Discussion in 'Street, Documentary, and Portrait' started by caimi, May 29, 2013.
mom, dad, junior and fido
a late breakfast (nudge, nudge)
Kodak Instamatic 50 (virtual)
Okay, lots of views but no responses so I'll give one of my own:
I recently visited Giant City State Park in Makanda, IL. It is 4000 acres of hiking, horse trails, cabins and a lodge built by the C.C.C. in the 1930's. The lodge is full of leather lodge furniture, animal mounts and a really good and reasonably priced restaurant. The atmosphere of the place was like a time machine transporting me back to vacations in the 60's and early 70's when the whole family piled into the station wagon and stuck to the vinyl seats for several hours anticipating an adventure in a state or national park just like this one.
And the state of the art consumer camera of the day was the Kodak Instamatic with its 126 or 110 film that took generally grainy photos, often not sharp and even more often composed poorly.
The three images I have here came out of my review of pictures I took on that recent trip to Giant City. They were taken with a G5 and P14-45 lens. But they were buried within other images. They are extreme crops that created scenes that rung a bell with me and gave me the idea to attempt to recreate images that might have been taken with an Instamatic camera and then stuck in a family photo album and forgotten. They have varying levels of grain and sharpness and they are somewhat compositionally challenged as a result of not being the initial subject of the photos I dug them out of. But I hope they convey the sense of a family vacation long forgotten and now fondly remembered.
I know some people do not like selective colorization but I used it here to humanize the people in the photos. To utilize them as more or less living props in this exercise in nostalgia.
Sometimes my experiments such as this one are successful. Sometimes they are not. But now you have a better idea of what I was trying to accomplish with these images.
One other thing: it would be interesting to see some of the other fine photographers on this website give this exercise a try. It is an adventure, a treasure hunt, to find the image within the bigger image and crop it out to stand on its own. Then apply a boatload of processing to transform the appearance of the image into a snapshot that might have been taken in another time and place and with another camera.
OK I will chip in even if my critic isnt popular.
Let me say I really like the first photo, the second isnt too good and I don t like the 3rd. What really ruins them is the selective colorization - I dont much like it in general but when I do 'selective' is serious 'selective'.
BY definition, selective colorization draws attention to whatever is colorized. The first picture I really like the dog and how it follows the spiral of the staircase. I find the people 'highlighted' irrelevant and distracting.
The second pic might have something interesting to say if their wasnt for an orange blob of a guy distracting my attention.
The third pic...
Thanks for your input. Please explain what you mean by "serious" selective colorization. Personally, I think there is a place and usefulness for even gimmicky photographic tricks like selective colorization. As I said, I hoped using it here would humanize the people in the photo who might otherwise have been lost in the scenery. Maybe it just doesn't work that way for you. But thanks again.
The action, the dog and the lead are really excellent subjects for a proper Number1.
In my opinion the current processing ruins ALL of the pictures.
So : let's see Number1 as a more normal photo? Please.
Ulfric: Thanks but the processing is the subject here. If it ruins the images the hope is that it ruins them in a good way if you get my drift.
I cant quite off the cuff come up with a selective 'colorization' that I like but I will try to find one.
Meanwhile I will point out a photo that I 'really' like that everyone else thinks is crap or else is disinterested...
Now I can help really thinking this is one of the best photos I have ever taken and most other people cant help thinking it is a photo that isnt very interesting.
It is interesting, colorful, kind of sexy, kind of mysterious. How did you achieve this result?
Actually that wasnt really my point. It was more along the lines that I had posted it in a couple of places and absolutely noone had noticed. So you gave it at least 5 comments that it hadnt had before.
So my point is if you really like what you are producing, go ahead and produce it and be relaxed about it, I have shot loads of stuff that other people like that I am not so fond of myself.
Obviously I like my photo that nobody likes better than your photo that nobody likes. Still I am not inclined to get in a race to the bottom.
I enjoyed creating my experiment in nostalgia whether anyone else likes it or not. I don't necessarily equate lack of response with "not liking" but if that's what it is then so be it. Could also be "not getting". As for a "race to the bottom" I never view my photos as a race to anywhere, top or bottom. They're just photos. As I said, sometime they're successful, sometimes they're not.
As for your photo, I can't recall seeing it posted before but if you don't care to comment on how you achieved the image, that's your business.
Nothing special. A bit of motion blur and hue/saturation adjustment.
Rob, I somehow missed your shot until you posted it here. I guess there are now two of us who love it!
Sent from my phone. Please pardon my brevity!
I don't remember Instamatic photos being quite that grainy, but I do appreciate the concept. They really do have a family photo feel.
It's fun to rekindle memories. I don't think of my self as a pixel picker, but I don't know how to interpret the third eye or laser scope mark that appears on Dad's forehead.
Ok here is an example of 'selective colorization' that I like. It is by a Thai photographer - Manit Sriwanichpoom.
I just think the pink colorization of the shopping trolley serves a purpose - as well as drawing your attention to it.
Okay. I don't agree that this is even an example of the concept of "selective colorization". At least as I understand that concept. But, to each his own. Thanks, Robbie.
Considering for the moment that I am wrong about what is and what isn't "selective colorization" I searched the net for samples of Mr. Sriwanichpoom's work. Interesting stuff. He seems to have a thing for the color pink. He emphasizes it in many of his images. Some seem to work, some do not seem to work, at least for me. But it appears his idea of selective colorization is to select the color pink, and much less frequently blue, and insinuate it into many if not most of his photos which may or may not also be colored.
The selective color treatment seems very arbitrary and doesn't add anything at all to the pictures, IMO. Its worst in the third one.
I don't mind selective color as an artistic element - but I think it serves as a distraction in this case. It became a side issue that is unrelated to the original intent: recalling the days of Kodak family vacation photos. I remember those days as having washed out colors with a greenish/yellow tint or grainy B&W. The selective colors in these photos appear over saturated on my monitor and they don't fit the Instamatic concept.
Separate names with a comma.