jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Bear with me and you'll understand why this is in this forum.
My wife and I went to a local art festival here in Chicago. It's a pretty big one, and gets a variety of artists to set up. We've been going for several years ( with the exception of last year ) and I noticed that there seemed to be a lot more photographers this year than in any other that I had been there. The other thing that I noticed is that the vast majority of photographers shot digital, and there was at least one that shot film but printed digital.
Here comes the rant part...
I don't know if it's just me, but almost all of the digital stuff looked BAD. There were three digital photographer's works that I actually thought were well-done. One of them was noticeably manipulating the images in PS ( which I thought looked cool and actually worked ) and the other two had "straight" photos.
My problem with the vast majority of what I saw was the fact that most all of the digital stuff looked like it had been manipulated - extra-saturated colors, sharpening, etc. They just looked like the worst of what digital has to offer. The film stuff looked much better to me, even the guy who shot everything on Velvia ( which I don't care for ).
So much of the photography that I see today seems to be digitally manipulated to the point that it looks fake. I mean unnatural, alien. The photos seem to draw attention to the fact that the are manipulated to the max. If that's the intention, then fine, but I don't think that most of the stuff I saw today was intended to be viewed that way. As I said, there were a couple of photographers whose digital work I thought was very well done, but they seemed to let the image speak for itself.
This is not intended to be an I-hate-digital/film-is-better rant. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm sick of all the obvious digitally-manipulated photographs that seem ubiquitous today. Is it that hard to just do the minimum that is necessary in post processing and let the image speak for itself?
Sorry for the long post. If you've gotten this far, thanks for listening.
Rant over.
Jan
My wife and I went to a local art festival here in Chicago. It's a pretty big one, and gets a variety of artists to set up. We've been going for several years ( with the exception of last year ) and I noticed that there seemed to be a lot more photographers this year than in any other that I had been there. The other thing that I noticed is that the vast majority of photographers shot digital, and there was at least one that shot film but printed digital.
Here comes the rant part...
I don't know if it's just me, but almost all of the digital stuff looked BAD. There were three digital photographer's works that I actually thought were well-done. One of them was noticeably manipulating the images in PS ( which I thought looked cool and actually worked ) and the other two had "straight" photos.
My problem with the vast majority of what I saw was the fact that most all of the digital stuff looked like it had been manipulated - extra-saturated colors, sharpening, etc. They just looked like the worst of what digital has to offer. The film stuff looked much better to me, even the guy who shot everything on Velvia ( which I don't care for ).
So much of the photography that I see today seems to be digitally manipulated to the point that it looks fake. I mean unnatural, alien. The photos seem to draw attention to the fact that the are manipulated to the max. If that's the intention, then fine, but I don't think that most of the stuff I saw today was intended to be viewed that way. As I said, there were a couple of photographers whose digital work I thought was very well done, but they seemed to let the image speak for itself.
This is not intended to be an I-hate-digital/film-is-better rant. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm sick of all the obvious digitally-manipulated photographs that seem ubiquitous today. Is it that hard to just do the minimum that is necessary in post processing and let the image speak for itself?
Sorry for the long post. If you've gotten this far, thanks for listening.
Rant over.
Jan
Chris101
summicronia
Well of course Jan, digital can be done so that it looks like an unmanipulated film image.
But why? Digital presents a new frontire, and with just about every possible straight image having already been done multiple times over already, why not mess with it? If I've seen it before, I walk on by. But if it looks new ... well then i will at last, spend a few seconds looking. And isn't that what these art fairs are after?
But why? Digital presents a new frontire, and with just about every possible straight image having already been done multiple times over already, why not mess with it? If I've seen it before, I walk on by. But if it looks new ... well then i will at last, spend a few seconds looking. And isn't that what these art fairs are after?
willie_901
Veteran
I hate that look too.
This too will pass.
This too will pass.
daveleo
what?
Manipulating Photos
Manipulating Photos
I personally "manipulate" every image that comes out my digital cameras. Most often, I am aiming for a moderate effect to bring out some character of the image that I want to emphasize.
But sometimes, I like to get "creative" and see how far the image will take me (and where it wants to take me). In these cases, I know the end result will not look like a "photograph". But, okay, it's no longer a photograph, so what? If I like the final result, I am happy with whatever you desire to call it.
Similar to "Do you like Abstract Art more than Rennaisance Art"? My answer is "It depends on the mood I'm in."
Manipulating Photos
I personally "manipulate" every image that comes out my digital cameras. Most often, I am aiming for a moderate effect to bring out some character of the image that I want to emphasize.
But sometimes, I like to get "creative" and see how far the image will take me (and where it wants to take me). In these cases, I know the end result will not look like a "photograph". But, okay, it's no longer a photograph, so what? If I like the final result, I am happy with whatever you desire to call it.
Similar to "Do you like Abstract Art more than Rennaisance Art"? My answer is "It depends on the mood I'm in."
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Jan, digital photography is still undergoing its "growing pains."
Being a very flexible and versatile medium, you could push it quite a bit and some of the experimentations could be downright painful to see.
Maybe one day we'll witness a distinct and beautiful "digital look" that does not look anything like whatever we see today. Or maybe not. We'll see...
Being a very flexible and versatile medium, you could push it quite a bit and some of the experimentations could be downright painful to see.
Maybe one day we'll witness a distinct and beautiful "digital look" that does not look anything like whatever we see today. Or maybe not. We'll see...
roadmouse
Member
I don't like the over edited look either. I think if ditigal editing is done right, you shouldn't realy notice it. Unfortunitely, a lot of ditigal photographers don't feel the same way about this. But I'm sure this style of photography will pass when people grow tired of it.
emasterphoto
Established
Just remember that it's an art fest and unfortunately that's what catches peoples' eye these days and sells. I just went to a large fest here in Pittsburgh this past weekend and all I saw were mostly waterfalls, woods, birds, and barns, and very little what I would call true fine art photography. That's not a knock on the photographers there because some of the work was very well done, though some was as you came across as well. People at fests are there to make money, so they go with what seems to work. It's its own world in some ways with it's own trends and rules. I've sold at a few fests and plan to do more, especially since I get a good response precisely because my work isn't like everyone else's, though it is all digital and I do throw in some cliched work that is high quality to draw people in.
emasterphoto
Established
Oh, I should mention I hate the over the top look as well. Digital has no reason to look like that, even on the most manipulated of photos; it's the fault of the photographer and nothing more.