Fashionable photography and dissengaging the brain...

In light of there being no other better place for a slightly tongue-in-cheek rant about mindless idiocy, I'll pipe up here. So what's the deal with this incessant following of photographic trends like sheep, even if it produces dire results?

Exhibit number 1, HDR's. Despite personal ethics on modifying photos away from their original content or beliefs in this and that, I am absolutely gobsmacked by some of the utter bilge being rolled out as HDR's currently. I understand it's a tool which can be used to further the abilities of what the camera can record and therefore show in an image, but seriously, when the resultant image looks like an acid trip and a migraine rolled into one, seriously where's the appeal? Seems like a load of people are jumping on the bandwagon and regurgitating the same poor technique just because they've seen someone do it and someone without eyes said it looked cool.

Exhibits 2 through to 4. Ring flash, panoramics, under exposed ambient scene with correctly exposed off camera flash. Now I actually see a lot of these being used well, as in many cases the successful production of such an image requires a photographic talent beyond messing about in PP, but that said, it comes to something when one person rolls out a cool shot using one of these techniques and a week later the internet is awash with poor imitations. Panoramics are the biggest example here, the amount of them I've seen produced in a manner where it's obviously believed that the very shape of the photo makes it good regardless of whether the content of the photo is dire...

Now, I understand that photography is an individual taste and everyone likes one thing different to the next, but the 'sheep flock' metality, as in 'ooh that looks cool, let me try it and massacre it' completely goes against that I think. I genuinely haven't shot a panoramic in months because I almost feel embarassed to show yet another panoramic picture. I feel like I'm being tarred with the sheep flock monicker.

Feel free to debate and discuss, and seeing as I'm saying this both with a point to make and more than a hint of tongue-in-cheek, if anyone posts a migraine inducing HDR after this and tells me it's good I'll be sending the boys round for a word.

<awaits said post>

Open your eyes and think a bit for yourselves people! (And when you do, make it look good! )

What have you got against sheep? aye?

Just remember where your living now mate.

Baaaager off.

I dimly remember a period in my distant past when, unduly influenced by a handful of magazines, I enthusiastically dabbled in darkroom trickery - solarizations, posterizations, sandwiched negs, pushing development to get super-grain and high contrast and a whole lot more best forgotten. Like most of the people against whom you rail, I was young and lacked the experience, judgement and understanding of the photographic medium neccessary to distinguish between amusing playthings best kept to yourself and significantly creative imagery. The difference between then and now is that in those benighted times having your own darkroom was rare, photo mags had a small readership and most of my prints spent their days at the back of the cupboard. Today any fool can do what I did, and much more, in 1.0% percent of the time, misguidence is immediate and pervasive, and the results are shown to the world. But for better or worse, the only remedy is retirement to a cave in the woods where all your lovely gear will soon be overgrown with mold.

I have to agree with you Dave.

It's sad but that's how people learn, they imitate.

I've been guilty of it, and still am sometimes. Oh well....

It just drives me nuts. Witness below prime culprits from Google.

A) An HDR

Clicky

B) A bad acid trip

Clicky

:p

I guess it depends on the mentality of why are we taking pictures. There are definitley 2 groups of photos. An individual photographer can choose both options.

1. Pictures taken to look as close to the original scene as possible.
2. Pictures taken not to represent reality but to entertain.

I think this second class of picture is what is causing you problems.
I have come to realize that representing the normal can sometimes be boring, however if I modify a picture with some technique, be it in Post processing, or in lighting (Strobist style) to make the picture more interesting where people will look at at and say Wow.. or How the F... did he do that, then I am quite happy to do this.
There are many techniques to "Enhance" a picture, and HDR is a new one and "can" produce good results, so a lot of people are trying it. I think you will find that the number of ugly pictures will become less over time as people learn how to use the technique properly, and when people tell them it looks cr@p
Another technique which I think can create great pictures is the Grunging up of a picture. where a rough texture is added, contrast is increased, and Burning is used to darken parts of a picture. You can see that a picture has been manupulated, but when well done, it adds a dark moody atmosphere to the image.
You could probably add High Key & low key to your list of stereotyped techniques.

I guess the problem is the number of photographers who are trying the new techniques, some successfully and many not. And maybe the number of photographers trying to make Bad and or uninteresting photographs interesting by using these techniques.

For the record, I hate canned filters, like the ones found in photoshop to solarize or imitate painting or stained glass or something. Those produce images that to me are similar to a Monet produced using a paint by numbers kit.

However some of the more complex processing techniques like HDR, Grunge whatever if well done on a good photo can create great entertaining photos.

When I appraise a photo, I often ask myself "Would I hang this on a wall? It has to be good to earn a place on the wall. I guess if all photographers asked themselves that before posting here the quality of posted images would be better.

Well put I guess Peter. It's not necessarily the actual techniques themselves which bug me, just the blind adoption of them regardless of whether it's required or not, and the general utter junk that comes of it. So your comment belowe makes sense:

akiwi wrote in post #4762857
When I appraise a photo, I often ask myself "Would I hang this on a wall?

Except if I hung the average HDR (not all) on my wall that's appearing out there at the moment it would single handedly remind me of the worst hangovers of my life.

I once got asked if I'd ever shot a panoramic. I replied yes I have, and they asked the obligatory 'what do you use?'. Once I'd told them, I got a big ass put down 'Oh you don't need all that cr@p! I shoot mine with a compact mounted on a cucumber and use Word to stitch the pictures*, here have a look!'

I was presented with an image where the shots didn't align and the exposures differed, and one which was boring as whitewash to look at. I felt polluted to think that to the layman I'd be classed as the same thing... It took me seven constant months and nearly £2k of gear (on a part-time minimum wage job) before I showed a panoramic to anyone, and they've all been spot on tehcnically since.


*May be a slight exageration!

I know what you are saying - I took some landscape shots today; bracketed on tripod with the view to seeing what it was like to muck around with some HDR stuff.

I hated the results - but the properly exposed shots were quite impressive. I think that it never hurts to develop different skills/techniques but the real mastery is knowing when and how to use them to enhance your photos not to destroy them.

Being one of those English Blokes, you might not be that familar with one of those idiots that we produced over here, on the American side of the pond.

Name was Andy Warhol and his pop art movement. Things have gone down hill ever since then.

From my point of view, it is a good way, for those totally devoid of talent, to produce "artwork".

Having said that, I find that properly done HDR, one that equals the eyes tonal perception range is very attractive. Providing that you start with a compositionally attractive subject.

But, as Dennis miller says, "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong".

I'm with you on the HDR and if you ever want to go burn down whatever company makes that photomatix software just give me a call.

And while this is a rampant problem something far more serious exists and it's name is 'selective coloring.' That is something we must all unite against.

Kurt

manipula wrote in post #4762884
I once got asked if I'd ever shot a panoramic. I replied yes I have, and they asked the obligatory 'what do you use?'. Once I'd told them, I got a big ass put down 'Oh you don't need all that cr@p! I shoot mine with a compact mounted on a cucumber and use Word to stitch the pictures*, here have a look!'

I'm staying out if, but I do love that paragraph.

Andy Warhol's merit as an artist I think was that what he did was a 'first' at the time, and for that anyone should be praised. I even had the pleasure of viewing some of his stuff in a gallery in Berlin a few years ago, but as soon as every two bit graphic designer copied it, and as soon as some Playboy bunny had herself immortalised in that manner it lost its edge I think!

I know what you're saying though. Genuinely, a well done example of any of these techniques is a thing to behold, but doing it because every other idiot on the internet is, and not giving two hoots about the results drives me nuts. It really does! The next time I see someone post a car shot or a model shot done badly in HDR, you know the one that looks the same as the inside of your eyelid after someone's given you a black eye, I'm going outside to headbut a wall.

Twitch1977 wrote in post #4763006
I'm with you on the HDR and if you ever want to go burn down whatever company makes that photomatix software just give me a call.

Word. Dawg. *

Twitch1977 wrote in post #4763006
And while this is a rampant problem something far more serious exists and it's name is 'selective coloring.' That is something we must all unite against.

Kurt

Selective ****ing colouring, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggg​ggghhhhhh! I'd forgotten all about that gem of the post productive world. If ever there's been a more mellow-dramatic, wishy washy excuse for cocking up a photograph it's this. Selective colouring is one step away from calling for vigilante treatment! It's making my skin itch just thinking about it! <grinds stress balls, takes deep breaths>


*And yes I did use those words with a comedic sense of irony.

cdifoto wrote in post #4763066
Who are you to tell me what to shoot, how to shoot it, and how to process it, Mr. Hypocrite?

Genuinely laughing my head off. That shot is taken using a grad filter. Simple as that. And if you're illuding to the panoramics, I did mention earlier I haven't shot any in ages but have shot quite a few.