Too much of post...

[alifatemi]

Hello friends, I believe todays photography, or at least those which exhibit in dedicated websites or galleries of photography and fine art, usually suffer from too much of post production(PP) and they are getting really boring, not intuitive, not exiting, not true or near the truth photos. Has been a while that I really have not enjoyed lookin at a photo. What I see is show off of photoshop mastery rather than photography. Framing or composition used to be the most important part of skill of photographer. A simple but genuine composing of a simple object. I have really missed  photographers like Tina Modotti; Looking at the LL recent article/photos of Robert Vamos, much as I appreciate his respect and love of trees, me too hugely, but still this idea that our photographers drown deeply into the ocean of technics, too much of PP but not  having our saying with just a simple composition, takes us away from what we really wanted to say in first place; Too much of a technics usually ruin the concept. Hundreds of photos I have seen during last years, many of them but not all, are part of these boring cliché. I believe enough is enough and our friends should stop doing too much of a PP and try practicing not to do that. An object beauty, ugliness, mystery, etc.,  Fram it with min. PP and publish it. I believe art is all about impression but too much of manipulation, takes away all this essentials from a photo. Please kindly advice me if I am wrong with your own ideas. Regards...

[rabanito]

As for PP, I'm not sure how much is too much.
The idea of photography is IMO that of creating an image that conveys the intention of the artist.
How he does it shouldn't matter. Today we call it (AOT) photoshop. Some time ago we chose the kind of photographic paper, toned it, made masks to burn in or dodge, used maybe different materials (silver, platinum, whatever)
For me the goal ist the end product, in my case the print. How to achieve it is secondary if I am satisfied with the result and of course I'm very happy if other people like it as well.

As an example: Last week I went to an exhibition of W. Turner's sea and alpine landscapes.
He had a vision and he conveyed it with his technique. I'd say pure "PP" 
As a confessed ignoramus in matters of art I must say that I don't see any philosophy or "meaning" there.
Just astonishing works of art.

[Rob C]

You are broady correct, Ali, but it's really difficult to know whether that's an assumption based on what we look at rather than of what exists: we only manage to see a small percentage of what is out there, and there is always the danger that getting into an Internet stream just leads us to more material of the same kind - it's something that the people who run the Internet seem to think is what we want.

I certainly believe that fashion photography, since the advent of digital, has suffered from too much manipulation to the point that photographers have become almost identical today - they are copies of each other. This may actually be because the people who take over the process after the picture has been shot are all educated in the same kind of ethic. When it was about wet printing, you still had the handwriting of the photographer come shining through; the most they could do to his pictures was bleach out highlights and give us very white faces. Today, they remove the skin from the models and replace it with plastic wrapping. Then they go ahead and disfigure them on the rack. It used to be normal to recognize the girls and know their names after a while; now, I have no idea who is who. The death of Peter Lindbergh may mark the end of the photographer of influence who believes in the idea of showing the woman.

As most know, I am not a huge fan of landscape, and even less so when it's in colour. I believe that landscape too often depends on just being there at the right time and/or season. Okay, you do need still to be able to shape a pleasing shape in your viewfinder, but folks then go on to accentuate too much, as if thinking, deep down, that there is really nothing there in the picture, so they had jolly well better turn it into a Technicolor display of digital computer pyrotechnics. I believe that was the purpose behind Velvia film, so it isn't really something altogether new...

Rob

[KLaban]

You are broady correct, Ali, but it's really difficult to know whether that's an assumption based on what we look at rather than of what exists: we only manage to see a small percentage of what is out there, and there is always the danger that getting into an Internet stream just leads us to more material of the same kind - it's something that the people who run the Internet seem to think is what we want.

I certainly believe that fashion photography, since the advent of digital, has suffered from too much manipulation to the point that photographers have become almost identical today - they are copies of each other. This may actually be because the people who take over the process after the picture has been shot are all educated in the same kind of ethic. When it was about wet printing, you still had the handwriting of the photographer come shining through; the most they could do to his pictures was bleach out highlights and give us very white faces. Today, they remove the skin from the models and replace it with plastic wrapping. Then they go ahead and disfigure them on the rack. It used to be normal to recognize the girls and know their names after a while; now, I have no idea who is who. The death of Peter Lindbergh may mark the end of the photographer of influence who believes in the idea of showing the woman.

As most know, I am not a huge fan of landscape, and even less so when it's in colour. I believe that landscape too often depends on just being there at the right time and/or season. Okay, you do need still to be able to shape a pleasing shape in your viewfinder, but folks then go on to accentuate too much, as if thinking, deep down, that there is really nothing there in the picture, so they had jolly well better turn it into a Technicolor display of digital computer pyrotechnics. I believe that was the purpose behind Velvia film, so it isn't really something altogether new...

Rob

I see the same thinking in many monochromatic treatments, subjects of little or no interest being converted to B&W in the vain hope of adding a modicum of interest.

[Rob C]

As for PP, I'm not sure how much is too much.
The idea of photography is IMO that of creating an image that conveys the intention of the artist.
How he does it shouldn't matter. Today we call it (AOT) photoshop. Some time ago we chose the kind of photographic paper, toned it, made masks to burn in or dodge, used maybe different materials (silver, platinum, whatever)
For me the goal ist the end product, in my case the print. How to achieve it is secondary if I am satisfied with the result and of course I'm very happy if other people like it as well.

As an example: Last week I went to an exhibition of W. Turner's sea and alpine landscapes.
He had a vision and he conveyed it with his technique. I'd say pure "PP" 
As a confessed ignoramus in matters of art I must say that I don't see any philosophy or "meaning" there.
Just astonishing works of art.

To the extent that you are happy to use the tools available to the wet printer, I tend to agree - to a point. That said, I never did like using a variety of papers - I always went for WSG with the best glaze I could give it. Why? Because that way, I got the best range of tones available on paper. Apart from the tones, I just loved the clean look. To this day I dislike flat papers, even though I did my digital printing on it because it worked with pigment inks; the saving grace was that once I put the things behind glass or within an archival polyester sleeve, I couldn't swear they looked any different to glazed wet prints... the end justified the means, in that case.

I think the worst case of photographic abuse is putting photographic work onto canvas papers in the hope of them looking like paintings.

Regarding Turner: I noted the smiley, but you have the cart before the horse. Indeed astonishing works of art, but art because he did it by hand and with great skill and vision. Why should there be meaning there; isn't skill and form enough? Meaning etc. are constructs of the advertising, religious, gallerist and curator world; it gives those people an industry-agreed platform for pontifiction and the projection of the myth that they know more about the "meaning and value of art" than does the client with the fat wallet unless they are also that client. They create added value to the transaction: their added value. All they can truthfully tell you - if they want to - is who painted what and who bought it last time it was up for sale and, perhaps, for how much.

[Rob C]

I see the same thinking in many monochromatic treatments, subjects of little or no interest being converted to B&W in the vain hope of adding a modicum of interest.

Agreed: I do it all the time - fills the day and gives me a buzz if I convince myself!

It's the second, unpublished part of Donovan's law on the troubles of the amateur photographer.

Remove that, and there is simply no point to amateur photography.

[Rob C]

For Keith: minimal post, minimal anything, but personally satisfying.

:-)

[KLaban]

For Keith: minimal post, minimal anything, but personally satisfying.

:-)

Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.

;-)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.

;-)

+1.

[Rob C]

Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.

;-)

It's also why I have lost any enthusiasm for sunshine photos.

Looking back on the career, such as it was, I realised even at the time that much of the desire was beyond photography, but closer to a love of travel. By the time I was sixteen I'd lived in four very different countries; travel held no fears at all and certainly little sense of it being unusual for the period, though I was soon to discover, on finally returning to the UK, that it was not the normal life at all.

There were quiet periods of my pro life where I'd look up at a passing jet and feel almost physically ill for lack of somewhere definite to go. I guess that's partly why I dedicated so much time to fixing foreign shoots, even though they were not always essential for the gig. Except for a brief period of a few months, I always had my own studio; I gave up the first one because travel shoots had replaced studio work that had practically died. Of course, soon after having none, that paper roll work came back, and so we built a studio at home.

Yet, it, too, became little but another room to add to the house description when we decided to pack it up and move to Spain. That was '81. I soon discovered that other, larger, and GP studios in Glasgow had closed the doors for one last time. So much for being GP providing safety. And come digital, ditto the several E6 labs. It was a helluva tough time for commercial photography during the later part of the 80s. I have no idea about later, for I stopped having either personal interest or contact.

Occasionally, I Google knitwear manufacturers in Scotland, and most of the famous brands, insofar as being up in Scotland anymore, have turned into dust and specialised memory. Yet, there are still new photographers listed; what in hell do they find to do besides hatches, matches and despatches?

But hey, though I write that colour doesn't excite me, don't lose sight of the fact that one of my favourite photographers of all time is Hans Feurer, master of colour and simplification within the commercial zone. As with many things, it depends on the application. I love his colour.

Rob

[KLaban]

Rob, I'd say that doing colour well is one of the most difficult aspects of photography.

Happily much of your colour calendar work was done extremely well.

[Rob C]

Rob, I'd say that doing colour well is one of the most difficult aspects of photography.

Happily much of your colour calendar work was done extremely well.

Hey, thank you very much, Keith!

Rob

[RSL]

I agree with Ali 100%. The problem is that there's a whole library of books out there that tell people how to do "amazing" things with Photoshop. They can't resist trying those things, often to "improve" a crappy shot whose problem is beyond a PP fix.

[Ivo_B]

I see the same thinking in many monochromatic treatments, subjects of little or no interest being converted to B&W in the vain hope of adding a modicum of interest.

And the idee fix that some kind of graphical exaggerating makes something out of nothing.

[Ivo_B]

Well, that's clearly enough to justify your own "amateur" photography.

;-)

Yes, one question remains: why annoying other peoples with our amateur contraptions?
(Posting on Lula is perfectly acceptable, back padding and virtual BFF Mechanics is the raison d’être of this site)

 

[KLaban]

Yes, one question remains: why annoying other peoples with our amateur contraptions?
(Posting on Lula is perfectly acceptable, back padding and virtual BFF Mechanics is the raison d’être of this site)

 

Ivo, I'm unsure what you mean here.

What I will say is my use of the word "amateur" in regards to Rob's non-pro work here on LuLa is merely to define those periods in Rob's life, which I believe is the same phraseology that Rob himself uses.

I see no disgrace in being an amateur anything.

[RSL]

Right on, Keith. The word "amateur" contains a Latin root that goes back a bit: "amor." And its real meaning has nothing to do with "amatuerish." From Chambers: "A person who practises something for the love of it."

[rabanito]

Regarding Turner: I noted the smiley, but you have the cart before the horse. Indeed astonishing works of art, but art because he did it by hand and with great skill and vision. Why should there be meaning there; isn't skill and form enough? Meaning etc. are constructs of the advertising, religious, gallerist and curator world; it gives those people an industry-agreed platform for pontifiction and the projection of the myth that they know more about the "meaning and value of art" than does the client with the fat wallet unless they are also that client. They create added value to the transaction: their added value. All they can truthfully tell you - if they want to - is who painted what and who bought it last time it was up for sale and, perhaps, for how much.

I could put my signature on that.
Maybe it was my poor English? I'll try harder 

[Ivo_B]

Ivo, I'm unsure what you mean here.

What I will say is my use of the word "amateur" in regards to Rob's non-pro work here on LuLa is merely to define those periods in Rob's life, which I believe is the same phraseology that Rob himself uses.

I see no disgrace in being an amateur anything.

There is no disgrace of being amateur, of course  not.

[ironic]
The problem lies in the attitude of a fair number of amateurs who believe they can put themselves on the same level as some professionals, just because they  can produce something decent under optimal conditions. And the misery starts when they believe those well meant craft-works should be exhibited till eternity. [\ironic]

[Rob C]

Ivo, I'm unsure what you mean here.

What I will say is my use of the word "amateur" in regards to Rob's non-pro work here on LuLa is merely to define those periods in Rob's life, which I believe is the same phraseology that Rob himself uses.

I see no disgrace in being an amateur anything.

That is indeed the correct understanding, Keith.

Everything I have done since the paid work stopped is my "amateur" period. When I was working, all I ever did was paid work, model tests and the building up of the pro portfolio. Ironically, the work for the portfolio got me more work, but very rarely was I allowed to go in the same direction as the book for clients. There was an urgency to "showing the stitching" much of the time, except for some gigs where it was all about selling an atmosphere for some boutique or another. Those jobs followed the lead of the portfolio, which was nice. I really shot nothing other than model pix for pleasure and for work when it happened. I was unashamedly unidirectional.

Only when I thought about stock did other themes begin to cross my mind. I'm now happy that I didn't spend much money on such delights!

Rob