Question for photographers who have been around a while....

[chrisruhl]

<p>I've not spent much time looking at trends in photography, so I'm looking for people who have seen trends come and go...<br>

<br />I've recently been doing a bit of portrait and wedding photography, mostly family and friends - but the occasional paying gig.<br>

<br />As I browse about for ideas and inspiration, I find that I'm really drawn to a certain style. I can't quite put a name on the style but it generally includes narrow depth of field, a bit of action, lots of nearly-blown-out highlights and leans toward strong back-lighting... some examples:<br>

http://www.spencerboerup.com/<br>

http://www.davebrownphotography.com/<br>

http://www.russophotography.com/</p>

<p>So my question to the Elder Photographers: Is this a 'Fad Look' that go the way of bell bottoms and leg warmers ? Or does the back-lit, high-key, action shot have a longer shelf life ? If I want to create a look that is timeless - - perhaps I should stick to the classics ?</p>

<p>Any thoughts ?<br>

<br />-chris</p>

[SCL]

<p>My temptation is to say it is a fad, but only time will tell.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>All styles in photography are inherently of-an-era or trendy. That's what makes them "styles".</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry about it. If you're taking photos for people here and now, that's more important than worrying over a theoretical and possibly non-existent legacy.</p>

<p>There are a few exceptions:</p>

<ul>

<li>One-click painting emulation. These didn't look good in the 1990s when the effect was new.</li>

<li>1970s Olan Mills style portrait collages. <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ptsd-clarinet-boy">Unless your goal is to be a meme</a>.</li>

<li>Photomatix single photo pseudo-HDR <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY">with everything cranked to 11</a>.</li>

</ul>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Yeah, the blown highlights are a fad, but this is at least the 2nd time around for the fad. The first time was in the 1980's, when high-key was all the rage. Photogs discovered they could make women's wrinkles go away by cranking the exposure.</p>

<p>Mucking around with color is also a recent fad in still photography. It's meant to emulate the look of (badly faded, poorly developed, really in bad shape) film from long ago. I think the fad follows from cinematography, where it's actually been used for a very long time for scenes from "long ago."</p>

<p>I don't think there's anything faddish about back-lighting. It comes and goes in popularity, but it's still a time-honored technique. Conspicuous flair is a fad, though. It was incredibly popular in the 1970's and has seen a rebirth.</p>

<p>Lex, I have to disagree about taking pictures for people here and now. They will be seen later by children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. Irrespective of whether the photographer has a legacy, the subject surely does! Some elements of the era are part of the charm of a photo, but too many elements will have the grandkids laughing. And FAIW, I think the more charming elements are the hair, clothing, cars, surroundings that show the period. The less charming elements are the stylistic aspects of the photos. IMO, there's nothing charming anymore about an ultra-high-key 80's portrait.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I have to disagree about taking pictures for people here and now. They will be seen later by children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. Irrespective of whether the photographer has a legacy, the subject surely does!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And rob future generations of laughs at the expense of their unhip forebears? Not to mention depriving the internets of lulz.</p>

<p>Why, my entire fragile construct of self esteem is based on looking at the portraits of my parents, grandparents and great-great-great-etcs. and laughing uproariously at their inability to anticipate <a href="http://shechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/glamour-shots-5.jpg?w=500&h=703">delicious hipster irony</a>.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ah, gee, Lex! I didn't need to see that! :-Þ</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"All styles in photography are inherently of-an-era or trendy. That's what makes them "styles"."</i><br><br>I think we have left the era in which styles were "of-an-era" well behind us. The main 'style' has been an eclectic shop-around one. Whatever seems to fit, with nothing new coming from over the horizon for ages now.<br>Not a bad thing: use what there is to its best effect, when and where needed. Though it would be good to see something surprising now and again.

[alan_ginman]

<p>I, on the other hand, did need to see that picture of (presumably) Lex.</p>

[ken_jeanette1]

<p>With a Feather Boa????</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I think we have left the era in which styles were "of-an-era" well behind us. The main 'style' has been an eclectic shop-around one. Whatever seems to fit, with nothing new coming from over the horizon for ages now."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true to some extent. There are lots of pastiches and homages to previous eras and styles. And it's getting easier to emulate those styles, or at least nod at them, with simple photo editing apps.</p>

<p>A few newish styles have evolved over the past decade, mostly driven by the unique capabilities of full featured editing software which allowed clever editors to cook up their own recipes.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>QG, I recall back in the 70's that the 50's were really popular. We not only had TV shows like Happy Days, but musical groups that did the acapalla 50's style quartets. Then at school we would frequently have 50's days, where we would come to school dressed up like our parents might have dressed. There were lots of black leather jackets, poodle skirts and saddle shoes on those days! But that didn't prevent us from having an identifiable style of our own. Our most identifiable style was on the back-end of my generation. Watch "Saturday Night Fever," and I think you'll get the picture. All that's needed is to add a black Trans Am with the humungous firebird emblem on the hood.</p>

<p>Even though there's certainly a lot of retro energy these days, this generation indeed has its own style -- hoodies, saggy baggy pants (or are those out of style now?), skin tight blouses, totally different athletic wear, several days worth of beard stubble -- preferably not all at once on the same person at the same time! The cars are different. Kids come with electronic accessories attached to their bodies -- iPods, smart phones, etc. So don't worry: Your generation will have its own identity too. It's just hard to recognize it right now.</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>I think it's a fad, but a good one I feel it's helping some make more money from their photography. It's certainly helped the "action" selling business, which I've found many times is just a normal person you're helping by buying actions. </p>

<p>My problem is printing... that look is great on screen because there's a base... you know your screen isn't broken the look was intentional. Printed... is another story it ends up looking like you were running out of ink, that the site screwed something up and overexposed, or you were cheaping out on the ink and using econo-mode. I don't know how others do it, I've spent an awful long time trying to deal with the prints they do look so much like I was trying to save a penny by saving on ink which upsets clients. I've sometimes done 2 sets, one for screen/viewing and one for printing which confuses clients as well. I'm about to be done with it. Use at your own risk I guess.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sarah,<br><i>"You're generation"</i>? I know about the 50s, 60s, 70s and all of the rest. I've been there.<br>You know how long hoodies, baggy pants worn round the knees (almost), and all of the rest have been around already? Don't let the fact that they had yet to be invented when we were young fool you into believing that these new fangled styles are still new. (Just consider those "electronic accessories attached to the body" you noticed as a sign that new things keep coming. They aren't exactly new either. Started and immediately 'took off' 30, almost 40 years ago. Remember?)<br><br>As i see it, it's not a "retro" thing. It's about a generation, an age really, that doesn't think it very productive to keep inventing the wheel over and over again, just to see how many different forms of round you can come up with.<br>Youths who want to be rebellious (the engine driving a lot of change in the past)? They can (and do) just pick a style they know their parents don't like. And don't (also important to note) pick styles that were more than a bit ridiculous even when they (and we) were new (Disco. Glam rock. That sort of horror.).<br><br>It's interesting to consider why that would be.<br>A culture-pessimist would say that people don't want to be creative anymore, just want to consume and enjoy. The why-bother? we-only-live-once thing.<br>But could it be that everything has already been tried? What, for instance, can you do with trousers? Short, long, wide flares, stove pipe, worn and torn, silly fabrics, wear them in a peculiar way, not wear them at all... What else can you do, what 'parameter' has been left un- or underexplored?<br>Is photography much different, if at all different?

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sorry, QG, I had assumed from a recent thread that you were a college student (access to journals, etc.). You're a difficult person to place! ;-)</p>

<p>I'm afraid the electronic accessories attached to our bodies looked quite a lot different long ago. I remember the boom box craze very well. And of course our cell phones in the 90's looked almost like a radio a soldier might carry in the field. And we certainly didn't live with any of those things attached to us the way kids do nowadays. We might have gone jogging with a Walkman, but it wasn't something we would be fiddling with each and every hour of the day.</p>

<p>I think the future will bring very inconspicuous personal electronics, like the Google glass. I don't think we will see arms in the air, holding glowing LCD screens a couple of decades from now -- maybe just a faint glow of a tiny LCD at the corner of a person's glasses.</p>

<p>And has everything been invented that will ever be? Have all the styles come about already, with this generation of athletic wear representing the termination eons of clothing evolution? Has every photographic technique that will ever be developed already been developed? Will there be nothing unique in the future? Is HDR the pinnacle of photographic evolution? (Gads, I hope not.)</p>

<p>Of course I have no crystal ball. However, in my experience, the world keeps reinventing itself. It in no way resembles what it did 25 years ago. And 25 years ago, the world in no way resembled the world where I was born 25 years earlier. Your suggesting that nothing will change from this point forward is one of the things that makes me suspect you're actually a young person posing sometimes as an older person. I sometimes can't really figure you, QG.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I remember the boom box craze very well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.demeterclarc.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2010/07/ITURBIDE-BOOM-BOX.jpg">Best boom box photo ever.</a></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sarah,<br>Students aren't the only people having access to a large number of scientific journals.<br>But that aside: who said nothing new would ever be invented, that nothing would change from this point onwards?<br>Noticing that the humble trouser hasn't evolved for aeons, that the 'parameters' that determine its style the trouser offers have been well and truly stretched in every direction doesn't mean that someone couldn't invent a completely new leg covering. But when someone does, it's not a new style trousers.<br><br>Some things just are 'finished' and there's nothing we could do to them to take them beyond what they are and still have them as what they are supposed to be*. How about photography? People used to cross process to get high contrast 'strange' colour images. Then people invented Photoshop, and nobody cross processes wet anymore. So technology progressed.<br>The result, changing the parameters of the image, hasn't changed. Digital or wet cross processing: there is not much more you could do to an image in that vein. Take it to extremes (has been done), or make it easier (it needed a lengthy 'macro' when i first did it using PS. Now i imagine it is a one-click 'app' - nothing new then. ;-) ). But the vocabulary available to photographers hasn't changed because of someone inventing a new way of doing something.<br><br>* I was reminded of Colani the other day, by the thread about a new concet camera. He once took on the challenge to evolve the Sinar camera, and the result was certainly a much more advanced machine than the Swiss still make today. Still the old thing, because it does what it needs to do without leaving anything (possible) to wish for. Colani's advanced design was indeed advanced. But it had one slight drawback: you couldn't use the thing as the view camera it was supposed to be. Even worse: you couldn't use it as a camera at all.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Back-lighting is beautiful. So no, it's not a fad. The third link you provided required a Flash player. That is what I would call being 'stuck in the past'. Thorsten Overgaard (one of my favourite photographers who, in my mind, rates more highly than HCB) has a good example here, 'Ray of Light':</p>

<p>http://www.overgaard.dk/the-story-behind-that-picture-0091_gb.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lex, I have to disagree about taking pictures for people here and now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. When I see portraits from the '20s (I think I have one in my small collection, I'll see if I can find it) I love them. But as a rule-of-thumb, after the '60s, something went wrong. Very, very wrong.</p>

<p>Photoshop filter-wanking is just a modern version of cross-processing. Almost all of it is already out-of-date (technology moves quickly!).</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>That's an awesome photo, Karim! Such beautiful lighting!</p>

<p>I also love the elegant styles of the 1920's, not just photography. A agree with you and think there was a lot more care in portraiture in the early half of the 20th century. My partner's mom's wedding portrait from 1950 is simply stunning, even today. It is so beautifully lit and posed. When people enter the house, their eyes eventually fixate on it, and it usually receives a comment. My dad's portrait from 1947, although not nearly so elaborate, is clearly his best.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Back light a fad?<br>

Don't tell <a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luvszyZ1If1qzfye6o1_1280.jpg">Salgado</a>!</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Back light a fad?<br>

Don't tell <a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luvszyZ1If1qzfye6o1_1280.jpg">Salgado</a>!</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Didn't know simple backlit is a style, or a fad...</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes ch. 1, v. 9.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>If I want to create a look that is timeless - - perhaps I should stick to the classics ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! A portrait of bride and groom in a Late Roman Empire attire, sculpted lifesize in fine Italian marble should do the trick. For more affluent customers offer horse mounted option.<br /> Seriously, I think it is a good thing if style of the image corresponds to the time it was made. I have newer quite understood the reason for using antique (1920-1950) cars at todays weddings and taking pictures next to them.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>If you want to create a unique style, get to know the nuances of different lighting techniques and the myriad of distortions available in post processing by teaching yourself how these tools really work with each other on an intimate level just like a painter trying out new pigments, drawing styles and mixing techniques on different substrates.</p>

<p>Whenever you derive a style by duplicating other's processes either by using the same lights, cameras, composition, setups and techniques, only accepting default settings offered by plug-ins and other editing software, it's never going to enter your mind what else is possible and what you can do about it.</p>

[dan_south]

Rather than asking photographers, why don't you ask your clients what they like?

 

The images in the links would look wonderful in a clothing catalog or a fashion magazine, but this look has no place in a wedding album,

IMHO. If someone shot my wedding like this, I'd be extremely disappointed.

 

No one looks back at wedding pictures after twenty or thirty years and says, "Wow, look at all of those cool photo tricks!". They look back

to remember the event. The photographer who does the best job of capturing the experience of the event in images, images that convey

a clear sense of what it was like to be there, that's the guy/gal who really earns their paycheck. Blown out backgrounds and extremely

thin depth of field will only remind the B&G that they should have trusted their gut and hired someone else.

 

If, on the off chance you run into a very style conscious couple who wants to impress their friends with blown out backgrounds, bring

them back in a few weeks, have the bride put on her gown and the groom his tux, take them to a park and take a bunch of shots with

extreme blur and blown highlights and tilt-shift lenses gone wild. But please don't do that on their wedding day.

 

Shooting a wedding isn't about showing the world how clever you can be. It's about how effectively you can document the occasion and how well you can spot and capture its most precious and special moments.