Has P&S made overexposure the normal look for the layman?

I'm finding more and more that people are getting accustomed to the oversaturated, overexposed, oversharpened shots that the typical P&S produces and are calling most properly exposed shots from a DSLR that are also properly sharpened and saturated "dark" and/or "colourless".

Have you run into this?

I'm sure the occasional pro has found that what is photographically acepted as correct is perceived differently with the advent of uber cameras the size of a pack of smokes.

Red eye, deer in the headlights flash glare, dark backgrounds, zero bokeh, greens that John Deere would be scared of. Are these the preferences of the masses these days all the while being unaware?

Appreciating quality art is a learned skill.

An age old delimma for artists has always been their vision is in conflict with the clients, or general publics.

A commercially sucessfull artist finds ways to bridge the distance between the clients and their own viewpoints.

It is concievable that Canon and other P&S manufactures have done extensive research on how to process the images within the camera, and the results we see are a result of this research. Although Canon surely employes many skilled artists they are much more focused on sucessfull commercial endeavors.

Ever used vivid and the cranked sharpening settings on your P&S? Dunt look right.

i know what you mean. i was shooting at a wedding a while back, and we were shooting at sunset, and one of the people with the point and shoot took this shot, not the greatest exposure, but it made the sky really saturated..... like much more than it really even was, obviously he was a complete chimper and went around showing it to people, everyone ohhed and ahhed (it was like a small zoo of chimpers). Most DSLR shots require some saturation, but P&S's definitly tend to overdo it in the camera to make up for their lack of sharpness and higher noise ect.

cosworth wrote in post #2231565
Ever used vivid and the cranked sharpening settings on your P&S? Dunt look right.

Good Lord, no! If I did, it would look like something from a Kodak point and shoot. I don't play with the in camera settings at all, and I shoot in RAW 100% of the time.

I process mine to whatever looks right to me. I've posted shot here that people have complained about being too dark. But, if that's how it looked when I took the shot, or if it's the mood I want to set, then I won't artifically change the exposure to suit.

I find the A610 to be rather soft on the neutral settings in camera. It does have a vivid setting but I don't like what it does to the pics. I much prefer to have a softer flatter image and then tweak it in PP to my liking.

elise1030 wrote in post #2231799
I find the A610 to be rather soft on the neutral settings in camera. It does have a vivid setting but I don't like what it does to the pics. I much prefer to have a softer flatter image and then tweak it in PP to my liking.

That's what you're supposed to do. The oversaturated crap is just that...crap.

Yep, what I meant is that it's better than having a camera that does all the oversaturation and over sharpening in camera for you. I think it's much easier to do the oversaturation and oversharpness yourself in PP than it is to undo it.

I shoot RAW+JPEG and with picture styles I bump up the Saturation, and Sharpness... That way, people think "Oh that's great" and it makes it easier for family picture where a aunt might want a CD and you want to make the process as painless as possible for yourself.

But yes I agree, the general public eye is in love with overly saturated, overly sharped, over exposed, junk.

cosworth wrote in post #2231251
Are these the preferences of the masses these days all the while being unaware?

Being unaware of what? Some people decide for themselves what they like and don't like, rather than letting somebody else (e.g. photo and art authorities) tell them what they are supposed to like. On the otherhand, I agree with you that people have different levels of visual perception, and the general public usually cannot appreciate a good photo the way a photographer can. Objective artistic standards have to be based on patterns of subjective interpretations by numerous highly-aware individuals. But if your audience is the general public, then you have to appeal to them.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I have never had anyone say that my shots weren't sharp or saturated enough... I've become fairly unfamiliar with point and shoots or what they produce but, if memory serves me my first camera was very saturated and it was an adjustment to go to a DSLR.. do folks think their point and shoot photos look great?.. yes, they do..but it's never really had an affect on what I produce.. ofcourse Rockwell doesn't help any...

sari

funnypicmaker wrote in post #2232194
Being unaware of what? Some people decide for themselves what they like and don't like, rather than letting somebody else (e.g. photo and art authorities) tell them what they are supposed to like. On the otherhand, I agree with you that people have different levels of visual perception, and the general public usually cannot appreciate a good photo the way a photographer can. Objective artistic standards have to be based on patterns of subjective interpretations by numerous highly-aware individuals. But if your audience is the general public, then you have to appeal to them.

Unaware that their preferences have changed.

I cater to the public in a way you can never imagine where I work. I sell them what they want. I'm just saying that the great unwashed have shifted their taste since the film days. Even though I see plenty of film cameras every day here.

cosworth wrote in post #2231251
Red eye, deer in the headlights flash glare, dark backgrounds, zero bokeh, greens that John Deere would be scared of. Are these the preferences of the masses these days all the while being unaware?

That may well be true. Guess we have to kick the saturation up a few notches when printing for them. I think there was one famous story about Ansel Adams himself, the great master, having to lighten the images up so that they'd sell.

On the other hand, a couple of positive stories - I have had some of the uninitiated (proud P&S owners, and old entry level P&S at that!!) tell me they liked the way the subject was in focus but the background wasn't and it made the subject stand out. My jaw nearly fell on the floor. The uninitiated LIKING the bokeh (even though they may not be able to specifically classify it as such)? WOW!

People's tastes are very much influenced by trends, rather than the intrinsic aesthetic value. I think this applies to photography, not just fashion. In the case of fashion it's mostly conscious (aware). With photography?....probab​ly both and depends on the individual. Some people may want a real look, others an imaginative look. Some may not be able to tell the difference.

My opinion is that most films suck, with the exception of Ektachrome 100G. 100 VS blows the contrast on colorful shots and is grainy. Negative films have low contrast and usually look dull. My opinion. Ektachrome 100G is known for looking real, but with more saturation than most.