Life is more than brown.......

[cyr_smith]

<p>

<p >Does anyone here see a trend, that to me, is very apparent (and disturbing) here at this site: that being the (way) over manipulation of digital images? So many of the images on the "top photographs" gallery page are more like bad paintings than photographs. Very little seems real in the reality sense. Not to mention the over abundance of the color brown in most of the images. Hey, just a thought.</p>

</p>

[jautey]

<p><em>Does anyone here see a trend</em></p>

<p>Oh its way past trend.<em> </em> Trend was years ago. Now its just the way it is.<br>

Its the Las Vegas school of photography: do it to excess or not at all and the cheesier the better.</p>

<p>We're on the side that lost.</p>

<p> </p>

[henry_haneda1]

<p>Closer to reality<br>

Thanks for your comment. Heavy manipulation (intense chromatic) that is far from the truth now flooded in the world. The heavy use of digital effects is nice at first but it quickly loses it's impact. I really agreed with your comment of natural manipulations. Your idea is excellent and important meaningful point of view in this time. Regards, Henry </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Cyr must not have spent too much time on the site in his couple of years here. I would estimate that this comment, or ones very close to it, are posted on average somewhere on the site about every other week, at least.<br>

I'll just be the one to comment this time that this very same argument has been going on since before there was any photography. In photography itself, it has its roots in the differences between the "impressionist" view of the Talbotypes as opposed to the crisp sharpness of the daguerreotypes. Since then, Pictorialists vs. f/64, and so on through the "end" of film photography. Now it's manipulation in Photoshop, but the same sorts of manipulations were done (albeit with much greater difficulty) in the darkroom (which is where the names of the parts of Photoshop come from, after all).</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I see a trend in posts that complain about overmanipulated images. Does that count?</p>

<p>Fads come and fads go. Remember fisheye? Remember hosemaster? Remember hyper saturated slide film? Take the photos you like to take. Don't worry so much about what other fools are taking or doing with their images.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>Actually, this debate has been raging in one form or another for centuries. The Baroque era in art, architecture, and music was so named because at the outset there was a backlash by the very many people who thought the style was garish and ugly, and termed it baroque, which linguistically refers to an imperfect pearl, but at the time was popularly used to connote derision.</p>

<p>I guess that's a good setup for the pun "If it's not Baroque, don't fix it." ;-)</p>

[cyr_smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, Henry thanks for your thoughts. I guess I'm not alone in my thinking.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>JDM, I get what your saying but I believe it's gone way beyond "impressionist" It's a shade Mad Max. Grin.</p>

[timzeipekis]

<p>Here we go again.......</p>

[Leroy_Photography]

<p>I think Eric got it right. It is what it is. Today's photographer is highly rated if he is proficient with his camera AND is technically savvy in his post processing. It's what sells. But it sells because people enjoy it.</p>

[samn]

<p>Society demands "maxed out". It is in your face everywhere. That is the way it is. I was taught your image is never, never, "maxed" enough (one way or another) in college. Learn to live with it. Yes, it has been going on for centuries, but is escalated now by competition, population, education and technologies. </p>

[stp]

<p>"Technically savvy" is knowing when, where, and how much. Just because one "can" does not necessarily mean that one "should."</p>

[cyr_smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I think Eric got it right. It is what it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Laura but being technically savvy in post processing DOESN'T mean one has to actually do it. And,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's what sells. But it sells because people enjoy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sells where? And we're here saying we DON'T enjoy it.<br>

<br /></p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>It sells where? And we're here saying we DON'T enjoy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net is a community of photographers. Not a specifically a community of people who buy/consign photography. While some photographers do buy photography, this community is <strong>FAR</strong> more likely to be producers of the commodity than consumers. Saying "Well everyone on this thread hates it" is like a prison inmate saying that "everyone hates cops". Your sample group isn't large enough to be useful, therefore your premise is flawed.</p>

<p>If you want to see what "sells", look at coffee table photo books in Barnes and Noble (not the 'fine' photography books, but the photo books up at the front of the store), look at what ads are running in consumer print magazines, look at what is in the stalls at big art/craft shows, look at what is on the walls at the poster store in your local mall.</p>

[cyr_smith]

<blockquote>

<p>

 

 

<p >If you want to see what "sells", look at coffee table photo books in Barnes and Noble (not the 'fine' photography books, but the photo books up at the front of the store), look at what ads are running in consumer print magazines, look at what is in the stalls at big art/craft shows, look at what is on the walls at the poster store in your local mall.</p>

 

 

</p>

</blockquote>

Well, oh, gee whiz, it must be great because it sells. That has to be the poorest argument I've heard in quite awhile. Prior to the Impressionist painters what sold was that which is now <b>no longer desired</b>.

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>As mentioned, this argument has been around in one form or another for a long time.<br /> <br /> I recall Ansel Adams bemoaning the "Pictorialism" of his friend Alfred Stieglitz. Pictorialism largely subscribed to the idea that art photography needed to emulate the painting and etching of the time. Most of these pictures made were black & white or sepia-toned. Among the methods used were soft focus, special filters and lens coatings, heavy manipulation in the darkroom, and exotic printing processes.<br /> <br /> Ansel didn't like Pictorialism, and he developed his own style of photography that was quite unusual at the time. He 'broke out of the mold' and had a unique vision of what photography meant for him.<br /> <br /> Sadly, it's that 'Artistic Vision' that seems in such short supply today. New photographers buy some canned Photoshop actions and discover they can produce the same kind of images that most everyone else is. There is some "security" in producing art that is just like everyone else's, I suppose. The real challenge is in producing images that demonstrate a photographer's personal vision of a photograph. "Personal Vision" in photography is what distinguishes a "Photographer Artist" from a mere "Copy Technician".<br /> <br /> While Photography is the easiest of all the Arts to attain proficiency in, it is the most difficult in which to have "Personal Vision" IMO.</p>

[cyr_smith]

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>Well said, thank you.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Speaking of crypticisms, did you ever notice how much George H.W. Bush's signature looks like he's writing "Cyr" instead of George?</p>

<p><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/George_Bush_signature.gif" alt="" width="150" height="50" /></p>

<p>Eerie, huh?</p>

<p>And colors. Too many colors. Even brown. Black and white, that's all you need. Gray is okay only as long as it paves the way from black to white. Otherwise it's just decadent.</p>

<p>And stuff. Too many photos are about stuff. Great photos don't need to be about anything. About the right size to fit on my wall is good.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, oh, gee whiz, it must be great because it sells. That has to be the poorest argument I've heard in quite awhile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will give you $1000 if you can show me in this thread where I argue that something is great because it sells OR where I claimed that these "over manipulated" images are great. Seriously, $1000. The checkbook is sitting right here. You are the one who asked where this stuff was selling. I answered you.</p>

<p>Since your debate tactic seems to consist of making things up. I'm done with this thread.</p>

[jautey]

Slow down there Cyr and Josh.

Your both right.

<br />

Cyr, as I've already agreed, photos are overworked to the point of not really being photos anymore. And while I think its a pity, Josh is right in that it is what sells.

<br />

If you're trying to make a buck at photography sometimes you have submit to the whims of the client (no matter how tasteless they are.) But, that doesn't mean that you have to sell your soul either.

<br />

However, Josh you must admit that many of the photos that climb to the top of the ratings ladder on P.net are, for the most part rated by P.netters and also overly Photoshopped. Some might defend that style and say its always been done or there has always been debate. But those arguments are deflections and not true responses. Photography has, with the aid of Photoshop and other image editors, become less about photography and more about manipulation of pixels.

<br />

But, it is what it is and I'm just one lone photographer trying to swim against the current.

[cyr_smith]

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>goodby.</p>

[cyr_smith]

<p>For those who care. I retired at 40. That was 18 years ago. I did it being an artist. That's ARTIST. I know what sells and I know how to produce art. I think I have a clue what sells and what people want. I'm not talking about commercial stuff (magazines, big commercial art fairs etc. etc.) So, in my OPINON most of what I see on the top "photo gallery" I find repetitious, colorless by being overworked and lacks inspiration. Like I said it's my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>What a coincidence. I retired at 40. That was 40 perpendicular years from when. I did it by stacking stuff on top of other stuff and convincing people I'm an expert at it. That's PERPENDICULARITY. I know how to stack stuff on top of stuff. I have a clue. It's Swedenborgian. Shh... don't let it get around, everyone will want some. Dialectical materialism <em>is</em> . Only by wearing the chain mail pantyhose of virtue can one reach the perpendicular universe. It's very colorful. Smells bad too after a full perpendicular year. Like I said, it's fru. I have no idea what that means. It's a word my little brother made up 40 years ago. Any attempt to refute, rejoin or parallel my opinion will only serve to prove your insanity.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>Don't worry so much about what other fools are taking or doing with their images.</em></p>

<p>best possible advice. What "you" or "most people" like is in the end not that important. Working with a coherent vision of your own is what matters. What you describe is partly due to the ongoing development of software and people applying it ad nauseam. That's OK because searching for boundaries is in itself a good thing even if it means that people go over it. These things have a way of settling themselves. On the other hand there has been a massive increase of people who started to photograph while they lack the talent and skill that is required nor can be bothered to ivest in it. Both phenomena lead to what you describe. Thirdly there is something like taste, while some people won't like it it's the vox populi who decides what's popular. It's as simple as that.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>I commend those of you who retired at 40. It took me until age 40 to figure out what all the buttons on my camera did...then they changed the buttons.</p>

[henry_haneda1]

<p>

<p>Cyr,<br>

We recognize that many people like excessive chroma the same as they prefer seasoning of the McDonald burger.<br>

The change of taste of Kyoto cooking from the delicate Japanese tradition that used rich natural materials which a chef said to be the best cooked was similar, and there were many discussions by seasoning of immoderation. <br>

In other words, We seem to look for new taste with the tongue which the person demands stronger stimulation, and was paralyzed. <br>

I feel a sense of beauty that a person with a sharp sense is different from the person who does not.... If you have a delicate sense, so you can go own way.<br>

Such a thing can say the same thing to a photograph.<br>

Henry Haneda</p>

</p>