Just a rant...

[Ko.Fe.]

So, nothing has changed since 2010.

Why it have to. HDR is a bug. I had it ten or so years ago. I have seen how RFF photographers whom I like where praising it. And not so long time ago I opened and close Saldago book with penguins. Way too hdrish.

 

[Nathan King]

I don't typically process images much because I am a firm believer that the power of photography lies in presenting the world as it is. Isn't reality beautiful enough? I was impressed with an exhibit of Arthur Meyerson's work I went to recently.

 

[willie_901]

As others mentioned, pictorialism has been part of photography since about 1885.

However now it's takes practically no effort to slap something together. So anyone can do it whether they should or not.

Since it takes little effort to create the sort of work mentioned by the OP, many people also neglect to invest effort in optimizing and developing a purposeful aesthetic.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Ahh, what is Art?
From my perspective, "artists" and their "art" has been, with a few wonderful exceptions, LAZY since the 1950's at least.

 

[charjohncarter]

Looking at your luthier web site you certainly can't be considered lazy.

 

[ptpdprinter]

But as Steve said, there was little or nothing to distinguish his work from many other peoples...

So why was he the one that ended up with the gallery show?

 

[Michael Markey]

I've mentioned this before, I know, but UK photography is firmly in the grip of the regional and local photographic organisations whose primary activity is to hold regular competitions.

Most (all) photographers of my acquaintance are members
Because the competitions are so heavily subscribed any picture that stands even half a chance of getting noticed yet alone placed needs to stand out, i.e. be dramatic.

This has now become the accepted style for photography in the UK and most of the photographers attention is directed to photoshop manipulation in order to give the shot instant impact. After that its down to purely technical considerations.

Indeed photoshop has become so pre-eminent photographers merely go shooting to capture skies or backgrounds etc all of which will be merged to produce the picture and maybe a figure superimposed on the scene.

Only the natural history shots have strict rules against this sort of thing but even there you will find the odd bird or animal photoshopped in to improve the composition.
The result is imo everybody's photographic palette has become jaded and that why this photographer got the exhibition

 

[ptpdprinter]

The result is imo everybodiy's photographic palette has become jaded and that why this photographer got the exhibition

And do any of these photographs sell? It's one thing to be selected to be part of a show in a club photo competition; it's quite another thing to sell a photograph in a gallery.

 

[Michael Markey]

Short answer in general no … although when we have a village exhibition the public will offer to buy prints.

Their primary goal is to do well in the competitions and gain points and accolades both for themselves and their club.

The top ranking UK club (the clubs are ranked as well as the photographers ) is Wigan 10 (although I think that there are 12 of them now 🙂 ) and you have to be invited to that club.
So their work is what the vast majority want to aspire to.
That's fine but again I think it sets an unhealthy precedent for dare I say "approved art" in the UK.

http://wigan10.com/

Kean is a member of my local club (and a friend) and briefly joined Wigan 10.

http://wigan10.com/kean-brown/

 

[ptpdprinter]

Interesting. I didn't realize being selected in a camera club competition was such a big deal. I thought the holy grail was gallery shows and representation. Sort of a fundamental difference between "Oh, that's a nice photo" and "I would like to buy that photo".

 

[Filter Factor]

Interestingly, a group of us RFFers met at Photokina and had this very conversation! Except that we drew very different conclusions. I think the film resurgance will eventually drive out the over-manipulated look of HDR and oversharpening, and instead even the digital photographers will be striving to replicate the look film photographers are achieving. Its already possible to apply filters to get that Polaroid "look" to a digital photo, and this technique will only grow in popularity. Film photographers are taking to systems such as Fuji's Instax line and those who shoot both film and digital will be looking to bring an Instax flavor to their digital work. Not HDR.

 

[Michael Markey]

Well there do seem to be more amateur/pros around, at least in the UK from what I see.
Their aesthetics are pretty much the same as the clubs and conform to what the poster found in the gallery.

I cover the weekly horse events for friends and to support the local equestrian groups.
I turn down any offer of payment but increasingly there are what I call part time pros who do charge but more importantly their shots are often enhanced in some way to add drama.
Mine are not.

I think I'm the outlier and people rather prefer the dramatic treatments but I don't really care because I just get to do want I want. It's just a hobby as far as I'm concerned.

Getting back to the point of the thread though I believe that the aesthetic has shifted, at least from what I see in the UK.

 

[seany65]

I think this trend is similar to the one that started when Cokin filters came out, many photos (especially those done by non-staff) in the photo magazines seemed to have been done with over-use of these filters.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think this trend is similar to the one that started when Cokin filters came out, many photos (especially those done by non-staff) in the photo magazines seemed to have been done with over-use of these filters.

Interesting parallel. Thanks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Thank you, but you should withhold that praise until you meet me. A fellow visited my shop one day, as he walked in, said "Your website gave me the impression of more, something bigger, greater!"

Looking at your luthier web site you certainly can't be considered lazy.

 

[zuiko85]

Trouble is the new digital cameras are missing a debit card slot/reader. It would be something of a 'bad picture throttle'. You see, your camera would only take 25 exposures at a time. Then you would have to insert your debit card, punch in your PIN, and it would charge your account $25 for the next 25 exposures.

This would considerably slow down the tsunami of photographs washing over us like a burst sewer pipe.

As an added bonus, it would also drive film sales higher.

 

[dmr]

I frequent other fora and the photographs from (especially) new members are way too over-processed.

I was recently called out for "photoshopping" on another site when I posted a shot I did using the "Velvia" emulation on the Fuji, doing a scene which was already very colorful with a deep blue sky. "The sky has never been that blue every time I was there ..."

I swear! Some cropping and levels, really! Seriously. 🙂

 

[Jake Mongey]

My biggest problem being young and having moved into university in london and looking at the galleries - most of the photos are as overcooked as my first attempt at cooking!

 

[dmr]

most of the photos are as overcooked as my first attempt at cooking!

But those "overcooked" photos SELL!

We've got a local guy here who goes to all of the art shows and sells prints which I must admit are attractive and visually pleasing, mostly of local urban scenes.

However, it's obvious that they are worked over, as in power lines and anything distracting, such as litter on the street or pothole repair carefully cloned out and such.

 

[David Hughes]

I don't think people like reality...

Regards, David