Will post-processing actions look gimicky in 5 years, and super dated in say 20?

<p>So it occurred to me the other day when going through an engagement session that was fairly good out of camera, that I still felt the need to provide the couple with a bunch of different more "edgy" treatments of the photos, to make them a bit more editorial. The couple didn't ask for this, I just felt like I should. Maybe it's because on so many people's portfolios I see so many shots that obviously have treatments on them. But many of these photos I'm seeing no longer even look like "photos" to me. They look more like art, not saying that the photos we take right out of the camera aren't art, but you get what I mean, a more painterly quality, or that unless you have a really funky eye disease, you aren't going to see the world with funky textures and stains over it or vignetting. So my question is, are these treatments, if we put them on our photos in our clients albums, going to make their albums and such look super dated just a few years down the line? <br /> Are there purists out there who don't do things like this? I'm just on the verge of buying some actions possibly, other than the ones I've made myself or found for free online, but I find myself questioning if this is really a good idea or not. <br /> Here's an example of a shot I liked OOC but then find people seem to go more gaga for the uber processed one.<br /><br /> <img src="http://FuccisPhotos.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v20/p139850755-2.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="http://FuccisPhotos.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v22/p14791906-2.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /></p>

<p><em>Will post-processing actions look gimicky in 5 years, and super dated in say 20?</em></p>

<p>Yes. Actually, I expect they'll look super-dated sooner than 20. Who knows, 20 years from now, they might look cool again.</p>

<p>I wouldn't call myself a purist, but I avoid editing photos in way that draws attention to itself. Its not that I have anything against the idea. If I were creating an album cover for a band, I'd be happy (had I the skill) to make it look as grungy or artsy or whatever the band wanted, as I could. I would do it with the understanding that a band (like a product for sale) is interested in looking hot TODAY and doesn't care too much about making sales five or twenty years from now. But I think portrait and wedding photography should be aimed, to some extent, at the future.</p>

<p>I know others feel differently and that's fine. It's a big world.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>I think it will look a little silly later on, personally - especially as these people get older. When I look at my own wedding album from 30 years ago, and at my parents from 60 years ago, I'm happy they were all just very good straight photographs. I'm not that interested in seeing someone's "vision" or editing tricks now, let alone from the past. I want to see how it looked at the time.</p>

<p>I was going to say in 5 or 20 minutes - not years...but that would be a bit harsh. </p>

<p>Fads change, styles change - basic b/w and basic color remain constant. </p>

<p>We have to provide what the customer wants though - otherwise we are not going to be around for the next fad.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I'm with David---I think most already look gimmicky! Maybe I'm an old-fashioned purist, or maybe just old :(</p>

<p>I like the processed version better too, Vail. The unprocessed colors are off. She looks a bit gray. The processed version goes better with the subject matter. It looks like those Wild West pictures. So maybe that is not a good example of a gimmicky.</p>

<p> You can always recognize the decade in which photo's are taken. Check out the hilarious slides of midcentury America by Charles Phoenix: <a href="http://www.charlesphoenix.com/">http://www.charlesphoenix.com/</a> Talk about dated! Check out his book: Americana Beautiful, Mid-Century Culture in Kodachrome....</p>

<p>Yes, they will look dated. We have in our office a professional portrait of my husband and his brother, taken 35 years ago, that my in-laws paid a fortune for, and looks absolutely ridiculous!!!! They are orange, that's what was "in" back then. Not an orange-tint, orange. We love it!!!!!! We use it to show clients about fads.<br>

A good photo is a good photo, not matter when you look at it. The gimmicks that we see today are fads, often dictated by the fashion/magazine industry.<br>

There is a woman where we live who takes pictures, that are not really great (bad lighting, out of focus, bad posing), and she drowns them in special effects and sells them as senior portraits. All the power to her, she's making a killing. But she's not a good photographer and they are not good photographs.</p>

<p>I believe what you will find that looks dated are things like hair style, clothes & props. <br /> I learned my people photography from Monte Zucker. He used what's called "Classical" style.<br /> Through much experimentation, debate, blood sweat & tears it is the Greeks who discovered the most flattering ways of portraying people. This research took place several thousand years ago.<br /> Do you think the current style will last that long?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not only the effects will look super dated, so will the pose, the clothes, the hairdo etc.<br /> If you want to avoid being cliché very, very fast don't buy the canned actions. Do your own thing.</p>

<p>PS. If doing your own thing doesn't work. Just do whatever everybody else does, cash the check and do what you like on your own time :-)</p>

<p>I was just looking at a friend's wedding photos she just posted on Facebook. The entire album is desaturated about 80-90%... My wife happens to love this look, and I do too on a photo or two. But having the entire group of photos that way makes them look drab, nothing pops..<br>

And then I come here and there's a conversation about that. I think she's going to regret having the entire album that way in a few years if not sooner.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about this a lot, too. I'm not a professional, but I'm taking a lot of pictures for family and friends and they like it when I add some punch to the pictures. Last night I spent some time playing around with candid fireworks pictures (kids with sparklers, etc.) and I know my family will like them. I think the reason people like your 2nd image better is that the color and contrast is better, and it is a bit more exciting. I think this post-processing suits your picture - it's fun. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that post-processing for more traditional portraits needs to be subtler, only because it makes them more timeless. </p>

<p>On the other hand, clothing, hair, and portrait styles change so quickly that those alone will date a picture. Ex: our wedding pictures (taken 22 years ago) were beautiful - the bridesmaids were in red with red tulips and the photographer took formals against a white background. But even that simple treatment still says "late 80s". (I still love them, though!) And maybe it's not so bad that they reflect a particular time. </p>

<p>See, I'm swinging back and forth on this! But generally, I find myself trying something subtle first, and then going for more dramatic changes depending on the style/intent of the picture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The actions will make the albums looked dated, but so will the hairstyles, makeup, clothes and surroundings. It is a chicken/egg thing. Attract the kind of clients who like your style vs. make your style what clients like/want. Most people probably land somewhere betweent he two extremes, with some people being able to manage having the luxury of staying true to their artistic inclinations.</p>

<p>I personally like natural looking photographs and don't use actions, or even make images black and white unless a client asks me, and then I do what they want. Even then, I give the client a 'normal' high res jpeg and the processed file. If a client were to ask me to make an album full of highly processed/action-ed images, I would have a conversation with them about it (will you feel the same way 30 years from now?), but I would do as they ask if they decide that's what they really want.</p>

<p>You could look up a few previous threads about doing spot color images in which photographers were polarized and the discussion got heated. Most would refuse to do them, it seems, but some would, because the client is paying for it. So...up to you how to handle it.</p>

<p>Good content remains good. Post work can't save emotionally bankrupt images, maybe just mask them with a loud diversion.</p>

<p>Clothes, hairdos, etc. may change, but that hasn't "dated" the classic photos or paintings has it?</p>

<p>Not many people think Walker Evan's work is ridiculious looking, and the Mono Lisa doesn't look like a circus clown.</p>

<p> </p>

Fads change, sometimes due to cameras, such as film and digital. With film you had to shoot with care because every time you fire the camera thats 1 dollar. Now there is no limit. In fact still video cameras are pretty popular now. Canon has the amazing 1D Mark 4 that shoots HD video. Soon the 1Ds MK4 will surely have video when it's released. My guess is this will happen this year. I feel as cameras change so will fads. Creative fads are often limited to the hardware, such as the cameras and Photoshop.

 

Some things won't change or they haven't changed in 100 plus years. Thats family portraits and wedding formals. They are almost the same as they were in the early 1900's.

 

The electronic world will lead the way. 15 years ago I was asked to write an article for the Wedding Pages magazine and I was asked about the future of film. At that time I said digital will never replace film. Boy was I ever wrong! I felt there was something special about hasselblads and medium format film. In my opinion film still looks wonderful, but so does digital. Another advantage is photography labs are now Adobe. We are now in charge of our "Darkrooms." Those gifted photo retouchers of the past film days are long gone. We now have complete control of what we want a print to look like, way beyond the abilities of the best retouchers.

 

So fads are only limited to the digital darkroom programs. The better you are PS the more creative you become.

 

I've been pondering if I will get out of the wedding business because of still video cameras. I haven't decided yet. We will have to see what the brides want in the near future and if I really want to do still video.

 

I was actually pretty upset when it came time to trade in my $20,000 worth of Hasselblads for a digital camera. The trade in for the $20,000 investment was only worth $6000. I would still shoot with the digital Hasselblads but not for a $30,000 digital back.

 

Nature photographers will have a total blast photographing the wild and have the use of following the flights of birds, things of that nature, being able to get that still HD video as a printable 16x20 snapshot.

<p>Yes, yes they will! but your RAWs will still be able to be retouched and reprocessed... and if you are using something like LR, you aren't even altering them to do funky stuff to your posted work... so, do what you do, and know that 5 or 10 years from now, you may be hearing from old clients who have now grown up, and want pictures that reflect this...</p>

<p>...I imagine that retouch/reeditting digital work will become a staple of the industry in the future.</p>

<p>Every TV detective show on the air seems to use the same green-yellow cross processed / grunge preset whenever they want a scene to look sleazy, portray urban decay, etc. If I see this one more time, I'm going to scream, yet my family and friends accept it without comment. In fact, they hardly even notice it. </p>

<p>My conclusion is that the non-photographer public accepts a lot, especially if it is portrayed as an "artistic style". My guess is that the use of stylized post-processing in wedding photography won't go away until the use of analogous effects on TV goes away, ie, a LONG TIME from now.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M </p>

 

<p>How do the monochrome images with selective coloring from 5 years ago look now?<br>

IMHO dated, tacky and cringe-worthy.</p>

<p>BW with color on it goes back a long long way. There is a poprtrait of my baby sister that is BW only the dress is color. That was over 40 years ago. So spot color is not a fad. <br>

Artists liked to take BW photos and paint color on them sometimes the whole photos like a colorized old movie, sometimes just parts of it. </p>

<p>The old B&W photos being hand colored was partly because back in the day they didn't have color film. It was their way of attempting to make it more realistic. On that note, where did the term schindlering come from for spot color???</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On that note, where did the term schindlering come from for spot color???</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably from the movie Schindler's list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

I think an image should first and foremost be able to stand on its own. IMO post-processing is merely the photographer's interpretation of the image, if he or she wasn't fully able to capture the image they had in their mind's eye. Some actions are definitely fads and these days far too common. However, I feel that others actually enhance the "timelessness" of an image. Look at the work of the great masters. They often worked with Master Printers who were in effect the post-processors of the day. They would dodge and burn, hand colour, "spot" prints, etc. to bring out the full vision of the photographer. Those images are still timeless classics to this day. But in my opinion, far too many 'pre-cooked' actions are definitely a fad and will likely become dated soon. I don't use any preset actions but have developed my own which I always try to keep quite subtle. Oh and I don't do selective colour any more - too gimmicky for me now! :)

<p>I agree that excessive post processing shouldn't be what identifies you as a wedding photographer. That said, an effect or two (along with the original photo) for a few is an "added bonus" to what I provide my clients. Although my album designs remain "pure."<br>

I think what will really date this era is all those brides and grooms jumping up in the air for no apparent reason. Who started THAT and why did everyone else think it was such a great idea???? :-) </p>

<p>MS: <em>"...Who started THAT and why did everyone else think it was such a great idea???? :-) ..."</em><br>

Although it wasn't for wedding photos, Phillippe Halsman made "Jumpology" practically a household word among photographers back in the 1950's:<br>

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R1HERBY (great link -- some of his most famous pix shown)</p>

<p>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/indelible-oct06.html (nice discussion of him)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Many young couples actually want their wedding photos to have (what they term) "a style" that they have previously seen and admired. It just doesn't matter if we, as photographers, can immediately recognize the effect and know exactly what PP package the effect came from and know that it's already unbelievably overused. Such clients think it's cool, just like they think distorted cell phone pix are cool. :-( In such cases, if you prep your images appropriately before applying the effect, canned actions/presets can be a huge time-saver when you have to process a large set of images in the same way. If you want to stray slightly from the herd, stack two or three presets to get a unique "style" for such clients.</p>

<p>Pete S: <em>"... If you want to avoid being cliché very, very fast don't buy the canned actions. Do your own thing. ..."</em></p>

<p>With the highly variable lighting typical of event shooting, it surprises many newbie wedding photographers just how difficult it is to obtain "a look" which is consistent from frame to frame. In fact, there was just a recent thread on photo.net where exactly this problem was discussed. If you do not prepare your images appropriately before applying a canned action/preset, there's little danger in the final results being consistent. ;-)</p>

<p>As one of the previous comments said, if you need the work, just take the job, give 'em what they want and cash the check. If you are already higher up the wedding business ladder, make "the classic look" your style, base it on traditional lighting, posing, choice of lens and aperture, etc., use only PP techniques that emulate wet darkroom work, and you won't have to deal with clients like this. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, yes they will!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Much like the Cokin satrburst effect appears now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but your RAWs will still be able to be retouched and reprocessed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you can open them.</p>