Is it just me, or is it time for the aesthetic to morph?

[roscoetuff]

Just got a copy of RRS's "Light and Shadow": http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/magazine


Yes, "nice shots". Yes, lots of talent I haven't got. Yes, I'd probably think I'd arrived if I could routinely produce the same. But no, the over-all look seems to convey a different message (to me) than what I think they intend. To me, it says, "The look in these pages has soooooooooo jumped the shark even you can do it. Just buy __________ and you're there."

Maybe it's the juxtaposition of piling of one of the same type of shots (especially the portraits) on one page after another, or maybe it's just the style is now so commonplace I've become almost annoyed by it, or maybe it's just I'm aiming for something less overly melodramatic and this displays a "look" I'm trying to escape. Not sure. But I wonder "Does anyone else feel this way? Do any photographers feel this way? or is it just me?"

Train your eye for one thing, sometimes it becomes harder to appreciate another. I get it. You could suggest that digital photography has foisted a sameness where melodrama is the favored tool and temptation for escaping the mediocrity of "consistently good" and yet perhaps what we've really done is to succeed in creating a new photographic ghetto for viewing snobs like me... 'cause yes, this is probably the reflection of my ill considered (and shared) preferences. Just wondering what you think. "Get over myself?"

 

[Ko.Fe.]

First of all it is commercial, advertisement pages from some company which makes next to useless and overpriced gadgets.
It will be very surprising to find good photography in these. Just regular over processed digital dross. For primitive digestion. It is nice what RFF is very much free from it, BTW.
But even on those advertisement pages where are some good BW photos.

 

[retinax]

I, too, dislike the look of the landscapes and portraits. The animal shots are ok.
A problem that this publication struggles with by its nature is the fairly random collection of different pictures. But what bugs me most is the excessive use of local contrast manipulation, a.k.a. clarity. It gives the pictures a fairly uniform overall middle gray tone, with all tones showing in every small section of the picture. It prevents an image from making a strong graphical statement and just looks plain ugly to me. And yes, this together with the over-the-top colors adds a sort of superficial drama without actual content and thus without emotional impact.
I suppose this comes from the great dynamic range of modern sensors, close to what HDR used to be used for, that needs to be reduced for viewing in order to avoid looking flat. And people simply use tone mapping or clarity to do that, rather than making actual decisions about graphic design in composition, dodging and burning and allowing for parts of an image to be bright or dark.
I'm afraid it will persist.
This look is particularly popular with (amateur? landscape?) photographers, so it's expected to be found in a publication targeted at them. Fortunately, most people in the publishing industry don't seem to have internalized it, so I don't see that much of it in other publications. But I think I have seen a similar tendency in Hollywood movies.
P.S. I'm about half your age, roscoetuff, and grew up in the digital transition. But I think this "aesthetic" is popular among all ages. Hardly surprising considering the amount of people who watch TV with the imaged stretched wider to cover their wide flat screens, contrast and brightness maxed out...

 

[Timmyjoe]

Just regular over processed digital dross.

This is the exact impression I had when I looked thru the issue online.

Best,
-Tim

 

[css9450]

A "free" download from Really Right Stuff? No thanks; they'll probably find a way to charge me for it if I ever try to order something from them again. Been there, paid for that.

 

[Godfrey]

Eh? So you don't like some/all of the photos? Big deal.

There are millions of photos posted that I don't like. Whether they're "digital dross" or film flatulence, or whatever, doesn't matter. The fun of looking at other photographers' photos whether in galleries, books, or commercial publications like this one has always been about finding the two or three that I do like ... that's what keeps me interested to look. 🙂

If you can do better, publish your photos in a magazine and show your work to the world. Then be ready for critique.

I hadn't heard of or seen the RRS magazine before. So you're doing a good job of aiding their marketing. Be proud. 😀
(BTW: RRS makes a lot of very nice equipment in and amongst the gadgets I don't need or want. Pricey but excellent quality.)

G

 

[Peter Jennings]

People are pushing the tools available to them to their limits and this is the result. Look at what's trending on Flickr and you see a lot of these punchy and flashy digital manipulations. The photographers enjoy making the images and a lot of people enjoy looking at them. Good for them. I don't like it at all, but I don't worry about it either. I try to pay it no mind.

 

[retinax]

Eh? So you don't like some/all of the photos? (...)

The argument the OP made is about the aesthetic these pictures exemplify, not about the pictures as such. Any thoughts on that?

 

[LCSmith]

I think a lot about these questions. Your response to the pictures is correct. They are fine pictures by good artists interested in their craft; but we tire of such plasticity. We may ask why. NB: our appraisal does not concern the artists but the craft itself.

A few considerations.

There is a matter of light and of machine. Photography from a purely artifactual perspective records light. The digital format in its machinery has eventuated so as to exceed former parameters about light. The result is something beyond the photographic where light seems to be created by the machine itself (if it is not photography is it photo-poesis? photo-genesis?).

There is a matter of aesthetics. What is my relation to a picture? How might I describe my feeling toward it? When I look at a picture, how close or far away am I to that picture? Is my response, "Wow, look at that!" or is my response, "Yes, that is true"? Is my response, "How did they do that!" or is my response, "Yes, I know"? Is my response, "What an amazing thing!" or is my response, "Yes, I get it". Is the picture merely an object to be admired? or do we feel some connection to it? The difference is more significant than may first be guessed.

I think the aesthetic in many of those pictures which you cite follows the machinery. A well-made vase and a voluptuous figure have similar forms; but no one would mistake the response to one with the response to the other.

 

[Dogman]

First of all, they are all excellent photographs of the genres. The photographers represented are talented and probably dedicated and, let's face it, everybody has to make a living. We're not talking cutting edge post modern conceptual socio-political hifalutin' gallery wall hanging art crap here.

Yep, I've seen all the landscapes before. I saw a Mesa Arch sunrise photo around 1985 in a book by David Muench (and the photo and book were probably done years prior to that). Not many people were doing that type of work so it was unique at the time and I was impressed. Today, not so much. The photographer here probably had to take a number to get a pole position for the sunrise in a field with a couple of hundred others. And the late Galen Rowell did a lot of unique nature landscape work with film Nikons (and occasionally a Canon Rebel) that has yet to be equalled but is still being copied. And those photos still sell, just with different names in the credits. Still, everybody wants to see the pretty places in pretty pictures even if they've seen them a few hundred times already. I guess that's okay. Gives the pros a market for their photos. And RRS is out to sell stuff so they give the public what the public wants, hoping the public will give them business.

I like to see new approaches to shopworn subjects. Most people don't.

 

[oftheherd]

Eh? So you don't like some/all of the photos? Big deal.

There are millions of photos posted that I don't like. Whether they're "digital dross" or film flatulence, or whatever, doesn't matter. The fun of looking at other photographers' photos whether in galleries, books, or commercial publications like this one has always been about finding the two or three that I do like ... that's what keeps me interested to look. 🙂

If you can do better, publish your photos in a magazine and show your work to the world. Then be ready for critique.

I hadn't heard of or seen the RRS magazine before. So you're doing a good job of aiding their marketing. Be proud. 😀
(BTW: RRS makes a lot of very nice equipment in and amongst the gadgets I don't need or want. Pricey but excellent quality.)

G

Pretty much this for me.

Interestingly I seem to remember seeing photographs much like the one the OP talks about in the photo mags of yesteryear. And the message, more subtle or not, was the equipment the pros used would no doubt help us make photos like that too.

I always enjoy looking at other's photos, whether I like or dislike, I may get some ideas of things I would like to incorporate into my photography, but not necessarily totally copy. I wouldn't like that.

Thanks to the OP for the link. I will check that from time to time for the nostalgia of seeing things like the old photo mags.

 

[retinax]

I think a lot about these questions. Your response to the pictures is correct. They are fine pictures by good artists interested in their craft; but we tire of such plasticity. We may ask why. NB: our appraisal does not concern the artists but the craft itself.

A few considerations.

There is a matter of light and of machine. Photography from a purely artifactual perspective records light. The digital format in its machinery has eventuated so as to exceed former parameters about light. The result is something beyond the photographic where light seems to be created by the machine itself (if it is not photography is it photo-poesis? photo-genesis?).

There is a matter of aesthetics. What is my relation to a picture? How might I describe my feeling toward it? When I look at a picture, how close or far away am I to that picture? Is my response, "Wow, look at that!" or is my response, "Yes, that is true"? Is my response, "How did they do that!" or is my response, "Yes, I know"? Is my response, "What an amazing thing!" or is my response, "Yes, I get it". Is the picture merely an object to be admired? or do we feel some connection to it? The difference is more significant than may first be guessed.

I think the aesthetic in many of those pictures which you cite follows the machinery. A well-made vase and a voluptuous figure have similar forms; but no one would mistake the response to one with the response to the other.

Excellent points. Many of these have "light" that is manipulated to look very unnatural. That must be a first in the history of art, up until now, most representational art, including the surrealists and impressionists, tried to make the lighting look natural, or enhancing it to highlight specific things. Semi-randomly manipulating the representation of light must be new.

 

[muser53]

This is the direct result of a misplaced reliance on technique and gear rather than on imagination.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

If I walked outside and saw a landscape before me with colors like that, I would probably run back inside and hide under the bed.
In a book of many pictures like that, it is almost boring.
Photography might be over.

 

[bayernfan]

Personally, i find that 95% of professional landscape shot on digital looks like stock images. It's just too sharp, processed, and perfect. My first thought is not "wow, what a view!", it's "jeez, how much post processing did they put into this?". It's incredibly unnatural. No feeling, no emotion, no direct attachment to reality.

 

[kbb]

Beauty combined with an unwritten statement that 'This is worth looking at' is the old high standard. Photos made with that standard will get the attention of those who are tuned in to that standard...relatively few.
Jagged ugliness and visual buzz automatically command more attention than subtle reporting.
Most of the images in the catalog (just viewed the PDF) are attention grabbing because they are ugly, clearly false representations of natural scenes.

 

[kbb]

Most of the images in the RRS magazine (just viewed the PDF) are attention grabbing because they are annoying, clearly false representations of natural scenes. That style of photography is a profit center for those selling equipment and operator knowledge, and is marketed as a hobby for those who consume that gear and those services.
They are suited for use as wall decorations by folks for whom aesthetics are a commodity.

 

[Dogman]

Excellent points. Many of these have "light" that is manipulated to look very unnatural. That must be a first in the history of art, up until now, most representational art, including the surrealists and impressionists, tried to make the lighting look natural, or enhancing it to highlight specific things. Semi-randomly manipulating the representation of light must be new.

Funny thing is sometimes light really does look like that. I've seen it but it's not something that occurs every day. The Mesa Arch photo I mentioned done by David Muench was done with a 4x5 Linhof at sunrise very early in the morning after a long trek and climb to the right spot at the right time after much research. Light in that area can be magical under the right conditions and Muench worked the conditions for his photo. Today, you can arrive late, shoot what's left of sunrise and manipulate the files to look just like Muench's. Galen Rowell's photos were done on film without the digital manipulation we see today. He studied the weather conditions and was an experienced mountain climber, willing to work for his shots. He explains how he got some of his photographs in one of his book and it took an enormous amount of dedication and drive. Today, you can do the same images with Photoshop and computer skills. So a lot of photographers just say "Why not?", have another cup of latte and work with software. And even if they do put forth the same effort and dedication as Muench and Rowell did, they would never be able to do it better but they still have to make a living. It's a rationalization...a justification anyway.

 

[Sumarongi]

Nothing really new. I've seen such stuff when captain Kathryn Janeway commanded the Voyager, and that was 1995...

 

[Steve M.]

I didn't look at the images, mostly because I've surely seen this kind of thing before. My perspective on aesthetics is pretty simple: basically, the only photography (and images in general) that I'm really interested in is mine. What others are doing is of little interest. Why would it be? You lose your focus any other way. Occasionally I'll go to a nearby photo or art show, but only for the wine and cheese. Like a lot of other cities, Albuquerque has a First Friday, where a smattering of galleries have openings. That's usually good for cheap red and different snacks. They have to provide some sort of compensation for being exposed to all that crap, oops, I mean art :]

The conversations you hear at these things are priceless. Often it takes quite a few trips to the wine table to deal with them w/o either laughing or falling asleep. Them's your choices. Occasionally it gets interesting though......like the guy in Savannah who exhibited some jewel like miniature still life paintings. I asked him if the show had been a success so far, and he said "I don't know, and I don't care, as long as I don't have to go home alone tonight", before excusing himself and scurrying away to chat up a likely gal. The man had his priorities in order.