Whats with the overly glossy aesthetic?

[peterm1]

I find most people's photography is pretty derivative and repetitive. I think its because most people follow the crowd and try to emulate what they think is fashionable (which they interpret as being desirable). Too few people set out to create their own "look". And too many people just take photos - they cant tell the difference between a good photo (i.e. its somehow interesting and engaging either in its subject matter or in its presentation) and one which is merely in focus. They don't know how to make real use of light and shadow create atmosphere. Which means there are are a lot of very ordinary photos on the internet. I cant pretend mine is much better but I do aim to create my own style, one which I like. I think this is to be expected and it takes a while to locate the work of photographers I really like and am willing to come back to. Here is one I located which appeals to me. He makes great use of weather (rain snow etc) and reflections. Which I find engaging

http://christophejacrot.com/en/portfolio/hong-kong-in-the-rain/

http://au.lumas.com/artist/christophe_jacrot/

I find good photography to be something like good poetry (not that I am much of a poetry fan). What I mean is that it engages the emotions, it is open to interpretation and the observer / reader has to work to interpret it.

 

[kxl]

Like you said... your definition, your opinion.

 

[f16sunshine]

Just because you can does not mean you should comes to mind.

I think mostly it's a newbie phase.
As photographers gain experience viewing and presenting work, the overcooked look tends to give way to more subtle process.

 

[Hatchetman]

Not sure what your M.O. is but I find 500px intolerable. I checked out your Flickr account and think your stuff is pretty good. But most people are not that interested in black and white photos of old men. Nudes of 18 year old girls or waterfalls with rainbows do much better.

To gain any kind of following on Flickr you need to follow some people and comment on photos so people notice you are out there.

 

[jloden]

[...]

We live in a pretty HD world right now and I think a lot of the images that you are seeing are a reflection of that. It's not bad, or good, it's just kinda what's happening right now.

[...]

Very well said... much the same point I was making about current trends, but better put 😀

 

[lukitas]

There was an art historian, a Dr. Fenollosa, who wrote a lot of codswallop about cycles of excellence and degenerescence in art. Quite influential in his time.
But there was some truth in what he said. There is a phenomenon of artistic brilliance spreading across a generation, which is then followed by a generation of polishers. The first are raw, brutal, inventive, deeply moving. The second follow in their steps, try to make it look even better, but end up with dead aesthetics. Examples abound. The renaissance. The generation of Hokusai, Hiroshige and Utamaro was followed by ever slicker epigones. Rock 'n Roll shows a similar cycle, or even series of cycles. And Star Wars of course.

It isn't a bad thing to emulate the masters : one learns from the best. But trying to outdo them leads to bland, polished, hypercoventional stuff. Trying to please the masses produces shiny emptiness. I think it is best to shoot what you like, not what you think will do well.
At least, you'll like your own pictures. At best, an interesting way of looking at things will emerge. A style, if you will.

And Master Moriyama Daido taught us that it can be right for a photo to be wrong. Sharpness and tonal range can be beautiful, but a photocopy of a scratched, dirty and blurry print can be just as strong. What matters in a photograph is the emotion it evokes in the viewer. What doesn't matter is a long list, including photographers, cameras, dynamic range, glossy chrome, silky skin etc. The stronger a photograph is, the more technical foibles become irrelevant.
After a certain point, trying to better your technique doesn't make your photos any better : you can only make your photographs better through their content.

 

[Pfreddee]

It's not a *real* photograph unless it's in film, B&W, and glossy finish.😀

Just my 2 kopecks.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Hatchetman]

So when "people notice you are out there" what happens?

Does Larry Gagosian call you for lunch? 😉

A handful of people might click on the "star" to favorite your photo. If you are lucky someone might say "NICE!"

 

[jojoman2]

There was an art historian, a Dr. Fenollosa, who wrote a lot of codswallop about cycles of excellence and degenerescence in art. Quite influential in his time.
But there was some truth in what he said. There is a phenomenon of artistic brilliance spreading across a generation, which is then followed by a generation of polishers. The first are raw, brutal, inventive, deeply moving. The second follow in their steps, try to make it look even better, but end up with dead aesthetics. Examples abound. The renaissance. The generation of Hokusai, Hiroshima and Utamaro was followed by ever slicker epigones. Rock 'n Roll shows a similar cycle, or even series of cycles. And Star Wars of course.

It isn't a bad thing to emulate the masters : one learns from the best. But trying to outdo them leads to bland, polished, hypercoventional stuff. Trying to please the masses produces shiny emptiness. I thinks it is best to shoot what you like, not what you think will do well.
At least, you'll like your own pictures. At best, an interesting way of looking at things will emerge. A style, if you will
d

A most enlightening comment! Thanks

 

[uhoh7]

You guys know what I'm talking about. Extreme saturated color that would never occur in nature, too perfect black and white (leica monochrome), bokography, airbrushed photographs to remove every last imperfection from portraits, landscapes, and architecture. What is happening to the mainstream aesthetic? Do a lot of photographers just have bad taste, or is photoshop ruining honest, gritty photography?

Sorry I like it glossy just fine. That's the nice thing about eyesight: no noise. At least in daylight. Kodachrome makes a bunch of contrast. More than nature. It's no "less natural" than BW.

I'm suspect of BW shooters crying about color shooters. I and many others find color more demanding, less forgiving. But BW is the rage. I enjoy it when done well as with some of your shots. But I respect color more.

There are little things I don't much like: Obvious HDR. Imitating film grain. Fuzzy water. But I at least I know that's like how I don't like peas. Peas are not evil. They are just peas, and I hate them. Unless very fresh.

If you can't find good photography on flickr you aren't looking or just can't see it any more. There is photography to every taste there. Obviously 90% is meh or worse. So what? People write alot of words, and most will not live long.

Of course most photographers are terrible. That gives you a chance to stand out. 🙂

 

[Keith]

Sorry I like it glossy just fine. That's the nice thing about eyesight: no noise. At least in daylight. Kodachrome makes a bunch of contrast. More than nature. It's no "less natural" than BW.

I'm suspect of BW shooters crying about color shooters. I and many others find color more demanding, less forgiving. But BW is the rage. I enjoy it when done well as with some of your shots. But I respect color more.

There are little things I don't much like: Obvious HDR. Imitating film grain. Fuzzy water. But I at least I know that's like how I don't like peas. Peas are not evil. They are just peas, and I hate them. Unless very fresh.

If you can't find good photography on flickr you aren't looking or just can't see it any more. There is photography to every taste there. Obviously 90% is meh or worse. So what? People write alot of words, and most will not live long.

Of course most photographers are terrible. That gives you a chance to stand out. 🙂

Agree with everything you said here .... except for maybe the peas! 😀

 

[uhoh7]

I can't resist posting a glossy, oversaturated image with too much contrast shot at unnecessarily high speed:


Red Iron by unoh7, M9 50cron WO

Shoot me: I like it 🙂 Shot for pure pleasure with no pretension to immortality which pleases the only critic I ever listen to: me 😉

But it's looks like I forgot to hit the NR as the sky has a little grain. Damn. 🙂

 

[kxl]

I can't resist posting a glossy, oversaturated image with too much contrast shot at unnecessarily high speed:

Shoot me: I like it 🙂 Shot for pure pleasure with no pretension to immortality which pleases the only critic I ever listen to: me 😉

I'm with Charlie on this... might as well shoot me too. 😉

 

[Aristophanes]

You guys know what I'm talking about. Extreme saturated color that would never occur in nature, too perfect black and white (leica monochrome), bokography, airbrushed photographs to remove every last imperfection from portraits, landscapes, and architecture. What is happening to the mainstream aesthetic? Do a lot of photographers just have bad taste, or is photoshop ruining honest, gritty photography?

I'm sick of bad photography. I know my definition of bad is simply that, "my" definition, that most subjective of interpretations--good or bad. But seriously people, airbrushed, glossy, alien looking color is one of my biggest pet peeves, and it seems to be the norm nowadays.

I won't pretend that I don't have a lot of improvement to make before I can even start to brag about my work, but I'm having serious difficulty finding GOOD street and portrait work on Flickr, or other portfolio websites, instead finding airbrushed, mass produced-looking crap. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Maybe the real street photographers have their own exclusive club that I haven't stumbled upon yet.

Ugh, I'm feeling frustrated today. It's because I just started a 500px account and all the recommended photographers work looked SO over processed and just weak, weak material, weak photography.

Define honest, gritty photography.

They even took the fighting out of hockey and the 'roids out of baseball.

 

[__jc]

Subjective...

Selective...

Please point out to me one non-subjective statement in this thread. Or for that matter, in any thread in this forum.

Everything is subjective about photography except for the technical bits. Especially when we talk about the aesthetics of the picture, which is what I believe the OP is doing.

It is, in effect, meaningless to discuss what a picture should or shouldn't look like unless we wish to discuss it in non-objective terms, and for every "right" way to, for instance, take a photograph, there is equally a "wrong" way. Often, to different people, these differing subjective determinations apply to the same thing.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Shoot me: I like it 🙂 Shot for pure pleasure with no pretension to immortality which pleases the only critic I ever listen to: me 😉

🙂

B/W, Colour, Glossy, Gritty .... whatever the case may be, the above quote describes what I usually find to be the "best" photography with greater emphasis on the section in bold.

 

[jojoman2]

By honest and gritty I mean a photograph that isn't afraid to show the imperfections of people in the photograph but fully embraces them. Obviously this is entirely about my taste in photography which you may or may not share. This is a pretty meaningless post if you're going to sit there and prod it until it unravels over it's lack of objectivity.

And uhoh--I'm not offended by your photo of the bridge with "no grit" or visible grain shot at unnecessarily high speed (I laughed when I got to that part, totally know people who do that). That's not what I'm talking about. If you were to upload 200 nearly identical pictures of that same bridge to your 3000 hypothetical flickr followers, gunking up flickr for people like me who appreciate variety in a flickr group, then yeah I would be a little peeved.

 

[jojoman2]

We live in a pretty HD world right now and I think a lot of the images that you are seeing are a reflection of that. It's not bad, or good, it's just kinda what's happening right now.

I think this is pretty spot on

 

[Hsg]

I can't resist posting a glossy, oversaturated image with too much contrast shot at unnecessarily high speed:


Red Iron by unoh7, M9 50cron WO

Shoot me: I like it 🙂 Shot for pure pleasure with no pretension to immortality which pleases the only critic I ever listen to: me 😉

But it's looks like I forgot to hit the NR as the sky has a little grain. Damn. 🙂

Your image has considerable blue color caste, which sort of helps to make it feel calm and serene, but color caste always distracts from the subject.

And the first hurdle to good color photography is color correction skills.

 

[RichardPhoto]

With all due respect, when I opened your flickr my first thought was: "oh great, more black and white 'street' photography - not seen that in a while!"

Sure, saturated 'glossy' colours don't exist in real life; but neither does grain and exaggerated contrast. To be blunt, your photography is no more 'honest' or real than that which you are criticising. If I were to fully engage blunt-mode I could even be so rude as to say your work is very much the epitome of 'mass-produced crap' like all the other B&W 'street' photography clogging up the internet of late.

Please understand I'm not saying this to offend - I'm merely pointing out that whenever we feel motivated to pick up a brick we ought to make doubly sure we're not stood in a greenhouse (which to a man we almost all usually are...).

I would also like to add that whenever I, in any aspect of my life, have felt the need to look outward with criticism and disdain it is because I have nothing within me of merit or substance. Conversely, during the times when I've been truly on roll - I never even paused to notice the others, let alone give a fleeting damn about what they were up to.