Addicted to Styles/Presets (?)

I’ve started using C-1 consistently lately and, even when I was post-processing in ACR lately, I noticed that I was making fairly significant usage of styles/presets. Only this afternoon, I was coming back from a shoot and, when I started post-processing a few of them, I noticed that I was using styles/presets on most of my early pics.

Is there a threshold of usage of styles/presets (and I’m presuming here that the style is tasteful/fits with the photo it’s used on) that basically undermines how much “yours” (from an artistic point of view) any given photo/series/library is when you use commercial styles on a certain critical mass of them?

If you make and use styles/presets in post processing, you are simply saving yourself time (if you can keep track of all of them). If you use presets obtained over the web (or purchased) you could be simply getting the results you want at a fast rate of applying a particular combination of settings to a photo. What's wrong with that?!

If they are merely a 'starting point' from which to develop a combination of your own, more power too you.
If you are using free/purchased styles/presets to merely mimic what others have created and sold to you, you are perhaps stunting your own creativity, and being lazier than you need to be.

Where the line is crossed is a highly subjective matter of individual opinion.

I remember an art class where the teacher was talking about an incident in a show (I think it was in Montreal more than 60 years ago) where somebody entered the big sheet of blotting paper on which the draftsmen in an architect's office cleaned their pen's. When, as expected, a student said, "That's not art!" the teacher replied, "Well, somebody had to decide when to pick it up."

If you have hundreds of presets to choose from, I suppose the act of selecting one for a given photo could be considered a "creative act".

tzalman wrote in post #18889389
When, as expected, a student said, "That's not art!" the teacher replied, "Well, somebody had to decide when to pick it up."

Sorry, but I don't get the punchline. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Peano wrote in post #18889564
Sorry, but I don't get the punchline. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The "punchline" is that anything can be art if the artist intends it to be art - If to them it conveys a message.

Art is the result of human creativity used to convey a message. That creativity could be limited to just seeing the message and picking up the blotter or it could extend to travelling to another country to collect elephant dung, colouring it with hand-ground beetles and then smearing it onto a canvas using just your left hand.

Make what you love, and love what you make.

Don’t be distracted by semantics.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18889593
The punchline is that anything can be art if the artist intends it to be art - If to them it conveys a message.

Art is the result of human creativity used to convey a message. That creativity could be limited to just seeing the message and picking up the blotter or it could extend to travelling to another country to collect elephant dung, colouring it with hand-ground beetles and then smearing it onto a canvas using just your left hand.

Thanks. But I don't get any of that from "when to pick it up." The janitor might have decided "when to pick it up" because it was trash and needed to be replaced with a new blotter. This isn't a big deal for me. It's just that I've made my living with words, and I don't think a punchline should ever require an explanation. If it does, it's a failed punchline. That's still my conclusion in this case.

Peano wrote in post #18889751
Thanks. But I don't get any of that from "when to pick it up." The janitor might have decided "when to pick it up" because it was trash and needed to be replaced with a new blotter. This isn't a big deal for me. It's just that I've made my living with words, and I don't think a punchline should ever require an explanation. If it does, it's a failed punchline. That's still my conclusion in this case.

I agree - the meaning of the "punchline" is somewhat obvious, but disconnected enough from what it's supposed to imply that it makes you wonder if something else wasn't meant.

Peano wrote in post #18889751
Thanks. But I don't get any of that from "when to pick it up." The janitor might have decided "when to pick it up" because it was trash and needed to be replaced with a new blotter.

Of course, which is exactly what the teacher was saying. The blotter itself isn't what makes the blotter art.

Except the teacher isn't a comedian and it isn't actually a punchline... it's a lesson. The teacher's job is not to give out answers, it is to teach people to learn. His answer perfectly answers the question asked by the student, if that student has learned about the subject. At the same time it makes it clear to any student who hasn't (and therefore doesn't understand the answer) that they need to go away and learn something.

Apricane wrote in post #18889226
Is there a threshold of usage of styles/presets (and I’m presuming here that the style is tasteful/fits with the photo it’s used on) that basically undermines how much “yours” (from an artistic point of view) any given photo/series/library is when you use commercial styles on a certain critical mass of them?

For me the answer is no.

It doesn't actually matter if you buy commercial paint or you grind up beetles to make it. It doesn't matter if you create your own presets, edits each image individually or use a preset that someone else created. What matters is that you had a vision for that image.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18889877
For me the answer is no.

It doesn't actually matter if you buy commercial paint or you grind up beetles to make it. It doesn't matter if you create your own presets, edits each image individually or use a preset that someone else created. What matters is that you had a vision for that image.

Thanks, I had gotten that, I was commenting on the phrasing of the statement itself, your response in the thread was clear...

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18889869
The teacher's job is not to give out answers, it is to teach people to learn. His answer perfectly answers the question asked by the student, if that student has learned about the subject.

The student didn't ask a question. I think you and I should just agree to disagree about this one. You think it's perfect, I think it's nonsense. Not much middle ground there.

Peano wrote in post #18890029
The student didn't ask a question.

Ahhh that makes sense. If you don't see the question then the answer doesn't really make sense.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18891658
Ahhh that makes sense. If you don't see the question then the answer doesn't really make sense.

There is no question to see. The student said, "That's not art!" That is an assertion, not a question.

Peano wrote in post #18891841
There is no question to see. The student said, "That's not art!" That is an assertion, not a question.

Just because something is phrased as an assertion doesn't mean that that is what it actually is. What is said/written is only one part of how we communicate. Tone, body language and context are all equally important elements. here the context is that the assertion was made from a position of ignorance by a student in a learning environment. To any teacher worth their salt the student is asking "how on earth can this rubbish be art?" The teacher present recognised the question and answered it in a way to encourage further learning.