• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Digital Techniques That Call Attention To Themselves

doug anderson

New member
I view a lot of photography on line these days and I'm struck by how much of it is disingenuous. I see a lot of punched up sunsets and unnecessary colorizations that utterly kill their original subject by laying on the goo.

I have always thought that the point of technical innovation was to free the photographer to make the best possible photos without calling attention to itself. Gimmicks are everywhere, and some people have mistaken them for art.

I'm not proposing a "truth in photography" argument, but am curious to hear what others say about the subject.
 
I have always thought that the point of technical innovation was to free the photographer to make the best possible photos without calling attention to itself. Gimmicks are everywhere, and some people have mistaken them for art.

I'm not proposing a "truth in photography" argument, but am curious to hear what others say about the subject.

Where does one draw the line between Art and artsy-fartsy?

For me, to produce Art with some consistency and predictability, as opposed to a lucky shot, is only possible when one at least masters the underlying technique. That requires enough knowledge of the equipment one uses (whether e.g. a paint brush and matching paint and surface, or a camera and a specific focal length lens) to produce the best possible starting point for further intended creative modification (if needed). This also includes knowledge of composition and final presentation. In other words, the artist has to be in control of the creation process and actively/skillfully steer it towards a predetermined goal.

Originality helps, as does talent.

Bart
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I view a lot of photography on line these days and I'm struck by how much of it is disingenuous. I see a lot of punched up sunsets and unnecessary colorizations that utterly kill their original subject by laying on the goo.

I have always thought that the point of technical innovation was to free the photographer to make the best possible photos without calling attention to itself. Gimmicks are everywhere, and some people have mistaken them for art.

I'm not proposing a "truth in photography" argument, but am curious to hear what others say about the subject.

Doug,

The point you make is a large challenge for us in looking at each other's work. Is it rubbish or mindless doodles? Or else is it an expression designed to evoke some passion or idea? Maybe it's just an artistic representation of something we can identify with and enjoy.

I myself use photoshop filters and tonal adjustment for artistic effect. I still struggle with that for myself. I try to hold back work to see if it really is something I can value long term and determine whether or not this is a triviality. I even find difficulty in placing such work alongside realistic work I do.

So when I see odd colors, posterization and odd outlines in the work of others I need to spend some extra effort to rise above cynicism. Then I must determine the relevance to me of what I'm seeing. Oft times i have to hold off on my critique since I am unsure. Am I poorly equipped to deal with what I see" Or maybe my gut feeling now (for good or bad) is the same as what consideration will arrive at down the road. I want the person to reveal more of themselves. I hate to be "taken"! Still, here, we don't want to dismiss emerging work that has a good nugget of promise. First I want to know if this person is honest with us and with others. For example delivering poorly executed model shots in return for free modeling is cheating the model. The use of filters and odd colors does not make up for garbage work. Similarly with wedding shots done without technical skills. That's unforgivable!

With art, its far more difficult for us to discriminate nonsense from work that's worthwhile. For some one just has to continue to watch the output, learn more of the context and related imperatives and then see just how much creativity is there and how much is mere technical aptitude with filters.

I am therefore somewhat tolerant of work that others might consider garbage. I have a feeling that some are indeed worthless and will remain so and others require that I catch up.

Now if we see a wedding picture then we all pretty well know what is expected for a particular style of event. Weird over-saturated sunsets may actually be real or maybe a filter artifact. Pale yellow skin might just be that color. When the skin is blue, however, either it's a gimmick or the person is dead! Still, just because it's a gimmick of "blue skin" does not mean it's not good for that picture.

One can use other people's gimmick's as on homage or symbol but we should get our own styles if we want to go beyond documenting what's in front of the camera.

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Doug,
What I think I tend to see are images created by people who really had no idea where they were going. That is, they started with photograph -perhaps a lucky shot- and then began fooling around in Photoshop until they landed on some visual effects that they felt made the image weightier or more compelling. When the next image comes along they either apply the same effects or once again grope for some solution to an undefined visual problem.

I would wager that the vast majority of amateur camera and Photoshop owners normally follow such a course. While I may be smirking a bit I really am not criticizing. After all, he vast majority of camera owners are really only interested in photography as a pastime. So the next time you see a gaudy sunset or (more commonly) an overcooked b&w just smile.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Doug,
What I think I tend to see are images created by people who really had no idea where they were going. That is, they started with photograph -perhaps a lucky shot- and then began fooling around in Photoshop until they landed on some visual effects that they felt made the image weightier or more compelling.

Well then Ken, if that image works then do we dismiss it? There are many great novelists with only one book!

When the next image comes along they either apply the same effects or once again grope for some solution to an undefined visual problem.
So they will have to get to work again and find their way to make this impressive too or move on. Is that bad? After all, here the photograph is like driftwood and other found objects one might combine together in a work of art. For sure it's not planned that way from the beginning, but is it then to be ridiculed? I don't know. I'd want to see more, but I admit to being cynical! When there is a body of work one can look at and a context for it, then maybe one can make out what what's going on: art or happenstance.

Asher
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
The gimmicks are quite often used to distract from the lack of mastership - which intends Bart's mastering the tecnique side as well, but IMO more important, the °vision° of a photo:

how to handle a subject, feeling its °sound° (it's space..etc ) and translating it genuinly, with a personal style, into some pixels.

If that 2nd parth of the job is well done, the images don't require additional °teasers°.

Today, on one side, photography has become so easy - "you press the button - we do the rest" °smile°. On the other side....

A newbie is struct by all the buttons, PS and alll these plugins offer - I had been collecting all possibles plugins when I started - but they're banned since a good while.

That said, I' m not against freer interpretations - then too, I just want to here the sound, feel the space...
 

doug anderson

New member
Doug,
What I think I tend to see are images created by people who really had no idea where they were going. That is, they started with photograph -perhaps a lucky shot- and then began fooling around in Photoshop until they landed on some visual effects that they felt made the image weightier or more compelling. When the next image comes along they either apply the same effects or once again grope for some solution to an undefined visual problem.

I would wager that the vast majority of amateur camera and Photoshop owners normally follow such a course. While I may be smirking a bit I really am not criticizing. After all, he vast majority of camera owners are really only interested in photography as a pastime. So the next time you see a gaudy sunset or (more commonly) an overcooked b&w just smile.

Ken: thanks for your excellent response. I don't mind that people just have fun with photography and produce constant kitsch. What I'm concerned about is that there needs to be a body of criticism that separates kitsch from the work of serious photographers, whether they be amateurs or professionals. I am concerned about the visual numbing of the culture, a kind of processed cheese mentality that is preempting an actual experience of life. I may be talking about something like Zen, or I may be trying to get at "unfiltered" experience (no pun intended). Blake: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru' narrow chinks of his cavern." The particular "caverns" we have created for ourselves have been made by what we consume, what rhetorics we fasten on without examination, what numbness we have chosen over what is truly vivifying. If art has a political/spiritual goal apart from its chosen content, this may be it.
 

doug anderson

New member
Where does one draw the line between Art and artsy-fartsy?

For me, to produce Art with some consistency and predictability, as opposed to a lucky shot, is only possible when one at least masters the underlying technique. That requires enough knowledge of the equipment one uses (whether e.g. a paint brush and matching paint and surface, or a camera and a specific focal length lens) to produce the best possible starting point for further intended creative modification (if needed). This also includes knowledge of composition and final presentation. In other words, the artist has to be in control of the creation process and actively/skillfully steer it towards a predetermined goal.

Originality helps, as does talent.

Bart

Bart: I should have prefaced my original post with this: I presuppose a level of technical competence on the part of the photography I'm addressing. I am not anti-technique at all. I am merely opposed to gimmicks and the use of technique in an empty, unconnected way.
 

doug anderson

New member
The gimmicks are quite often used to distract from the lack of mastership - which intends Bart's mastering the tecnique side as well, but IMO more important, the °vision° of a photo:

how to handle a subject, feeling its °sound° (it's space..etc ) and translating it genuinly, with a personal style, into some pixels.

If that 2nd parth of the job is well done, the images don't require additional °teasers°.

Today, on one side, photography has become so easy - "you press the button - we do the rest" °smile°. On the other side....

A newbie is struct by all the buttons, PS and alll these plugins offer - I had been collecting all possibles plugins when I started - but they're banned since a good while.

That said, I' m not against freer interpretations - then too, I just want to here the sound, feel the space...

I agree. When I first started taking pictures, before I got a digital camera, I was overly impressed with technique and technical gimmick. For example, I was fascinated with the surrealist photography of Ulesman (SP?). I was fascinated also with the zone system, with reproduction sharp detail in the shadows, with using orange filters to bring out clouds and red filters with infrared film. It was a short romance. I now use a UV filter only, and am after the subject, the moment, and limpid mode of expression via competent technique.
 
I view a lot of photography on line these days and I'm struck by how much of it is disingenuous. I see a lot of punched up sunsets and unnecessary colorizations that utterly kill their original subject by laying on the goo.

I have always thought that the point of technical innovation was to free the photographer to make the best possible photos without calling attention to itself. Gimmicks are everywhere, and some people have mistaken them for art.

I'm not proposing a "truth in photography" argument, but am curious to hear what others say about the subject.

Doug,

Your observations and question are not exactly original. My answer is that you have to kiss a lot frogs before you find a prince (not original either :) ).

We are all captives of our times, limited by our imagination and to some degree our equipment. How would Shakespeare have done with a word processor? Would he still be as great, or would he have succumbed to cut-and-paste? Picasso's bicycle-seat sculpture or Dali's distorted clocks can be considered gimmicks. It is all rather arbitrary. It seems that in art and other endeavors, a few workers in each era capture critical and public acclaim, the others labor in vain. I venture to say that few of us posting on this site will ever create an "immortal" photograph. I don't say this in a harsh way. Much of the work is laudable at some level. It is necessary to struggle to produce anything of value. Few of us do. When we see the punched-up sunset, we can say "It is not for me." But perhaps the photographer is just passing through a phase to something much better. I say, we don't have to applaud and approve; respectful criticism is often helpful.

Here is a little story to illustrate my point. A couple of years ago, I saw a retrospective exhibit of Ansel Adams work at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Despite the fact that he had been dead for many years, the show was packed. I was shocked. His early work was derivative, dreamy, influenced by (it seems to me) the French style of painting, and quite ordinary. You could call it gimmicky. If it were in a shop window today, you could easily pass it by. Then he came under the influence of Alfred Stieglitz and it seems that Adams had an epiphany. The photographer we now acclaim was "born." Who knew that was about to happen?

And thanks for starting an interesting discussion.

-Nat
 
I view a lot of photography on line these days and I'm struck by how much of it is disingenuous.

My opinion is that if the first thing that you think when you look at the image is "Oh, another one of those (insert technique here) images" instead of being impacted by the content, and the image was intended as art, then it should be relegated to the sketch book/studies pile. I think that the idea of doing studies or sketches is under-represented in digital photography. A lot of the people I run into seem to be stuck in the "fiddle with it until it's done" mode, when maybe we should fiddle a bit, print it, and pin it to the wall or put it in the "sketch" book.

I think there's value in reproducing another photographer's style or learning how to do a particular effect, but I think that some folks just want to accomplish the reproduction and don't really care to take it the next step and extrapolate from it for their own vision. They prefer the "craft" side of creating things and enjoy the "I made that and I like how it looks" feeling without necessarily wanting the challenge of sharing themselves with art. Making art is more difficult than just making something that looks nice over the sofa, but there's still room in the world for decoration. And I'm sure there are plenty of misguided folks that mistake decoration for art, but if they're happy, what would the be purpose of pointing out it's not? Unless of course they ask for your opinion.

-Colleen
 

doug anderson

New member
My opinion is that if the first thing that you think when you look at the image is "Oh, another one of those (insert technique here) images" instead of being impacted by the content, and the image was intended as art, then it should be relegated to the sketch book/studies pile. I think that the idea of doing studies or sketches is under-represented in digital photography. A lot of the people I run into seem to be stuck in the "fiddle with it until it's done" mode, when maybe we should fiddle a bit, print it, and pin it to the wall or put it in the "sketch" book.

I think there's value in reproducing another photographer's style or learning how to do a particular effect, but I think that some folks just want to accomplish the reproduction and don't really care to take it the next step and extrapolate from it for their own vision. They prefer the "craft" side of creating things and enjoy the "I made that and I like how it looks" feeling without necessarily wanting the challenge of sharing themselves with art. Making art is more difficult than just making something that looks nice over the sofa, but there's still room in the world for decoration. And I'm sure there are plenty of misguided folks that mistake decoration for art, but if they're happy, what would the be purpose of pointing out it's not? Unless of course they ask for your opinion.

-Colleen

Colleen: I'm actually very big on the sketchbook idea. In fact, I'm trying to find a blank book in which I can affix photos, drawings and writing, so that I can carry it with me all day and work in all three mediums. This may not actually be what you mean when you say sketchbook, so I'll respond another way: the sketches of Leonardo Da Vinci are astonishing: he's not merely copying styles.

I guess my whole thing with this particular thread is that I want there to be a special criteria for photography that is attempting to extend consciousness, and that places the goal beyond the family vacation photograph. Sally Mann, for example, photographs her family in a way that makes me see way beyond say, a day at the beach.

As a culture, we have lost the desire to experience the best of anything, and are settling for the junk food version. This concerns me, especially as I greet each class of incoming students at the University. There is something mushy and ill defined about their expression in general, and they are lacking in passion and curiosity. This I think is the result of the numbing sameness of the experiences provided for them by mass culture, from the labels on their clothes to the flattened, generic use of language. If I can get them to examine how they write and speak and what they read by the end of the semester, I am happy. The same responsibility applies to people who profess to contribute to visual culture. We should be relentless to discover, to make new, to cut away the crap.
 

doug anderson

New member
Nat: I have warts from kissing frogs (or is it toads?). I'm not assuming that I'm going to take great pictures because of what I believe. I will throw away most of what I shoot. It's a matter of setting a goal for myself that exceeds what passes for most photography displayed on, say, Flickr.

I am successful in the other form of creativity that I practice as a profession, and therefore I tend to want to do the same with photography although I am not a professional photographer. It is perhaps an unrealistic goal, and yet it gives me energy to fail an fail again and once and a while do something that satisfies me.

As you said, my observations are not new, but I think nagging is sometimes necessary. Squeeky wheel and all that.

D
 
Colleen: I'm actually very big on the sketchbook idea. In fact, I'm trying to find a blank book in which I can affix photos, drawings and writing, so that I can carry it with me all day and work in all three mediums. This may not actually be what you mean when you say sketchbook, so I'll respond another way: the sketches of Leonardo Da Vinci are astonishing: he's not merely copying styles.

Indeed I meant a sort of "inspiration pile" regardless of what form it takes. However, I don't think that using Da Vinci as a role model is helpful. If we were all expected to live up to that standard, our books would all be empty. I use my book for ideas I like from other artists, to get stuff out of my head so I can hold it up and look at it and see what it is, and basically just to collect bits of stimulating stuff. It's somewhat like that cigar box full of feathers, pebbles, pressed flowers, glass buttons, locust skins, and various other treasures I had when I was a kid. If I censored myself to only put worthwhile art in my book it would defeat the entire purpose of having one. I got a fortune with my lunch today that's going into my book: "If at first you do succeed ... try something harder" - not exactly art, but I like it and it reminds me to keep aiming higher, so in it goes.

There is something mushy and ill defined about their expression in general, and they are lacking in passion and curiosity. This I think is the result of the numbing sameness of the experiences provided for them by mass culture, from the labels on their clothes to the flattened, generic use of language. If I can get them to examine how they write and speak and what they read by the end of the semester, I am happy. The same responsibility applies to people who profess to contribute to visual culture. We should be relentless to discover, to make new, to cut away the crap.

I'm in full agreement with you there... when I was growing up, my father put a high value on saying precisely what you meant. In our debates he would pound me relentlessly with semantics until I could state my point of view clearly. Looking back I believe it did more for me than just expand my vocabulary. The current generation has grown up in the world of 24/7 cable news where being able to babble on to fill time has more value than being articulate or insightful, MTV (where the M seems to stand for misogyny rather than music), and Internet celebrity (where your 15 minutes gets shortened to 15 seconds). The emphasis is on immediacy, titillation, and the constant flow of data even if there is no substance. They've basically been fed a diet of pap and candy. They can't even conceive of a meal intended to be eaten sitting down with silverware off of china plates and accompanied by a nice glass of wine, let alone digest it.

I do think that the criticism of someone's creative expression should be tempered by the the goals of the artist. I think that most of the work posted for critique here has much higher aspirations than what you'll see elsewhere and that an in depth analysis is required. The majority of stuff posted on flikr and the like is probably more about connecting with other people than about expressing a unique artistic vision, and I think should merit a gentler approach.

-Colleen
 

doug anderson

New member
The majority of stuff posted on flikr and the like is probably more about connecting with other people than about expressing a unique artistic vision, and I think should merit a gentler approach.

-Colleen

Agreed. By the way, do you know if there is such a thing as a combo photo album and journal? I will probably have to make my own, but what a good idea. Maybe part sketchbook, part photopockets with pockets for other media as well. A place to keep a daily visual/verbal meditation.
 
By the way, do you know if there is such a thing as a combo photo album and journal? I will probably have to make my own, but what a good idea. Maybe part sketchbook, part photopockets with pockets for other media as well. A place to keep a daily visual/verbal meditation.

My boyfriend uses a moleskine with a leather cover. I use a cheap poly pocket folder with a moleskine in it. I found one at an office supply store that had a little organizer section in the front with pen holders and such and it's working out well. I like the leather journal, but I know that if I get myself something too nice I won't put as much in it because I wouldn't want to "mess it up" :) I've also been eyeballing the scrapbooking aisle in my local craft store - the majority of the stuff is completely unsuitable because it is patterned (and overpriced), but they have some acid free papers and large refillable books. Moleskine has a what they call a Japanese accordion album that also looks interesting.

-Colleen
 

doug anderson

New member
Very cool. I'll follow up on your suggestions. One of these days I'd like to drive across country and photograph, interview, write etc. and keep everything in a journal (or journals) big enough to record the whole trip. I'd like to go off the beaten track and find out who really lives in this country that television claims to represent.
 

David Sommars

New member
to talk about the original posts question which I find interesting ;

Its very subjective, whos to say that the processing isnt in itself an art ?

sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt, but its all in the eye of the beholder really.

personally I like a cross processed look sometimes, but not toooo far,
not a HDR like painting, that doesnt really do anything for me, but hey, that is art to someone else, who are we to tell them its not "good" what IS good.

something that took real work to produce, heavily processed or not, and something that makes you think. Thats good art in my view, I'd rather not narrow it down to what % of it is processing and what % is natural ?

that thinking is meaningless to me.
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
David-

who is to say_ correct-
as artists in this world to define is to limit
but LOL we must at some point
else what we do is isn't a definition of who we are
but................
again
the seduction is always there isn't it-
I shake my head at such discussions however I jump in...

Charlotte
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
to talk about the original posts question which I find interesting ;

Its very subjective, whos to say that the processing isnt in itself an art ?

You are! I am, we all have that power! But it only might mean it's not anything worth our attention. Art has to be defined in the first instance by the artist having completed the work in such a way as it seems fulfills the creator's intent! Whether or not we "get it" is secondary as far as it being art. We may just not be prepared for it or it may be of little value to anyone outside the artist. However, it's still art just as a runt, pale, weak mouse is still a mouse!
 
If your first thought is "oh look, they did that Dragan technique" then the processing is working at cross purposes to the art. Art to me isn't about communicating something technical, it's about communicating something emotional. If an image is evoking an entirely intellectual response like "Oh I see that they did some HDR and used that film simulation Photoshop plug-in", I don't think it's fulfilling the role of art.

On the other hand, I don't think that just because it's obvious that the image has been heavily processed, there's immediately something wrong with it. Oleg Dou's work is very heavily processed and he uses the same sort of very recognizable processing in just about everything he does. I think that the processing is an important part of evoking the emotional response though. I think the juxtaposition of the realistic eyes and expression with the manikin-like head is pretty powerful. It may not be to everyone's taste, but I think it's recognizable as art.

In my work I see a lot of people getting seduced by their tools, and when that happens the end purpose of the "art" becomes showcasing the tool. That's not art, that's marketing :) I think it's natural to want to experiment with something that catches our fancy, but if your intention is art, there needs to be some reason for using an effect other than it's cool looking.

-Colleen
 

Chris Kresser

New member
If your first thought is "oh look, they did that Dragan technique" then the processing is working at cross purposes to the art. Art to me isn't about communicating something technical, it's about communicating something emotional. If an image is evoking an entirely intellectual response like "Oh I see that they did some HDR and used that film simulation Photoshop plug-in", I don't think it's fulfilling the role of art.

On the other hand, I don't think that just because it's obvious that the image has been heavily processed, there's immediately something wrong with it. Oleg Dou's work is very heavily processed and he uses the same sort of very recognizable processing in just about everything he does. I think that the processing is an important part of evoking the emotional response though. I think the juxtaposition of the realistic eyes and expression with the manikin-like head is pretty powerful. It may not be to everyone's taste, but I think it's recognizable as art.

In my work I see a lot of people getting seduced by their tools, and when that happens the end purpose of the "art" becomes showcasing the tool. That's not art, that's marketing :) I think it's natural to want to experiment with something that catches our fancy, but if your intention is art, there needs to be some reason for using an effect other than it's cool looking.

-Colleen

Well said, Colleen. I agree completely.

I would also add that it might be useful to draw a distinction between photography and other forms of visual art. I know I'm opening up a can of worms here, as this has been discussed ad nauseam over the last 60-70 years. But it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between someone who sets out to make a photograph that is a representation, albeit a subjective one, of something or someone that exists in the real world... and someone who uses a photograph as the starting point for expressing a personal vision in the way that a painter, sculptor or other artist might.

If such a distinction can be made, then it seems to me that we need different criteria by which we judge the artistic merits of each type. I happen to really like Oleg Dou's work (never seen it before this), but I would not call that "photography". I'd call it mixed media, or just visual art. Because he is not at all trying to represent something that occurs in the "real world", I'm immediately less focused on the "techniques" he used and more focused on the emotional impact of the pictures.

I think the trouble comes with pictures that exist in the "middle ground", i.e. those that are still recognizable representations of something that does exist but also processed to the point where they clearly could not occur naturally. It is in this situation, I think, that the techniques in question draw the most attention to themselves because the viewer expects to see one thing, and then they see another thing that doesn't fit their expectation. If this is done well, it can be a delightful process of discovery. If it is not skillfully done, or done inappropriately, I lose interest very quickly.

Chris
 
But it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between someone who sets out to make a photograph that is a representation, albeit a subjective one, of something or someone that exists in the real world... and someone who uses a photograph as the starting point for expressing a personal vision in the way that a painter, sculptor or other artist might.

I think there is a distinction, although I still haven't worked out for myself the exact nature of it. My current idea is that the photographer is saying "this is how I saw it" and the mixed media artist is saying "experience this feeling". It seems like photography is more about capturing something and the constructed visual arts are more about expressing something. Even the abstract photograph is really capturing a type of light, or texture or shape. When the image gets overworked it seems like the photographer is lying to you and it leaves a bad taste. I think it's OK if the the audience gets invited into the lie, like tall tales or magic tricks where the audience knows the truth is getting bent.

I need to mull it over a bit more.

-Colleen
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
When the image gets overworked it seems like the photographer is lying to you and it leaves a bad taste. I think it's OK if the the audience gets invited into the lie, like tall tales or magic tricks where the audience knows the truth is getting bent.


Colleen-

and tell me what truth do you" want us to subscribe too?
yours?
or can it be that truth like art is in the eye of the spirit that sees it- we cannot judge what we think as art to dismiss what others might see as art- else there will be no evolution-


Charlotte
 
Top