Framing - are young photonetters being framed?

Today I encountered a number of weak images that members had endeavoured to <i> improve</i> by gaudy or trivial software framing. In some cases the frames overwhelmed the images and became focal points in themselves - but instead of being canned by low ratings they were doing quite well, almost all were 4.5+ - higher on the Originality scale (?)<p>

I think there's a problem, and I believe it might have its genesis in the work of some of the front page mate-raters who rely heavily on framing effects for their 6+ images. I believe neophytes are being tricked into thinking that this is the way to go, without regard for output in the real world. They look at <i> what's working</i> in cyberspace and mimic the cyber achievers. This at the expense of improving their photographic techniques.<p>

Anyone noticed the trend and share this concern?

well, if you are talking about my photo, I'm glad you took the time to look at it and rate it and its "gaudy or trivial software framing".

 

I don't look at the top raters very often. I just thought I would try an experiment. Three rushes seemed like a tryptich and then I thought of my old buddy Mondrian. Just an experiment.

 

If you really think its a problem, it's a good thing you posted this question.

 

It will be interesting to see if anyone else share's your thoughtful analysis. I don't.

In real competitions, anything other than a plain white mat will work

against you. We can't outlaw them here in part because some have

copyright notices which many people feel are justified.

 

I saw a weak image earlier tody that had nearly all sixes that would

go out in the first round of any novice category competition. . . .

and yet I said nothing because it was clear that the people involved

don't want their pictures critiqued. Sometimes anonymous comments

would be nice, provided you could get rid of people who would use

anonymity as an excuse for being rude.

 

It ain't gonna happen, tho .

Plenty of "real world" artists and photographers build unique and interesting frames. I would recommend looking at the work of Luis Gonzalez Palma, for instance, if a museum in your area has his work. I've seen Palma's prints mounted in handmade frames of all types. It's probably more prevalent among photographers who get out of the box, which doesn't apply to the majority of what is posted on photo.net, and it is very effective if done properly.

 

I occasionally use shadow boxes and I sometimes mount on alumunim block and then suspend inside a frame. It works for me.

 

The use of Photoshop for similar effects is certainly worth trying, but if overdone, becomes problematic. Done properly, it can work.

 

Why worry about how other people perceive ratings? It seems to be the pursuit of the trivial...

As I learned during my photography education framing could make a photo. You must see the pictures hanging on the wall. The right way to present Your picture could actully add a lot to it. I disagree with Carl that in any competition nothing more than a white frame is allowed. In Belgium more and more attention is given to the way the picture is presented.

 

However the frame may never become the only eyecatcher of the photo. And if the frame is used to obtain high rating, then there is something wrong with the photo.

 

About the ratings, I find that since the big reorganisation of the ratings the old desease is appearing again. A normal, lets say average photo has more 5's and 6's than it has 4's. I know a lot of discussion has been going on about this topic but my opinion is that ratings should go together with a comment to give some explanation how you come to this rating.

I'll rephrase it . . . In competitions where images of the kind that

'young photo.netters' are likely to enter - such as those offered by

camera clubs - anything beyond a white mat is not only

counterproductive, it is often forbidden. We're not talking about

galleries, shows, and photographers who've sold prints. We're

tallking about a venue where critique is supposedly an integral part

of presenting your image.

 

To me, this is part of a bigger question. Is photo.net a valid venue

in and of itself? By that I mean how much time should you spend

crafting an image for this site? I ask because I wonder about some

images that appear not to be printable due to blown highlights,

oversharpening, etc.. On the other side of the coin, how much time

should we spend making adjustments to our printable images to

compensate for problems due to jpeg compression? . . . .

...that is an issue that I encounter all the time. How long should I spend tinkering with an image for electronic presentation that will never be printed by a computer?

 

As far as the question of framing goes, if anyone spends more than two seconds looking at your frame, then it is competing with your image for attention. The elaborate types of frames talked about earlier are as much about the frame as they are about the photograph.

 

Young photographers need to learn the basics. Nothing will improve a poor composition. Not Velvia, not a naked female, not a cheap PS filter, and not a gaudy frame.

Thanks for the feedback thus far. <p>

I see a lot of way out framing at some exhibitions, however the images themselves tend to be capable of holding their own in the absence of a frame. <p>

This is not a ratings rant. It's about critiques. Someone asked what it mattered? Well, I happen to give around 10 hours of my life each week to viewing photos on this site with a view to passing meaningful critiques.....on the assumption that members welcome my opinion - or will debate with me; and, further, that the majority of members intend at some stage to output for competitions, exhibitions, magazines, newspapers - clients in other words.<p>

I'm neither qualified nor inclined to critique someone's framing abilities, and am trying to get feedback from others who feel the same way. <p>

I ought to have asked : <i> what do others do in such cases?</i> <p>

Appreciate the whole - framing plus whatever else might be visible? Ignore? Advise a lighter hand? Assume the frame-ographer is fully aware of the portion of his/ her creation that draws attention and that it is an intentional artistic expression as valid as digital art?<p>

Just curious, and to one of the posters above, certainly not directing this at one or even a few photographers; it's prevalent on most critique sites - and perhaps I am the poorer for failing to comprehend the artistic merits of this practice.

...I will typically comment that the frame is overpowering or distracting from the photo. I think that if they knew it was a bad frame, they wouldn't have done it in the first place. It is sometimes tough to remember, that some people are jsut getting their first computers and making their first foray into posting photos on the web. They haven't seen these crappy frames a million times before like we have. It is all new and cool to them. Hopefully, as they mature, their taste will mature as well.

...it is very similar to flood filters, and mirror images, and solarization and other similarly typical and usually cheesy effects. Once in a blue moon it can be done with taste and class, but typically, it's just like an Elvis painting on black velvet, gaudy, tacky, and cheesy.

I don't know what you mean by "young." Do you mean age-wise, or usage-wise?

 

I think the photo is about presentation. If a light orange frame accentuates a sunset, then why not? Photo framing is like wearing makeup. I mean, there are lots of naturally beautiful women, but many of us wear makeup anyway. I don't see men refusing women and calling them gaudy or unappealing just because they wear makeup to enhance themselves. I can see if they wear unappealing makeup, but the fact they use makeup doesn't automatically make them unwanted.

 

Similarly, I never saw the problem with framing images, as long as it's not overdone. If anything, most of the time, it seems framing detracts from the image if incorrectly done.

...you are right. It is about accentuation, and you definitely will see men turning away women that over use the make up. Tammy Faye Baker wouldn't get within a mile of any guy I know. Framing, like make up, should be complimentary, not overpowering.

 

I can't speak for Seven, but I am referring to experience, not chronological age.

Scott - you speak for me, ye are a proxy by the gods: I meant experience but needed to keep the header short.

 

Cosmetics as an analogy? Interesting. I would see cosmetics well used as a warming filter. Sartorial elegance as the exposure, intelligence as depth of field, and the mane as her frame. (Yes, bad - I'm on my first coffee.)

>>there are lots of naturally beautiful women, but many of us wear makeup anyway<<

 

Such modesty, and in one so young :-)

Yup, I previously submitted some photos without frames and felt the ratings were too low. I resubmitted some of the same images with frames and received 25% higher ratings across the board.

At times, frames definitely bring out color and saturation yet at other times are distracting.

Remember, people rate tend to have their opinions swayed by what others believe is successful. Perhaps there should be regulations against frames and everyone would be equal.

I did a simplistic analysis regarding frames in the top 300 photos of the last week based on average rating. Any frame counts...

17 of the top 21 photos had frames or 81%.

75 of the top 105 had frames or 71%.

67 of the next 105 had frames or 64%

39 of the last 90 had frames or 43%.

With respect to the last week, it is clear that the frames made a difference in the rating.

It would be interesting to have selected photos submitted with and without frames to see what happens.

Again, I can't speak for Seven's original post, but I don't believe he is dispariging the use of frames all together. Simply commenting on the use of gaudy, cheesy, over the top electronic frames provided by cheap software that is typically used to make calendars and provide textured, translucent, and bubbly frames on little John's 3rd grade class picture.

 

I don't believe the comment was aimed at simple white mat, black framed images that would hang on the wall in a gallery.

Yes I was referring to the more way-out framing techniques employed by some. I tend to use plain black or white; others use an assortment - green, orange, blue, for example. Within that context the image sits relatively pure awaiting study and feedback. <p>

My gripe was where the frame overpowers the image - frequently deliberately (I assume) - so to lend an additional aesthetic for consideration. I wanted to check how other critics dealt with that; and perhaps chew the fat as to how this practice might have come to pass, how it might be perceived by judges, art directors, gallery curators and the like.<p>

I'm not surprised at the findings of the percentage of images framed; definitely needed on PN with the white bg - though how much and to what purpose was the chief concern. Cheers.