Fashionable photography and dissengaging the brain...

It's not like I have a booming photography business, I do have a couple of selectives in my portfolio and the young girls and mothers seem to like the effect.
For me, it's not really about the money, but if the subject likes the style, that's what I'm there for.
Never having done HDR or pano's, I can't make a judgment on the artist doing this kind of work, it all seems a little over-done to me.
As to the high-speed shooting at sports, I suppose that buying a camera with high FPS is a good enough reason to shoot high speed.
How many sports photographers use this method, probably a great majority. Sometimes you get lucky and get the shot, sometimes it takes planning.

Most "image processing" software allows the clueless to try to bludgeon life into a photo. How many times have you seen words to the effect of "this looked s*** in colour, so I tried a B/W conversion. What do you think?" Well sonny, it looked s*** in colour because it's a s*** photo, and stripping out all the colour hasn't helped.

Say it with me: you can't polish a turd.

'Sheep flock' has a very long history, and HDR is just one of the newer ones!

HDR; ring flash portraiture; selective color; light painting; Polaroid tranfers; Cokin filters; smeared Vaseline on filter; reticulation; solarization; cross processing; fisheye lenses

GilesGuthrie wrote in post #4772230
Most "image processing" software allows the clueless to try to bludgeon life into a photo. How many times have you seen words to the effect of "this looked s*** in colour, so I tried a B/W conversion. What do you think?" Well sonny, it looked s*** in colour because it's a s*** photo, and stripping out all the colour hasn't helped.

Say it with me: you can't polish a turd.

What I wonder about converting a colour image to a B/W (because it looks better), is this: did the photographer really envision it in B/W? I would have thought that the original scene WAS in colour.

While it may possibly look better in B/W, what was the original intention during capture?

A couple of points from me on this;

Photographers have always (in my living memory) complained about new processes/tools
examples: small cameras (ok I read writings from I think Edward Weston on this so not in my own living memory on this one), colour/black and white, full frame (the negative)/cropping, digital/film. So this just continues here.

The blur between photography/graphics arts seems to be increasing. we can argue where that line is for a long time. People jump back and forth across that line with many techniques that look photographic. example for me lithographic film, or infrared. Not to mention this HDR of which we speak.


Ummmm could we include "low depth of field just because I can and it shows I own fast primes but the photo really would have looked better a couple of stops down and there was plenty of light" syndrome in out pet peeves?


It does take time for people to absorb new techniques and use them for their strengths. I think it was Marshall McLuhan who said a new medium imitates an old medium at first. Think about the folks that try to make their digital look like film by adding simulated grain. Do we have the makings of another peeve with that?

Carry on but the true artist (and I use that word with great fear and trepidation) will do whatever they want even (maybe especially) if it upsets (word sub there) their colleagues.

Glenn NK wrote in post #4772574
What I wonder about converting a colour image to a B/W (because it looks better), is this: did the photographer really envision it in B/W? I would have thought that the original scene WAS in colour.

When I embraced this joyful hobby in summer 2005, I looked at my color photos and felt like a whore, so now I convert everything to monochrome, and it suits me just fine.

Everyone knows that serious photographers only use Collodion Wet Plates. In fact, only a philistine would think of using modern technology such as Gelatin Dry Plates.

Sorry, I didn't mean to start another one of those stupid Wet Plate vs. Dry Plate flame wars...

Quoted from photo.net

PhotosGuy wrote in post #4776534
Everyone knows that serious photographers only use Collodion Wet Plates. In fact, only a philistine would think of using modern technology such as Gelatin Dry Plates.

Sorry, I didn't mean to start another one of those stupid Wet Plate vs. Dry Plate flame wars...

Quoted from photo.net

Well then there is:
http://www.rleggat.com …story/history/c​laudet.htm

I like the bit about Daguerreotype vs Talbotype but I digress 166 years. Sigh!

Surprised no one has ragged on the 'Dave Hill Style.'

I don't see anything wrong with experimenting and attempting to copy a popular style. Experimentation leads to new ideas, and expands your overall abilities. Pretty much everything has been done before, and you can't stick to being a one trick pony. You are going to be copying someone at some point in your career. The problem arises when people copy, and copy poorly. They see the success and positive reactions to other people's photos, and they want the same reaction to theirs. When done correctly, stylizing can be impressive. They become popular because they look good when done properly. HDR looks fantastic... when done correctly. Selective coloring can certainly enhance a photo... when done correctly. Now, what really gets troublesome is when the popular style gets associated with BAD processing. Too many ho-hum shots results in a negative stereotype, and gives a good idea a bad name.

But practice makes perfect, and I think that it would be better to post your trials here and get feedback by people who (at least pretend to) know what they are doing than to go out and market your new style right away. Therefore in my opinion, if you want to copy a style, by all means go out and learn. Learn to copy it, learn to make it better, and above all learn to change it to make it your own.

But seriously, stop learning Dave Hill.

Kidding.

Kind of.

FWIW I'm not against new ideas and technology and developing, I actually, although taking time to consider a bit first, usually embrace it. It's the adoption without any hint of reviewing the outcome and sifting out the dross that bugs me. It's the "I've done a panoramic too, (it's woefully bad but I don't care) that means I'm a good photographer too!" thing that bugs me. Stop, look, sift out the rubbish.

Ainoko wrote in post #4777571
HDR looks fantastic... when done correctly. Selective coloring can certainly enhance a photo... when done correctly. Now, what really gets troublesome is when the popular style gets associated with BAD processing. Too many ho-hum shots results in a negative stereotype, and gives a good idea a bad name.

I think this sums it up for me in terms of adopting a fashion, there becomes so much rubbish out there I feel polluted turning out panos or selective colouring etc myself.

Ainoko wrote in post #4777571
But practice makes perfect, and I think that it would be better to post your trials here and get feedback by people who (at least pretend to) know what they are doing than to go out and market your new style right away.

Except that only works if people spot the migraine-like HDR and say "it looks s***, go back and don't drink so much Red Bull when yo're processing!" Something I see very little of.


And I genuinely cried out laughing at the 'can't polish a turd' comment. trust a Scotsman!

manipula wrote in post #4777669
Except that only works if people spot the migraine-like HDR and say "it looks s***, go back and don't drink so much Red Bull when yo're processing!" Something I see very little of.

The problem is knowing who will take it as constructive criticism, and who will take offense. A paradox. You want to help them, but to do so would require you being brutally honest. Do you help them and risk the consequences? Or do you just sit back and hope someone else will do it for you?

sjones wrote in post #4773225
When I embraced this joyful hobby in summer 2005, I looked at my color photos and felt like a whore, so now I convert everything to monochrome, and it suits me just fine.

I'm fine with BW - I know a young photographer (very good actually) that only does BW work with his 20D. But he is a "shapes and contours" kind of guy, that (his own admission) doesn't "see things" in colour. I have a heightened sense of colour (it's genetic, my daughter and a five year old grand-daughter have it too - the youngster and I have discussed the difference between aqua and turquoise - and she knows it).

However, if one's goal was to shoot a sunset, and buggers it up and then converts it to BW (because it looks better), perhaps another pursuit is in order.

Ainoko wrote in post #4777697
The problem is knowing who will take it as constructive criticism, and who will take offense. A paradox. You want to help them, but to do so would require you being brutally honest. Do you help them and risk the consequences? Or do you just sit back and hope someone else will do it for you?

Today I (probably mistakenly) jumped in because no one else did, and I tried to tell the truth gently.

I would have liked to use the "polish a turd" metaphor, but that would have been even more insulting. I'll probably pass next time.

One of the difficulties on open forums is that there are no prerequisites for entry, so that the range of knowledge, experience and giftedness varies wildly.

Glenn NK wrote in post #4777819
I'm fine with BW - I know a young photographer (very good actually) that only does BW work with his 20D. But he is a "shapes and contours" kind of guy, that (his own admission) doesn't "see things" in colour. I have a heightened sense of colour (it's genetic, my daughter and a five year old grand-daughter have it too - the youngster and I have discussed the difference between aqua and turquoise - and she knows it).

However, if one's goal was to shoot a sunset, and buggers it up and then converts it to BW (because it looks better), perhaps another pursuit is in order.

When I started with photography, I assumed that 90 percent, if not more, of my photos would be in color, but I quickly became disinterested in dealing with color; perhaps because I'm partially color blind to greens and reds. Yet, more than that, in monochrome, I found that manipulating contrast, tones, and illumination through the use of curves and some basic burn/dodge techniques was as enjoyable as going out and taking the shots. On the other hand, messing with color photos was a burden. As with using flash, it is a skill that I was not motivated to pursue, and since this is a hobby and not a profession, I take a very hedonistic approach to it. Besides, improving my control of tones and composition will keep me preoccupied for the next few decades.

But yes, I understand your point about resorting to the presumed "drama" or "artistic" merits of black & white to cover up a botched color photo. For me, it's the other way around…if the photo looks better in color than B&W, I have failed, and the photo gets binned (well, thrown into an outtake folder).

To acknowledge this thread's topic, you will all be glad to know that I do not, and will not, ever "pop" my B&W with a dash of color.

As Ainoko noted, most pure photographs are, in style or genre, inextricably derivative of past efforts, a consequence of history that increasingly challenges originality and creativity. After 1983, for example, no one in the world could ever debut an original haircut. Yet, while I realize that manipula is taking a facetious approach, his complaints are legitimate, and it is certainly refreshing. Contravening schools of thought have existed since photography's infancy, and always approaching the subject in an anodyne or relativistic approach is ultimately detrimental to the practice.

The points about providing constructive criticism are valid I think, because whilst one person accepts 'X' leve of input another will ball their eyes out. IMO if you're polite, and give a reason, then when someone has asked for comments or even more, 'C&C' then it's fair game for saying something if it's needed. If a poster doesn't want a drubbing then leave the C&C out.

Reminds me actually of my days at college, I never got spoken to when doing group critiques as I rarely pulled punches. Eventually my peers came round to the idea if you wanted 'frank comments' ask Dave. The thing is frank comments are very often (though not always) the most honest and accurate. I remember working for ages on a print in the darkroom and showing it to my lecturer, he replied with: "I told you this photo wasn't worth the effort days ago and yet you had to go play with it anyway, which I suppose is part of learning, but what do I think of it?" He tore it up and threw it in the bin in front of me, then turned his back on me and spoke to someone else. I was livid, but he was right.

To follow on from an above comment, if it's a turd you can't polish it, and you really need to be told it's a turd or realise it yourself. 8)