Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 13 Jul 2011 (Wednesday) 15:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jul 14, 2011 23:46 |  #91

mikekelley wrote in post #12760944 (external link)
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.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jul 14, 2011 23:56 |  #92

mikekelley wrote in post #12760944 (external link)
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.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jul 15, 2011 00:03 |  #93

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.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 142
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jul 15, 2011 00:10 |  #94

mikekelley wrote in post #12761127 (external link)
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.

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.

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.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jul 15, 2011 00:22 |  #95

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12761161 (external link)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bior
Senior Member
Avatar
348 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Jul 15, 2011 01:38 |  #96

Tony-S wrote in post #12760216 (external link)
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.


Branden - amateur photographer for hire / bored systems administrator probably posting from work
Weapons of choice: 5D2 and a T3 / website will return soon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quiksquirrel
Senior Member
608 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Denmark
     
Jul 15, 2011 03:15 |  #97

bior wrote in post #12761469 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bior
Senior Member
Avatar
348 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Jul 15, 2011 11:40 |  #98

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.


Branden - amateur photographer for hire / bored systems administrator probably posting from work
Weapons of choice: 5D2 and a T3 / website will return soon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quiksquirrel
Senior Member
608 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Denmark
     
Jul 15, 2011 11:58 |  #99

bior wrote in post #12763238 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bior
Senior Member
Avatar
348 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Jul 15, 2011 12:42 |  #100

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:

Attached is a picture of Steve's Aunt and Uncle when they got married. Is there a way you can do the same thing for us in a picture or two (how it is black and white but the flowers are still red)? Just wondering. We're all getting so excited!

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?


Branden - amateur photographer for hire / bored systems administrator probably posting from work
Weapons of choice: 5D2 and a T3 / website will return soon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jul 15, 2011 15:03 |  #101

bior wrote in post #12761469 (external link)
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.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
midget
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2007
Location: NY
     
Jul 15, 2011 15:40 |  #102

jkru617 wrote in post #12759102 (external link)
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?


40d + 50mm f1.8 MK I + my feet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alann
Goldmember
2,609 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Nov 2007
Location: South Carolina
     
Jul 15, 2011 16:22 |  #103

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


My FLickrPage (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Jul 15, 2011 18:49 |  #104

alann wrote in post #12764796 (external link)
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.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Jul 15, 2011 19:03 |  #105

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.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

36,787 views & 0 likes for this thread
What are some current photography trends that you can't stand?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Overdoer
807 guests, 210 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.