Heavy duty processing trend?

[Macroramphosis]

I.... I thought we had something... when you "liked" my photo that one time. I thought it meant something, that it was special. I'm starting to think you've "liked" other photos here too, maybe even on other forums! How can you go and destroy me so... so nonchalantly. Publicly, none the less! Here: here's my "like". Take it. Spit in it. Break it. Rub salt into it. Kick it to the street. Nothing can hurt as bad as how you've just cast me aside.

You take the "k" out of "like". You're despicable.

That was your photo? Geez, I thought it was Bidkev's..... damn. I need new glasses....

 

[ADemuth]

That was your photo? Geez, I thought it was Bidkev's..... damn. I need new glasses....

Was that a dig on both of us? Well played, sir. Well Played.

 

[Macroramphosis]

You framed me, dammit.

(and no, no digs intended in any direction. I like Bidkev's stuff as much as any one else. Actually, there are very few photos on this site to dislike for any reason. We're all trying to do our best without one of them organic sensors we keep getting promised

 

[Acraftman]

One is allowed, of course to question the good taste of this painter. By the way the detail shown is seemingly not "SOOB" it seems from this rendering of the complete work published in The Guardian :
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...ins-sadak-in-search-of-the-waters-of-oblivion

View attachment 797852

Ummm, that was a light attempt at humor (soob), tbh I took the photo but didn't recall processing but going back into LR it seems I did some interperation of the artists original.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Joris]

Ummm, that was a light attempt at humor (soob), tbh I took the photo but didn't recall processing but going back into LR it seems I did some interperation of the artists original.

I got it, I got it ! Anyway it was a smart example demonstrating that presenting one's colored view of the scene is the rule rather than the exception.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[0000]

presenting one's colored view of the scene is the rule rather than the exception.

...and that being the case, it seems to make the most sense for anyone creating/sharing images for enjoyment (as opposed to a paying client) to approach PP with a mindset of personal expression of vision, rather than "am I doin' it right?"... I think this is what @spdavies was getting at. It seems like a distinction worth making, since the thrust of the OP seems to be more about things people might be doing simply because it's what they (mis?)understand to be currently acceptable fashion (but maybe I'm wrong).

 

[T N Args]

Both the above image examples show dominant soft transitions and muted tones, BTW.

I would love to see a higher proportion of images posted with those qualities.

The fact that there is interpretation is not an issue: interpretation itself is always welcome and encouraged. It is the manner of the interpretation.

cheers

 

[T N Args]

But it does. It comes back to what I said previously. The only person who knows if it's right is the person who made it. Period. Now, you can agree or disagree with the processing style, that's fine, perfectly acceptable. But what you and some others are suggesting is that a style of processing you personally disagree with doesn't deserve the same attention, or is in fact ruining threads in this forum. That there's a lemming mindset in at least one thread that has become the norm, and it's...why was it again? To get attention, to stand out?
As far as I'm concerned folks can process away to whatever extent they choose. Everyone's work deserves a look. I will look at them, and I can appreciate their EFFORT with a like, even if the photo doesn't tickle my fancy.

Perhaps re-read my OP before misinterpreting it so thoroughly. Third-to-last line.

I am discussing trends and disproportionate ratios. Not judging certain styles as good or bad.

And for the same reason, the individual samples from Art that have been used in this thread don't add much.

 

[relic]

I "like" any photo I see that is better than what I can do (which means most photos posted). I reserve the "winner" designation to photos that I think are superb and far better than anything I can hope to do. Regarding the OP, I think that I am constantly learning and evovling and I often find that my earliest posts horrible. Although I have selected inviting comments on all my images, that no longer appears with my posts (it did with the old software version, but then no one ever commented unless I asked specifically ).

 

[Brownie]

Perhaps re-read my OP before misinterpreting it so thoroughly. Third-to-last line.

I am discussing trends and disproportionate ratios. Not judging certain styles as good or bad.

And for the same reason, the individual samples from Art that have been used in this thread don't add much.

I'm not misinterpreting anything. Conversations evolve. At this point, most are commenting on that evolution, not your first post.

 

[spdavies]

Photography continues to evolve. Some people's attitudes don't.
There are different genres of photography, just as in every type of art.
In journalism, very strict rules apply.
In NatGeo contests, very strict rules apply but they are different rules.
In real estate, rules vary by location (I understand wide-angle lenses which make rooms look larger are not allowed in some places - Canada?)
In landscape photography, there is a conservative faction which looks down on boosted contrast and saturation.
However, such images are popular with the "uneducated" public and so many photographers enhance their images in that way - to the distaste and disdain of the "conservatives" - definitely not getting any "likes" from them!
Now, with the advent of digital imaging, the photographic art has been liberated from the inherent limitations of chemicals and paper.
With digital capture and processing, the sky's the limit and some reach for the sky.
It's a new period in photographic history, just like Pictorialism and the f/64 Group.
Some will choose to limit themselves to past traditions and that's fine.
Some will take advantage of the new technology and will create new kinds of photographic images.
Some will be excellent, some will be just average and some will be poor.
There are no rules in art.
Of course, anyone can like or not like these "trends".
Appreciation of art, after all, is a matter of personal taste.
I'm not sure why some feel they need to announce to the world that they disapprove, but that's OK.
There's a tradition for that also, in painting, where the official "salons" resisted and denounced every step forward in modern painting styles.
Art marches on.

 

[T N Args]

I'm not misinterpreting anything. Conversations evolve. At this point, most are commenting on that evolution, not your first post.

You were actually replying to me. So yes, you misinterpreted me. Full stop.

 

[T N Args]

Photography continues to evolve. Some people's attitudes don't.
There are different genres of photography, just as in every type of art.
In journalism, very strict rules apply.
In NatGeo contests, very strict rules apply but they are different rules.
In real estate, rules vary by location (I understand wide-angle lenses which make rooms look larger are not allowed in some places - Canada?)
In landscape photography, there is a conservative faction which looks down on boosted contrast and saturation.
However, such images are popular with the "uneducated" public and so many photographers enhance their images in that way - to the distaste and disdain of the "conservatives" - definitely not getting any "likes" from them!
Now, with the advent of digital imaging, the photographic art has been liberated from the inherent limitations of chemicals and paper.
With digital capture and processing, the sky's the limit and some reach for the sky.
It's a new period in photographic history, just like Pictorialism and the f/64 Group.
Some will choose to limit themselves to past traditions and that's fine.
Some will take advantage of the new technology and will create new kinds of photographic images.
Some will be excellent, some will be just average and some will be poor.
There are no rules in art.
Of course, anyone can like or not like these "trends".
Appreciation of art, after all, is a matter of personal taste.
I'm not sure why some seem to feel they need to announce to the world that they disapprove, but that's OK.
There's a tradition for that also, in painting, where the official "salons" resisted and denounced every step forward in modern painting styles.
Art marches on.

That's all taken as a given, surely.

 

[Brownie]

You were actually replying to me. So yes, you misinterpreted me. Full stop.

I was replying to your post in the middle of the conversation, not your original post, which was your assertion.

 

[T N Args]

...and that post of mine "in the middle of the conversation" says, if I may quote myself, "What you (wjiang) are saying has no impact on the observations that provoked this thread." ...which is a clear reference to my OP!

I can see now why you misinterpreted me -- you seem to have trouble clearly understanding what I am saying, before jumping in to correct me!

You can't logically, at the same time, say "Oh but it does impact on the OP", then defend that by saying the conversation was no longer about the OP. Simple!

 

[Brownie]

You do not want discourse, you want everyone to agree with you. You dismiss everyone that offers a counter point, from the images people posted to other viewpoints. Since we seem to be stuck on your fist post I'll address it directly and succinctly: Yes, you are imagining it. There is no trend. Now go ahead and have the last word, you know you want it. You'll get no more response from me I assure you. Feel free to assert whatever you like.

 

[ata3001]

My biggest issue with some photographers is passing off an image as being something that it's not. An example is with so many Milky Way images. If the photographer chooses to make a composite of 2 images combining the sky with a foreground that looks like it shot just after sunset where there is still plenty of light on the landscape, just submit it as such. Don't try to sell us on something that it isn't. I've photographed enough Milky Way images, over the years, to know when I'm being lied to. That's the point at which a photographer loses all credibility in my eyes. The other issue I have with so many Milky Way images is the level of detail many of these Milky Way images show. I saw an astrophysicist once show an image of the Milky Way & stating it was being shown the best as it can be seen from earth & so many post process it WAY more than is possible to actually see. The photographer told me that the camera sees more than our eyes can see. That is true if you use a star tracking device & make it a very long exposure, however that would then make any foreground blurred, but it was sharp. He stated that is was only a 8 sec exposure. There were just too many holes in his explanation of how he made the image. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. Above all else, please be honest with what you did. IMHO

 

[pigiron]

I confess and throw myself on the mercy of the mob... er, court for being a repeat offender of the following crimes/misdemeanors:

Adding a touch of increased saturation to red barns, green fields, and fall foliage etc... Quite corny.

Sharpening to make up for being slightly out of focus and/or having picked the wrong f-stop.

Eliminating power lines and other extraneous objects in post by any means necessary!

Straightening, de-pincushioning, de-barreling buildings from unwanted side effects of wide angle lenses.

My current fave widget is the de-hazer which I use liberally for outdoor shots. It's magic!

Futzing around with R,G,and B spline curves to get the colors of different lights (tungsten, fluorescent, neon, LED etc.) looking like something close to the correct hue in city night shots. (This often involves waaay to much time and effort.)

I am guilty of trying to get some black&whites to look like (OMG!) Tri-X.

I do chopping, lopping, trimming and use any aspect ratio that suits the picture. I also compress to jpeg, It's the friggin' web fer chrissakes.

I also have my Pen-F C1 dial saved to the settings suggested by Rob Trek.

I often use P mode for snaps and then change, or not, what settings the camera took the picture with.

What drives me to do these things? To get likes from my friends and relatives on Facebook!!!

 

[Joris]

It seems that the domain of modern photography is it not different from much of the rest of the world, be it religion, painting, classical music where I originally came from, politics... : one is supposed to conform to all the others, and then there are always those who hope to gain some authority by being more orthodox than the pope and trying to impose that onto others. My motto, do what pleases yourself and try to become better at that. If your production appeals to others : tant mieux. If not : tant pis.

 

[RichardC]

The last time I checked, this place was not a photojournalism site. There are photographers and processors of all levels. I cringe at some of the stuff I posted on here, but that is the nature of the beast. You go down one (perhaps new) road, think it's brilliant, share it with the world, only to find something that works better a week later, making your earlier effort look terrible.

I watched a Morganti video this morning where he processed an image in under 5 minutes in Luminar 4. To my eye, he's completely overdone the saturation - but there are dozens of gushing comments to the contrary and 71 thumbs up for each thumbs down.

The only thing that I consistently see here is over-sharpening.