Over Edited Photos

Why do the over-edited photos have a lot of fans in PN ? It seems that being a

professional photoshop operator works more than being a good photographer. I

recently upload a photo which was over-edited and seemed artificial, I didnt

like that photo at all and suddenly that photo takes 6/6 after a lot of ratings!

and when I upload a natural photo with a very little edit (some corrections in

contrast and colors) the ratings are falling down and I saw that in a lot of

photos. I think if members are MAGNUM community come and join PN , they will

soon give up photography and sell chewing gums !

I just looked through your portfolio. You have a lot of very nice things there.. really like your photos of people in the city.

 

And to return a comment to you I have to agree... I really don't like over worked photoshopped to death photos for the most part. Paint it or photograph it... but don't bury it under layers of photoshop! This is why I shoot film a LOT still.

 

Of course, this is just my personal opinion which is not necessarily either accepted or agreed with by many.

I spent many years in a darkroom and these days I am still struggling with PS so I'm an odd person to be defending its use. Long before digital, photographers took advantage of whatever technology was available to aid with their work. Masking, dodging, burning and numerous other tricks, all done in the darkroom. I do agree that PS makes it a bit too easy to go overboard, but that doesn't mean that you are obligated to go over the top. PS is a tool nothing more nothing less. Used well it is a marvelous tool, used poorly well.....

I do agree with Gordon but my question was , why does OVER-EDITED photos are getting better response ! it seems that we lost our communication with a photo and establish a new communication with PS techniques.

It's new, that's why. The novelty will wear off in fifty years.

There's a line between being creative and over doing something. Matter of taste? Yes, to a certain extent. I've seen some things on this site that, IMO, were completely out of the ballpark, but I'm sure someone liked it. The author obviously liked it enough to upload it. There are others who have used PS to definitively define their inspiration with outstanding results. Some of the stuff being touted here is art, not photography, even though the basic element may have started with a photograph. I even ran across someone who used 3D models in his photos. Not that it looked bad, per se, but I was surprised by it. I prefere subtlety. I use many layers on my shots, but I try to make it as unobserveable as possible.

OVER-EDITED is of course a hugely subjective and thus meaningless yardstick.

What I mean by the word OVER-EDITED is when you can barely feel and see the footsteps of post-processing in the photo and It seems artificial.

I do understand what you are saying, although it does not alter its subjectivity. Artificial is no less subjective of a concept. Perhaps I should come at this from a different angle. I believe that what you are referring to is caused by competitive behavior. If person "A" oversaturates all of their landscapes and others follow suite, before long this will become the standard for landscapes and soon enough person "B" will start to feel obligated to over- over saturate to

'one up' the new standard. In no time flat we are all left looking at a kind of bizarre world of landscapes that only exists in pixels. This is going to leave the guy who is actually trying to capture the real world looking kind of ...well dull. I do not like oversaturated landscapes so I don't process that way. If this mean I don't get noticed, there is alway a price for following your own muse. Is this more in line with the response you wished to get ?

What Emre said. Once people have got sick of the look they will go on to something else.

Gaudy and bad taste are always popular and will always be in style.

 

Now please excuse me while I switch my radio from my struggling non-profit station that plays cool stuff like Antibalas and Cubanismo, to the giant popular franchise station that plays Bon Jovi and Aerosmith and kfc ads.... not

Hey hey, Arie, whats wrong with Aerosmith? Thats good music! It is the real new stuff that sucks! Rap is bad, not Aerosmith...

 

Ditto the over edited images here, though. I only do it to get good ratings...... (if i recall, i think, there are only 2 grossly saturated pictures, i dont think the others are over the top...)

How long is a piece of string ? Too long ? Too short ? The discussion regarding "over" and "under" editing or the virtues of unedited images over edited ones is truly meaningless. There are good and bad photos - and it has nothing to do with level of editing. This is my opinion, of course, and YMMV.

I think it has a LOT to do with editing (yes, mmv). Amir, your assessment is what I

generally find as well. However, my value system is based on natural expressions rather

than "artistic" or interpretive expressions. To me, the best post-processing is that which I

can't tell is post-processing. Many people are able to do this, and the results, IMO, are

often spectacular. Others do post-processing to an extent that it can be identified from

across the room. To my eye and mind, that's poor use of powerful tools. Just because

one "can" doesn't mean that one "should." Yet others have other value systems, and an

obviously over-saturated, color-contorted, impossible image will often receive very high

praises. I just skip those and move on to other photos taken by photographers who

generally share my values in the technological aspects of photography.

<i>Yet others have other value systems, and an obviously over-saturated, color-contorted, impossible image</i><p>Sounds like Velvia on Ilfachrome...

I am definitely in agreement that most of PN is about lauding photos that are so manipulated that it's a wonder the person bothered using a camera in the first place. They could have done the same with a stock photo they downloaded on the internet by the time they are done with it.

 

To each his own. I have no problem with image manipulation for art's sake, but at some point you become a graphics artist and the original photo is secondary to the idea of the finished product. The original photo is mere raw material for the composite. That's not my interest, and if others enjoy that sort of thing then by all means have at it. No problems here.

 

I like basic photos. I mostly enjoy PJ or documentary style. I wish a photo could be judged on the subject matter rather than so-called technical perfection alone. History's greatest photos are not the best photos and wouldn't rate a 2/2 on here.

 

Uhlesman (sp?) is the master of darkroom, but he is so out there by the time he's done that most people don't bring him up when they mention great photographers. By PN standards he should be the King with a statue put up in his honor. He is probably the best darkroom wizard that ever lived and Ansel Adams would be #2.

 

I'm more of a Michael Yon admirer.

Very well said Jeff, succinct yet poignant.

Are you talking about this image?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6038636

 

Because if you're not...

Amir-- Given your strong feelings on the subject, it's hard to believe you stopped by the

current photo of the week (the one by Haleh) and praised her so. That is precisely the kind of

photo you are putting down here in this thread. Are you simply trying to stir up controversy

here or are you being disingenuous in praising Haleh's work so? It's a little disconcerting.