Gazzah
RF newbie
I went to an opening night of a new exhibition last night. This guy had been given exclusive access to an old mill that is about to be redeveloped.
The photos were poorly composed, over processed (photoshop‘d vignette, HDR etc) and really badly printed on sloppy canvas. There were maybe two photographs that if I had taken them I might have printed. The photographer has a web site, so I know he can produce some good images, just not for this exhibition.
This all seems to be a trend over the past few years, Ive been disappointed by every exhibition Ive been to – except one.
That one was a show by a guy who used MF gear, developed and printed in a wet darkroom. He knew how to use his equipment and how to compose and expose a good image.
Is it a trend that people think just because they can do something in photoshop to an image they have to…?
There arnt that many photography exhibitions here in Northern Ireland, so it is very disappointing that they are not really worth going to look at..
Gary N H
The photos were poorly composed, over processed (photoshop‘d vignette, HDR etc) and really badly printed on sloppy canvas. There were maybe two photographs that if I had taken them I might have printed. The photographer has a web site, so I know he can produce some good images, just not for this exhibition.
This all seems to be a trend over the past few years, Ive been disappointed by every exhibition Ive been to – except one.
That one was a show by a guy who used MF gear, developed and printed in a wet darkroom. He knew how to use his equipment and how to compose and expose a good image.
Is it a trend that people think just because they can do something in photoshop to an image they have to…?
There arnt that many photography exhibitions here in Northern Ireland, so it is very disappointing that they are not really worth going to look at..
Gary N H
Steve_F
Well-known
Gazzah; said:
Yep. I don't think you'll be alone in feeling like this. I for one do too.
Photoshop'd to death springs to mind.
I've done weddings and also some portrait work and do look at other photographers sites. The digital age seems to have herded people together. So many images could belong to the same people. There seems to be no distinction any more. Because it's quick and easily adjustable (note I didn't say correctable) then everyone is a photographer.
Just my thoughts. I'm all ranted out about this now - personally.
Steve.
Gazzah
RF newbie
Spoke to the photographer...
Spoke to the photographer...
I found the photographers blog last night and posted a comment - not to negitive. He came back very quickly, apparently he decided on canvas prints as he didnt think people would pay for a paper print, he did agree in the end that the paper prints he had looked better.
He also said that he had done "some editing" in lightroom, I think that is an understatement to say the least!
The telling comment he made was that "his friends had all told him the photos were very good" - never a good idea to relie on friends and family for constructive feed back !
But as Steve said, there was little or nothing to distinguish his work from many other peoples; but at least he hadnt gone down the really fake HDR route!
Sorry all - rant over....
Gary H
Spoke to the photographer...
I found the photographers blog last night and posted a comment - not to negitive. He came back very quickly, apparently he decided on canvas prints as he didnt think people would pay for a paper print, he did agree in the end that the paper prints he had looked better.
He also said that he had done "some editing" in lightroom, I think that is an understatement to say the least!
The telling comment he made was that "his friends had all told him the photos were very good" - never a good idea to relie on friends and family for constructive feed back !
But as Steve said, there was little or nothing to distinguish his work from many other peoples; but at least he hadnt gone down the really fake HDR route!
Sorry all - rant over....
Gary H
Darshan
Well-known
I frequent other fora and the photographs from (especially) new members are way too over-processed. You might be right that they do it just because they can. But hey, if they like their photos that way, so be it. Who am I to complain?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There were obviously two failures. One the photographer's, the other whoever put up such an exhibition. Was this a pay to play exhibition? But, like Steve, I think I've pretty much ranted out about the "everyone is a photographer" phenomenon. Welcome to the 21st Century. Modern times.
igi
Well-known
I also don't like fake vignetting. If you like vignetting, get a crap lens. They don't cost much because they're crap anyway.
btgc
Veteran
Most of people live mediocre lives - they awfully drive cars, buy awfully built homes, eat wrong, go sleep too late and don't know how to help kids grow as individuals. Why anyone expect them to make great photographs?
Gazzah
RF newbie
Whoa - this has gone from a mild rant about the lack of individuality imaginatgion to the downfall of society as we know it...
It was a free exhibition, so I guess I shouldnt have complained anyway..... The guy was selling his images so he might know the public taste better than me !
Gary H
It was a free exhibition, so I guess I shouldnt have complained anyway..... The guy was selling his images so he might know the public taste better than me !
Gary H
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Even in the days of film, overprocessed images were popular in the UK. Look at the work of Eddie Ephraums. He does some digital work now, but for decades his work was film only. He shot grainy 35mm films, printed them huge so they looked even grainier, printed with extremely high contrast and then dodged and burned extensively to bring detail back in the light and dark areas, heavily burned the edges of most of them and used strong toners to color the images. I've seen a lot of work by other British photographers in the same style, so I'm not just picking on Ephraums...he was just the first to come to mind because I've got a few of his books.
I actually think a lot of his stuff is incredibly beautiful! It did require a technical mastery that the people today mostly lack, and he has an aesthetic sense that few of the guys doing this in Photoshop have.
I actually think a lot of his stuff is incredibly beautiful! It did require a technical mastery that the people today mostly lack, and he has an aesthetic sense that few of the guys doing this in Photoshop have.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
The question that you are asking is: At what point does the photographic image cease to exist aand become a graphic (photoshop) image. Man Ray and used it to make graphic (a type of print, serigraph, lithograph, etc.) images. It is not new.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Oh, I have no problem with truly creative stuff, with film or digital. My problem is the homogenization of photography that digital has wrought. A new creative slant displayed today, that the photographer spent many hours creating and perfecting, will be a commercial action tomorrow and everyone will be doing it with a single click of the mouse. Not so likely in the film days.
Gazzah
RF newbie
I went to have another look at some of Mr Ephraums' images after he was mentioned above - some are wonderfull, but even there I think some look better 1-2 steps back along the process - it is all subjective. I have no problem with people using PS actions to reproduce some effect, but please not with every image they have!
Gazzah
RF newbie
PS - It also seems that a lot of people use PS as a cover up for the lack of basic ability/knowledge. In the show I mentioned in the start of all this there ws a series of 3 images of the old mill shopfloor - and the white balance was different in all three resulting in strange colour casts. Now surely the guy noticed this, so either he didnt care or didnt know what caused it and how to correct it. Or I supose it was an "artistic " decission?
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
One should look if the 'photographer' used the tools and techniques to serve the image or if he used the image to create a picture of what tools and techniques can do.
The latter seems to be what is happening to some of the digital/PS crowd who think that their photos are 'naked' and way too incomplete unless heavily doused over with digital post processing.
In contrast, Man Ray and the others who manipulated their images like Jerry Uelsmann obviously used the tools to create their pictures- not to create pictures of their tools.
Steve_F
Well-known
chrismoret
RF-addict
One should look if the 'photographer' used the tools and techniques to serve the image or if he used the image to create a picture of what tools and techniques can do.
The latter seems to be what is happening to some of the digital/PS crowd who think that their photos are 'naked' and way too incomplete unless heavily doused over with digital post processing.
In contrast, Man Ray and the others who manipulated their images like Jerry Uelsmann obviously used the tools to create their pictures- not to create pictures of their tools.
....Is the tool in service of the image, or is the image saved by the tool.... ;-)
Cowboy
Member
The "overprocessing" is not only limited to artists, where I can see it as a personal style (or whatever you want to call it), but I worry about the average photographer you take your family to have a picture to give to grandma for Christmas.
What I find weird is the fact that more and more (or even the majority) professional photographers spoil their pictures. I always look at the pictures in the shop-windows of photographers. During the last 2 years I only saw one (!) photographer who was still doing B&W film. The rest went digital, very often using bridge cameras, crappy lighting, bad composition and try to make it up in PS by adding softeners, color key (whoever invented this...) and other "special" effects. The worst part of all: people seem to like it, otherwise these photographers would be out of business.
- Cowboy
What I find weird is the fact that more and more (or even the majority) professional photographers spoil their pictures. I always look at the pictures in the shop-windows of photographers. During the last 2 years I only saw one (!) photographer who was still doing B&W film. The rest went digital, very often using bridge cameras, crappy lighting, bad composition and try to make it up in PS by adding softeners, color key (whoever invented this...
) and other "special" effects. The worst part of all: people seem to like it, otherwise these photographers would be out of business.- Cowboy
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
I've also been disappointed by every exhibition I've seen in the last years. I've seen some very bland, bad photos taken with a digi p&s get the whole bottom floor of the state photo museum.
The only one I've liked was by a taxi driver with no photography education; he just shot the things he saw every day. And let me tell ya, it's one of the best exhibitions I've seen.
The only one I've liked was by a taxi driver with no photography education; he just shot the things he saw every day. And let me tell ya, it's one of the best exhibitions I've seen.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Three years ago, I sent a class of 'young' people to a photography show. The photos were portraits done by local photographer. These portraits were shot from the late 1970s up to around 2003, just before he died. The title of the show had the word "Zen" in it (the photographer was a zen Buddhist).
The photos were in the traditional, 'quiet' style. BW, simple compositions, no garish props, and mostly natural lighting (window mostly). The photographer shot with simple equipment as well: an SLR and just one lens, typically an 85. BW with TriX. When he lit, it was just one flash with an umbrella, or just one 1000W photoflood. And that was it. The portraits were, AFAIK, among the most beautiful and powerful I've ever seen. I'm absolutely certain that anyone who has good taste will see it similarly too.
The most memorable comment I heard from one of the young people (my class in photography) I sent to the show was this:
"I don't get it. There wasn't anything happening in the photographs. I don't know anyone in the pictures. It was all in BW. No effects. No anything. Just plain white backgrounds, no props. Too BORING for me..."
Obviously she was a child of MTV.
Last edited: