Over-saturated, over-sharpened, over-everything = best scores!

[steviewander]

Forgive me if this has been brought up before as I've been out of the photo.net community for a couple years. I find it interesting, after

perusing the 'top photos' gallery, in recent years, that the photos that capture the best ratings are almost exclusively over-saturated, over-

sharpened, over-processed images that, no doubt, have little resemblance to the original file. Of course, many are absolutely gorgeous;

even works of art, but it's sad to see photographers who shoot a more 'natural' look, or God forbid, still use film, get left in the dust. Of

course there are exceptions and I'm not saying ALL top photos/photographers follow this rule. Just a huge percentage.

 

Now, I'll admit I was always a fan of Velvia and Kodak VS, which is far from natural, but nothing compared to the grossly manipulated

images I'm seeing today. Many landscapes now days are so surreal they look almost animated or like something out of the Lord of the

Rings. So now that I'm part of the digital community (and it's about time!), I think I'll just ramp-up my post-processing and see what

happens. : )

 

On the other hand, there are those images that are obvious photoshop creations that have no intention of representing reality, and many

are just awesome and show real creative talent, then there are the ones who claim no manipulation but are tipping the scale just a little bit

too much. It's always a tough call as what looks 'good' is always such a subjective matter.

 

I know, I know, the age-old question: where do we draw the line?

[Matt Laur]

<i>where do we draw the line?</i>

<br><br>

Oh, well, that's easy. Don't.

<br><br>

Just ignore the stuff you don't like, and don't pander to an audience that likes stuff you don't like by butchering your own work if you don't like those results.

[yeffe]

"the age-old question: where do we draw the line?"

 

How about drawing the line at 'crap?' For a definition: Crap is what falls short of having redeeming value of any kind. 'Failures' or near misses are valuable for containing information that can be helpful in getting closer to the mark next time. On the other hand crap is lazy or sloppy thinking or relying on 'mental motor drive' for results.

 

But limiting ones' appreciation of imagery according to how it was created is short-sighted. If it moves you, go with it. If not, pass it up. Technology will always be in flux. Merit is timeless.

[ronald_moravec1]

Camera clubs do the same thing. Join PPof A if you want to compete with profesional photogs otherwise the judging standards are screwed up.

[AJHingel]

I agree with Matt, don't even think of drawing a line, but on the other hand I would never suggest to ignore the stuff. I

believe in fact that Steven is putting his finger on a phenomenon that also I immediately noticed when I started

interesting myself for what I could learn from from PN. I noticed not only that a great number of portfolios on PN are

marked by a very heavy hand of color saturation - I see it as a hang up from the Kodak days much more than an evil

effects of Photoshop - but I also rapidly learned that without strong color saturation you would have little chance of

getting the attractive 7/7s.

 

I have at earlier occasions tried to link the strong attraction to saturated colors on PN to a cultural bias (those of you that

have some anthropological training would know of the theories of the use of colors in different cultures) but with little

success. Normally, according to my experience here on PN, these discussions end up as discussions on over-attraction

to PS facilities against nostalgic good old film sentiments.

 

This however does not kill the subject matter. I'm convinced that Steven mentions a real phenomenon that either just

characterizes what currently happens with photography on PN or it should be denounced like other bad habits.

 

As mentioned I don't think a line can be drawn but on the other hand if over-saturation of colors becomes a criteria of

good photography we have crossed something like a line and the phenomenon should be strongly questioned by us all.

 

Personally I have drawn the conclusion that the rating system on PN is flawed and I don't participate anymore. One of

my main reasons for that decision was what I see as the attraction of raters for over-saturated photos.

[yeffe]

The trend toward the oversaturation started in the '80s when Fuji began to oversaturate its c print materials in order to compete more effectively with the already shrinking Kodak empire. Changes in transparency materials followed and the popularity of the oversaturated and shorter scale film prompted Kodak to go in the same direction albeit not so overboard as the Fuji.

 

But part of this phenomenon is the over-reliance on camera club style contests and ratings. What is this? Olympic figure skating? There's got to be a better way for colleagues to help each other out on the road toexcellence.

[brucecahn]

The kind of digital photography seen on this site is a different medium than traditional film work. Whether it is better or worse is up to the individual point of view, and it does not really matter. What should be noted is that it is a different, and very interesting medium, somewhere between photography and painting. There should be a different word for it.

[lex_jenkins]

It takes more than digital processing to get the attention that snags the upper echelons of the TRP, or the equivalents around the web. There's also a cult of personality at work. If you read the comments on many of the popular photos you can see many folks would like to cultivate some sort of relationship with the photographers, apparently in hopes that some of their mojo will rub off on the worshipful followers.

 

But it's no different from the world of working pros. Wedding, event, celebrity, etc., many of the more successful photographers have developed something of a cult following, which tends to reinforce their popularity through the effects of imitation by others.

 

Occasionally the same effect can be seen among photographers who use a more "naturalistic" approach... if they're successful in engaging the attention of enough viewers who will elevate their work to prominence through repetition of a name on search engines.

[bruce_margolis]

"if over-saturation of colors becomes a criteria of good photography....."

 

It is not a criteria, it is not a requirement, it is not necessary. It is -- very simply -- an option.

 

Some love it, others hate it. If you don't like it, just ignore that stuff. I find it very easy to skip over things I don't enjoy viewing, whether photos or movies or books or ...........

 

Actually I don't think it has anything to do with good or bad photography. Is just is what it is, perhaps an art form to some, but discussing about what criteria make 'good' photography is an exercise in total discourse. Interesting topic but no agreement.

[robwilson]

Just a small counter to this...

I generally use fairly saturated colours in my pictures. I normally slide to around +5 on the PS saturation bar. I like strong colours, simple as that - no other reason for doing it.

 

However, the series of photos that I've got some of the best feedback on (and I am one of the large group of average photographers on this site) was a set of Nepali sadhus where I had heavily desaturated the colours so that they almost looked washed out.

 

I think in the end it should just be whatever floats your boat. If you like a picture great, if you don't, oh well, look at the next one. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I know the rating system is frustrating at times, especially when you get a 3/3 dangling in amongst the 5s 6s and maybe even 7s, but there is really is no other way to do it. I'm sure we all know that there are many trolls floating around cyberspace who get pleasure from pissing people off, but you have to hope that most people give marks because that's what they generally believe the picture is worth. I've certainly seen plenty of pictures on here that fall fully into Jeff's category of 'crap', and on a few occasions I've told people that (in a much more polite way of course).

 

As for what Lex says about personality cults... I certainly agree. Plenty of times I've seen some photographers, who generally publish impressive work, put something on here that is way below their normal levels, but still have praise heaped on them. It often seems apparent that some photographers will get high ratings whatever they put up. It would be an interesting experiment to swap some of their pictures with a member of the 'pack' and see how the marks come back!

 

Finally, this thread has, for me, brought into clarity one of the strengths of this website and one of digital photography. For the website, it has made me think again. Am I saturating my pictures too much? Am I going along with the pack when I should be trying to be original? My fiance (who is also a photo.net subscriber) keeps telling me off for putting too much store in the ratings I get, perhaps it's time I listened. For digital photography, I am now allowed to do this. I have a big store of all my original RAW files clogging up my hard disc just waiting for more messing around.

 

All the best,

 

Rob

[leicaglow]

Also important is to consider the end-game. It's easy to think that taking an image and putting it on Pnet is the end of it. For me, it's not. Most of my focus is on prints and commercial work, and like many that I've come to know here, their best work doesn't make it on the web where it can be ripped off anyway. I do agree that the over processed stuff is often over the top, but it's all personal preference. I could also give a hoot about someone critiquing my image or rating it, but some people here seem to live for it.

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"...some people here seem to live for it."</i><p>

 

There ya go. A lotta photo.netters do indeed enjoy the gaming aspect of the ratings and TRP. And that's just

dandy. No reason why everyone must enjoy photography the same way. It's just another indicator - only one of

many - of our very diverse population.

[john schroeder]

It is all just a matter of opinion. You either agree with the photographer or you are wrong.

[stp]

I find it difficult to draw the line until I know what the photographer's intentions were in taking and processing the image. If

someone has presented a bright, neon green, algae-covered boulder with the sun behind it setting below the distant horizon

as a representation of an evening at the seashore, then they've crossed the line by going far beyond reality. If they are

simply pumped by exaggerated colors and have no intention of approximating reality, then they've done admirably.

Unfortunately, we seldom know the intentions behind another photographer's image, and we are left with our own biases and

preferences to judge the work of others. I suspect that the initial exploration of digital photography by many is following the

assumption that If a little bit is good, then a lot would be even better. My response (which reveals my own bias) is that just

because you can doesn't necessarily mean that you should.

[hugh_croft]

Every photo site has a signature style. I particularly enjoy www.photosight.ru as a balance to photo.net. in terms of my taste.

[tonmestrom]

"The kind of digital photography seen on this site is a different medium than traditional film work"

 

you might want to rephrase that into some of it

[john clark]

Thing is: the best scores represent those images that appeal to the majority. Which says a lot about what is currently 'desirable' in a picture. Nothing more. I am very impressed with a lot of the HDR images as it's hard (in my mind) to get my old film roots from making me think 'wow, how would that have been done on film'. But that's just me. We live in exciting photographic times...

[matt_needham]

"...the photos that capture the best ratings are almost exclusively over-saturated, over- sharpened, over-processed images..."

 

Art, TV, movies, books, politics: the masses are attracted to bright, shiny objects, but they grow bored quickly, and the easiest way to regain their attention is to make things more sparkly.

[saskphotog]

"Just ignore the stuff you don't like, and don't pander to an audience that likes stuff you don't like by butchering your own work if you don't like those results."

 

That's about it for me too.

[nolan_ross]

The on-line photo world is great...however what is posted is not necessarily what you see. Monitor calibration is a big part of what you might see or what you may be displaying. You can draw a line if you want to with photoshop processing but it has to be for yourself only. You cannot draw a line for another person other than you are free to not view it....But I am not a fan of oversharpening, over processing myself and try to keep my own stuff within what I am comfortable with..I do not view the gallery in photo.net myself or make comments on the images, but will look at a picture that is posted within a thread..My monitor is calibrated using the SpyderPro3 program..But I am no expert on calibration by any means.

[sandysocks]

As far as I can see, for landscape photography, there are three groups: 1. Naturophiles. 2. Fantasy geeks. 3. Folks who can't tell the difference. Guess which group is largest? Enough said on that. It should come as no surprise that the nature folks and the fantasy folks don't see eye-to-eye and that the majority only want to see pretty pictures. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess. Or just shoot what you belive in so well that your photos become your argument instead of your words.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Folks said that too when enlarging became more common; and when color became more common; also when Cibichrome came out; then it was the Fuji Velveda look of the late 1980's early 1990's; then it was Photostyler; then it was Photoshop.

[stp]

RL, I'm a naturophile, but I have no problem with the fantasy geeks. In fact, I often enjoy what they create; it can be

aesthetically and intellectually challenging, and it's often a fresh change of pace. It's the folks who can't tell the difference,

who are intending to be naturophiles yet simply trying too hard to produce a great landscape image by over-using digital

processing, that "concern" me, and I do think they are the largest group. Some are open to comments and suggestions,

yet they also get so much praise from others who can't tell the difference that I think they're content to continue on their

current path. If a recipe calls for a pinch of salt, a cup of salt isn't going to make the dish taste that much better.

[sandysocks]

Thanks for the comment Stephen. This of course becomes increasingly complex as one breaks it down. Photography is a unique art form as it allows anybody to alternate between Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde at any time. It does come down to good execution in the end.

[jpo3136b]

1. There have to be several hundred thousand photos on this site. The Ratings System is an opinion poll. There's no

telling what people are going to like what they say. I once had to walk three miles in, scale down a cliff, up a waterfall,

took the photo, and walked four miles back out. When the photo was posted here, it was on the web for thirty seconds,

someone told me, "3/3." Those are the breaks, kid.

 

2. OP, you forgot nudity. Nudity is a good, cheap way to boost scores on the opinion poll.

 

3. If you ever feel bed about your ratings, and want a chuckle, check out my story on this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00QvwC

 

4. I recommend posting not only your best, but your average and worst shots; all accompanied by specific questions

you have about how you could have made the photo better. Sometimes you will get a good answer or outline of how you

could have improved your plan.

 

Proceed with confidence and drive on. J.