticizing beginners for not using film is ridiculous.

bior wrote in post #12763238
Developing B&W negatives is only a simple process compared to developing other types of film. It is very complicated and time-consuming compared to developing a digital photo, which is done in milliseconds automatically by the camera.

For photographers who are working on learning composition and lighting, working with film adds a step that isn't necessary and slows their learning. Learning to work with film is a great resource and can be very rewarding, but only once you've already got the basics of photography figured out.

This is all I'm saying -- criticizing beginners for not using film is ridiculous.

I wasn't criticizing anyone.

But I stand by what I wrote.. There is nothing complicated about developing B&W film. It's a series of steps that need to be done in the right order. That's it.
Some parts may take time to learn, but after a while, you can almost do it in your sleep.

Color film is a bit more difficult and chrome is a nightmare. But B&W is as simple now as it was 20 years ago.

Regarding the selective desaturation trend, I'm no fan of the style, but here's an email I just got from a bride who's wedding I'm shooting:

So look like I'll be brushing up on this technique.

Wonder what would happen if I said this style reminds me of the little girl in Schindler's List?

bior wrote in post #12761469
Yes, taking my quote out of context sure makes it seem silly! Gee golly!

The sardonic nature of your comment was ambiguous. Perhaps you should clarify such statements in the future to avoid confusion.

jkru617 wrote in post #12759102
I don't like that bicycling, marathons, golf, racing, poker are being called sports. I need some contact and teamwork to call it a sport. that really isn't a photography thing though.

I enjoy HDR pictures if done tastefully.

by that definition, does bowling or curling qualify for you?

Pics posted with the subject centered; out of focus and under or over exposed and the feedback is" nice work","fantastic" etc.

alann wrote in post #12764796
Pics posted with the subject centered; out of focus and under or over exposed and the feedback is" nice work","fantastic" etc.

I'll give you two out of three, but sometimes centering the subject is called for.

The lack of technical progress irritates me. By now, we should have cameras with x-ray vision, like the one I wanted when I was 15.