are photographs improving?

[Rob C]

http://www.felixlammers.com/


I had imagined that within photographer circles, the differences between manipulation, aesthetic sympathy, lies and digital reinvention were rather clear.

For example, if you check out the head-shots this chap produces, you see lots of after-work, but the girls still look as if they are covered in skin; the humanity hasn't been removed. Now, compare that work with so much coming out of competitor studios (formulate your own list - I don't want to hire a lawyer), and you get the point at once. Some stuff is perfectly acceptable and some simply ridiculous.

Rob C

[TMARK]

This.

When asked about what digital has done for photography I comment on the pluses and minuses.  On the minus side, digital capture (with auto exposure and auto white balance) has allowed unskilled photographers to become mediocre.  At the same time, shrinking budgets have allowed mediocrity to become perfectly acceptable.

[dag.bb]

At least for video, I would say the technical quality has become worse lately due to the influx of HDSLRs and the use f/1.4 lenses. I feel this "phenomenon" is also increasingly visible in photos, but mainly notice it in video because documentary and tv-shows/films used to be filmed on small sensor cameras. Now it seems that 80 % of everything I see is shot with the lens wide open, with no other purpose than to shoot wide open with no depth of field. Sorry for ranting, but I really don't understand why a steak in a cooking show requires only 1cm depth of field in the middle. Even more frustrating - documentaries about people in interesting locations - but with the environment completely out of focus...! Argh! Here is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXS6Aby5AUg

An interesting documentary, nominated for an Oscar... but the overuse of DSLR, and lack of focus, made me want to throw something at the screen! If the problem is lack of light - add some lights or increase the ISO - don't make everything go soft and floaty, please!

Like this. I want to be able to see the location, and maybe the person and the paintbrush. Nowadays you are lucky if you see a blob of paint in focus.


(rant mode off).

[David Eichler]

http://www.felixlammers.com/


I had imagined that within photographer circles, the differences between manipulation, aesthetic sympathy, lies and digital reinvention were rather clear.

For example, if you check out the head-shots this chap produces, you see lots of after-work, but the girls still look as if they are covered in skin; the humanity hasn't been removed. Now, compare that work with so much coming out of competitor studios (formulate your own list - I don't want to hire a lawyer), and you get the point at once. Some stuff is perfectly acceptable and some simply ridiculous.

Rob C

Plenty of artificial-looking skin with old-fashioned air brushing too.

[david distefano]

lack of depth of field seems to have become photography. everywhere i look, 1mm of focus going to bokahland. it seems today we are seeing the same tug of war that waged between the f64 group and the pictorialist early in the 20th century, with the fuzzy wuzzys now in vogue. 3d can still be shown in an image that is sharp all over. it just requires more work. shallow depth of field does have its place but not on every photograph.

[Telecaster]

A few years ago my friend Bruce & I saw Let Me In, the English-language remake of a superior (IMO) Swedish original. Both versions based on a great Swedish novel, Let The Right One In (a Smiths lyric reference, BTW). There's a scene where one of the main characters, a young boy, listens while his mother talks on the phone. You see the mom only as a totally blurred out shape while the camera focuses on various fore- & background objects. The idea is that she's an undefined, nebulous presence in the boy's life. Okay, got it. But the scene kept on going...then Bruce & I finally turned to each other and said almost in unison, "Canon 5D!" Then we started laughing. The effect was quite striking visually, but it took us right out of the film too.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

A few years ago my friend Bruce & I saw Let Me In, the English-language remake of a superior (IMO) Swedish original. Both versions based on a great Swedish novel, Let The Right One In (a Smiths lyric reference, BTW). There's a scene where one of the main characters, a young boy, listens while his mother talks on the phone. You see the mom only as a totally blurred out shape while the camera focuses on various fore- & background objects. The idea is that she's an undefined, nebulous presence in the boy's life. Okay, got it. But the scene kept on going...then Bruce & I finally turned to each other and said almost in unison, "Canon 5D!" Then we started laughing. The effect was quite striking visually, but it took us right out of the film too.

-Dave-

Because you are snappers? Do Mr & Mrs J. Doe feel the same, I wonder? Probably, should they notice, they might imagine it very impressive.

I would probably like it - at least, in one movie.

Rob C

[Theodoros]

"Photographers" think of photography the way they "anticipate" it.

[Telecaster]

Because you are snappers? Do Mr & Mrs J. Doe feel the same, I wonder? Probably, should they notice, they might imagine it very impressive.

I would probably like it - at least, in one movie.

The technique was effective...the scene just seemed to go on too long. So the effect drew too much attention to itself...or at least that's how it struck us at the time. (Haven't seen the film again since.) I can imagine some people in the theater thinking, "How come almost everything is still out of focus?"

-Dave-