Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 19, 2013, 05:53:40 am
-
We went to the 'Big City' yesterday, a 170 mile round trip from our little island to the proper shops in Inverness, but anyway I soon ended up wandering around on my own, as the better half wanted to go into M&S to spend an hour or so feeling clothes but not actually buying anything (it must be a women thing). I then wandered into a large magazine and book store to look if there were any mags worth buying these days and picked up a magazine with the screaming front cover headlines, saying something like - How to make your Photographs look REAL!
What a novel and interesting idea from a glossy news stand magazine I thought. So I flicked through the pages of the mag to see what they were suggesting and quickly found the section where they were indeed advocating, that because there are so many photo editing tools available to us today, that over saturated and overworked images have now become the norm, and how if only we could hold back on the sliders a little, how it would make our images look more 'real'. Fair enough I thought I’m fully with you on this one and I entirely agree, so please tell me more!
But then I started to look at the images they were using as examples of what this understated perfection and new found 'realism' could look like, and every single one of the images they had used, were totally overworked and over saturated eye candy. In the foreground there were things like cyan/blue rocks alongside canary yellow rocks and apparently lit from several angles, the hills in the mid-ground were a sort of fluorescent acid green and the Mars like dawn sky was blood red, orange, purple, yellow and green - so I put the mag back on the shelf and walked out shaking my head and thinking, the editor must be taking the p*ss and laughing all the way to the bank.
A fellow photographer friend of mine now refers to all the Photo Mags as 'Comics', I no longer think I can disagree with him.
::)
Dave
-
Dave, the article did include some 'before & after' type images, where some showed how too much saturation negatively impacted the image. That said, some of the 'real' stuff did look a tad over-cooked
-
A lot of this rush to overworking images has found its way into art shows. I guess the screaming colors attract more buyers. Subtlety may be dead for the masses.
-
Oh, I definitely agree. I subscribe to Outdoor Photographer, and they are so in love with "over-Photoshopped" images that it makes my stomach turn. It's like the cook who liked a little garlic in his pasta, so 20 cloves would be better for sure! These garish and fake-looking photos must appeal to some people. Elvis in velvet anyone?
-
It's not just oversaturated colors, it's also overdone HDR. Last year some of my stuff got driven out of a gallery by a gal who was hanging HDR so overdone it didn't look like photography. Didn't look like abstract art either. I could describe what it looked like, but I realize that this is a family-oriented forum. She was selling and I wasn't, so, having been half owner of a gallery, I understand the decision. This particular gallery is in a tourist area, so I'm not terribly surprised that her atrocities were selling. I often wonder how many people who buy and hang oversaturated or over-HDRd pictures get really tired of looking at them after a while.
-
I guess the screaming colors attract more buyers. Subtlety may be dead for the masses.
Passing through a big home furnishings store this morning I swung past the pictures section. I would summarize the 100-odd offerings as big, bright, busy chunks of colour.
Now I know.
-
Just to refresh some folks' memory, and educate the digital-only generation, it all started way before Photoshop, with Velvia ;)
-
To further "educate" the pic snapping public there are innumerable filter apps for cell phones that guarantee a generation of over done images. The art shows I walk have an ever-growing population of overdone, more overdone, and insanely overdone images.
The ultimate result may be a 10 mp cell phone image blown up to 48 x 72, triple sharpened, HDR buried at full-slider-to-the-right, and printed on the latest rage surface, perhaps aluminum or titanium. This concoction may turn out to match a little known formula for making a terrorist explosive device, wipe out the entire art show venue and allow the more sane folks to start this photography thing all over.
-
Ain't gonna happen, Lou. But remember what happened to Pictorialism. Folks finally got to the point where they'd had so much sugar and cream they couldn't stand it any longer and we went on to genres appropriate to photography. History may yet repeat itself.
-
The UK Black & White Photography mag is the one I buy each month, but really, some of the images are so dark that 'low key' hardly begins to cover it. Maybe this is the monochrome version of over-cooking'.
-
There's such a vast amount of pictures in the market so they have to scream as loud as possible "HEY, LOOK AT ME!!!"
And to be honest: If I show my pics to friends (more and more I do this on an iPad) then most of them like the snapseeds:-( It's not my world anymore...
-
If some one is selling, or showing work, it is possible to produce two versions. One saturated and one less so and let the viewers decide which they like? At the end of the day it is subjective and there is room for other people's likes/dislikes. :)
-
If some one is selling, or showing work, it is possible to produce two versions. One saturated and one less so and let the viewers decide which they like? At the end of the day it is subjective and there is room for other people's likes/dislikes. :)
I would disagree strongly: it looks like the photographer doesn't know his own mind. You have to appear positive, convinced and knowledgeable about your work. If you have no faith in it, why should/would anyone else? It's one of the first things you learn when you hang out your shingle.
Rob C
-
I would disagree strongly: it looks like the photographer doesn't know his own mind. You have to appear positive, convinced and knowledgeable about your work. If you have no faith in it, why should/would anyone else? It's one of the first things you learn when you hang out your shingle.
Rob C
Right on Rob. If you could produce two versions why not ten versions? Or have a base image of, say, a mountain, and let the customer choose if its a forested mountain or a desert one. And if there is a lake in front or a herd of deer. Clouds or clear sky. The customer can just keep toggling until he sees just the composition, hdr effect, saturation, etc. that makes the sale. The artist can then charge a fee for each element chosen. $10 for extra trees. $20 for a waterfall, etc. Put that program in an app for $9.95 and you'd never have to set up a booth at an art fair again. Sell the app to Google and you'd never have to work again.
-
If some one is selling, or showing work, it is possible to produce two versions. One saturated and one less so and let the viewers decide which they like? At the end of the day it is subjective and there is room for other people's likes/dislikes. :)
So you'd actually sign an over-saturated piece of crap and sell it? Come on Stamper. Remember, that print's going to be hanging out there somewhere with your signature on it. Somewhere along the line a person with enough taste to know the difference is going to look at it and say, "Man, that Stamper really turns out some junk." Yes, other people are entitled to their likes and dislikes, but they shouldn't be the criteria for your own standards.
-
Seems like some over reaction is being posted here? I will give louoates the benefit of the doubt and think it is a misguided attempt at humour. I think I suggested a reasonable response. Russ in another thread today you stated that you thought a posters images were over saturated. If he were to post them again with less saturation would you piss on him and say it is junk? Define over saturation Russ.
-
Define over saturation Russ.
I know it when I see it and so do you.
-
I just remembered I have a direct experience, since one of my photographs appeared on a cover of a photographic magazine. While processing the image, I was careful to retain "believability," i.e., avoid over-saturation. I was surprised to see it rather saturated on the cover. Not terribly, but still more than what I sent them.
And you know what? I like it that way. There, on the cover. It just works better there. It suits the cover's purpose, to attract otherwise fleeting attention of passersby. There, on the cover, it also competes with all the big, bold, screaming headlines, and thus benefits from the extra kick of saturation.
Would I print it that saturated as a wall decor or gallery display? Probably not. Because of a different context, different viewing environment, different viewer's expectation, different life span.
-
Just to refresh some folks' memory, and educate the digital-only generation, it all started way before Photoshop, with Velvia ;)
before velvia there were for sure some painters who were using certain paints...
-
My concern would be the failure of the publisher to reproduce the image faithfully, all the more so if this was deliberate and without consent.
Exactly! Which is one reason that when I send in a picture to a competition it's normally B&W. Cuts down on the ways the publisher can screw it up.
-
Exactly! Which is one reason that when I send in a picture to a competition it's normally B&W. Cuts down on the ways the publisher can screw it up.
The last time a photo magazine used one of my images was on their web site. It was a tall narrow shot of Sears Tower. You guessed it. The space on their site constrained all the images into a square format. The Sears Tower thus became a squat 40 floor blob. Not sure if they saturated the colors though.
-
I just remembered I have a direct experience, since one of my photographs appeared on a cover of a photographic magazine. While processing the image, I was careful to retain "believability," i.e., avoid over-saturation. I was surprised to see it rather saturated on the cover. Not terribly, but still more than what I sent them.
And you know what? I like it that way. There, on the cover. It just works better there. It suits the cover's purpose, to attract otherwise fleeting attention of passersby. There, on the cover, it also competes with all the big, bold, screaming headlines, and thus benefits from the extra kick of saturation.
Would I print it that saturated as a wall decor or gallery display? Probably not. Because of a different context, different viewing environment, different viewer's expectation, different life span.
You know what Slobodan, you raise a significant point here and one I hadn't thought about.
Because I think what you are saying, is that ALL images in magazines are advertisements for the magazine in its attempt to snare potential buyers. And if so, then it is obvious that the magazine editor will want to knock the viewers eyes out with glossy colourful eye candy to make people want to buy the magazine, because that is what works for advertising.
It is a bit like the huge and tempting image of the burger you see over the counter in the burger bar, that looks nothing like the scrawny flaccid little lukewarm thing you actually end up with in the box. It is advertising pure and simple, they are selling you the dream, not the reality and for some reason people just don’t see through it and keep on buying into the illusion.
It is also similar to how fashion models on billboards and magazines etc, who are 'shopped to look more perfect than mother nature could ever achieve, the busty six foot blonde with 4 foot long legs and perfect blemish free skin. But we all know there is a down side to 'shopping models and the effect it is having on teenage girls, who believe what they see and then starve themselves to death attempting to attain the unobtainable.
So I suppose it is inevitable that the photo mags have also had a downside effect on photography itself, because unlike those poor unfortunate young girls, photographers can mimic what they are seeing in the mags and on billboards and create an idealised and oversaturated unreality if they want to, and obviously people want to, because that is what they are seeing in the mags, so they believe it is what they should be doing and the whole thing becomes a viscous circle :'(
Dave
-
... the photo mags have also had a downside effect on photography itself... [photographers] create an idealised and oversaturated unreality...
Instagram? ;)
-
Instagram? ;)
You can do dreadful things to images with any tool.
See this that got posted to the Lightrooom pool of Flickr:-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joerg1975/8752726535/in/pool-adobe_lightroom
-
It is also similar to how fashion models on billboards and magazines etc, who are 'shopped to look more perfect than mother nature could ever achieve, the busty six foot blonde with 4 foot long legs and perfect blemish free skin. But we all know there is a down side to 'shopping models and the effect it is having on teenage girls, who believe what they see and then starve themselves to death attempting to attain the unobtainable.
Dave
I'm not sure just how many teenaged females are that dumb; any manufacturer is clearly going to want to make his product as attractive as is possible, and stretching reality in fashion is not deceit: it is the name of the game. All women know what they really look like (other than those with no mirrors) and all that advertising does is show what things 'might' look like on the perfect day. They don't say that everyone will be enjoying that perfect day - nobody would believe that part of a pitch! However, I do know that I've never met a perfect model, that I don't believe any pictures anymore other than my own, that the majority of over-processed colour work leaves me cold.
But, I'm not that negative about black/white photographs, where I think that 'dramatic' clouds etc. can be a wonderful addition to the fantasy that all b/w already is. In fact, I think it's the very possibility of manipulating b/w convincingly that is one of its main attractions to me. As for portraits, a good b/white beats a good colour almost every time. For me.
Rob C
-
Define over saturation Russ.
I know it when I see it and so do you.
Over saturation is a problem technically when detail is lost. Anything less is subjective. I guess this is the reason you chickened out of the answer. In another post you talk about sending B&W to a publisher because they screw up the colours. It seems to you aren't the best judge of colour photography and possibly B&W is something you should stick to? ::)
-
I don't know about the US & elsewhere, but in the UK, the vast majority of what appears to now be thousands of photo-mags, display this tendency towards over-cooking stuff.
I've still got some wonderful old copies of Camera, a superb UK publication, now long gone due to market forces. And that's the issue; what sells survives, the rest fall by the wayside. And the relentless drive to the bottom so often follows. Fortunately there's enough of a market to sustain two or three good quality publications, even if their circulation is some way south of the rest.
-
I'm not sure just how many teenaged females are that dumb;
It's not about being dumb, it's about cultivated insecurity, low self esteem.
While not all eating disorders are related to the same unreachable 'shopped ideal, this may still give an idea about the magnitude:
http://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/counseling/Eating_Disorder_Statistics.pdf (http://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/counseling/Eating_Disorder_Statistics.pdf)
Cheers,
Bart
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
"The loudness war or loudness race is a pejorative term for the apparent competition to master and release recordings with increasing loudness."
I am sure that you will find similar divides within literature, dance and every other form of art. Some (often the established elite or "elite") will have certain ideals about what is "right", "natural", "how they did it in the good old days". And "the people" may prefer something that is more striking, more comprehensive etc. And those professionals who choose to give the people what the people wants (e.g. ABBA) will be considered sell-outs by the art-police.
I think that these things tends to come and go in waves. Typically something will be fashionable will it is hard/expensive to accomplish (e.g. "Photoshopping"). Once that look can be had by anyone through free cell-phone apps, the phenomenon will start its voyage from "high-culture" to "low-culture". Only to be rediscovered in 20 years by hipsters finding something in their dads old magazines that they have never seen before.
-h
-
Define over saturation Russ.
Over saturation is a problem technically when detail is lost. Anything less is subjective. I guess this is the reason you chickened out of the answer. In another post you talk about sending B&W to a publisher because they screw up the colours. It seems to you aren't the best judge of colour photography and possibly B&W is something you should stick to? ::)
Well, maybe I was wrong, Stamper. Maybe you don't know it when you see it.
-
Well, maybe I was wrong, Stamper. Maybe you don't know it when you see it.
Protagoras was wrong, Russ Lewis is the measure of all things ;-)
-
Protagoras was wrong, Russ Lewis is the measure of all things ;-)
Well, olde P. made a lot of bucks doing his thang.
Much more than most snappers, I suppose. However, somebody else with the right sort of head can work out the contemporary equivalent of his earnings back in the day. I hope nobody wants to work out mine and anyway, I'm not telling, neither one way nor the other; what's life without a little mystery?
It's time for dinner; I shall make some toast from a Spanish baguette, fill it with cucumber and tomato, and by the time I get to bed I shall have indigestion followed by acid reflux after I get to sleep. Isn't life a gass?
Rob C
-
Define over saturation Russ.
Over saturation is a problem technically when detail is lost. Anything less is subjective. I guess this is the reason you chickened out of the answer. In another post you talk about sending B&W to a publisher because they screw up the colours. It seems to you aren't the best judge of colour photography and possibly B&W is something you should stick to?
Well, maybe I was wrong, Stamper. Maybe you don't know it when you see it.
As stated it is subjective Russ. It is looking like nobody has a point of view other than your own. Using terms like crap and junk to describe colour photography is hardly objective. Does the publisher screw up your B&W images when you send them to them.... or don't you notice?
-
Might I suggest that the type of printing (screen CMYK) and the type of paper stock (inexpensive and thin) has a lot of relevance in the choice of degree of saturation, sharpening, and HDR strength by the publisher. It is harder to render subtle effects in an inexpensive mass magazine.
-
Might I suggest that the type of printing (screen CMYK) and the type of paper stock (inexpensive and thin) has a lot of relevance in the choice of degree of saturation, sharpening, and HDR strength by the publisher. It is harder to render subtle effects in an inexpensive mass magazine.
Think of the problems associated with having a calendar printed: the toss-up between paper costs, paper types and hoped-for quality of image reproduction on whichever one is chosen...
Nightmares fade by comparison.
Money apart, I'm sort of glad it's all in the past!
Rob C
-
Exactly, Rob. One of my daughters-in-law is a realtor -- with her own company. For several years I did an annual shoot of twelve of the houses she'd sold during the year, out of which she'd have a local outfit lay out and print a calendar she could give out to clients. I'd look at proofs and make sure the saturation was correct before the press run to avoid the vulgarity displayed by some of her competitors. Sadly the cost involved kept rising and finally she had to stop doing it.
And Nancy, I'm not sure it's "hard" to render subtle effects in an inexpensive mass magazine. I'd be more inclined to use the word "impossible."