Photography Trends
 

Hi people, there seems to be so many trends in photography that come and go. What are some of your pet hates and why? Doing some research for a presentation and would be grateful for some discussion and other photographer's thoughts.

Thanks
KaceyJay

Off the top of my head I can think of several.

1) Overdone HDR
2) Overdone effects in Photoshop to try and cover poor composition and technique and then call it art. If it is garish or messy or weird it must be good? Wrong!!!
3) Overdone filters purely for effect.

Basically all three hates are variations of the same thing, trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear then calling it art.

4) A photo is deemed poor in some circles if it does not follow the accepted norm e.g. water falls or any running water has to be blurred these days, frozen movement shots of moving water is a perfectly valid alternative that is just not accepted.

There are a few for starters, I am sure there are many more!

A snapshot (a photo where the photographer hasn't considered composition, subject, lighting etc) that has had some instant, one-click processing applied, given a title and then regarded as a work of art.

I agree with Mike's points.

Another of mine is dogged adherence to reality. Every time we make a lens focal length choice, or aperture, or shutter speed, or compositional decision we are presenting a scene in a way that may be different to 'normal' viewing so why is flipping an image, or closing out a distraction so bad?

Any photo taken first thing in the morning or last thing at night featuring a few boulders in the foreground, a sweep of water in the middle leading to a headland in the background.

Plus any photo (taken from exactly the same position as everyone else) of Buachaille Etive Mor, Durdle Dor or Bamburgh Castle.

Here's a selection of my pet hates;
Overdone processing/filtration
The 'velvia' look - oversaturated colour and boosted contrast in landscape images
The majority of fashion photography images (it's just another picture of a face/body wearing clothes - though portrait photography that captures something of an individual's character is a different matter)
Slavish compliance with the 'rules' of composition and subject matter, both in making and reviewing images.

Mind you, I'd prefer to give a list of some of my likes!
An image with something individual about it, whether in subject matter, lighting, composition.
An image that transports me to the place/time it was made
An image that makes me look more than once, that doesnt lay it all out on a plate for me (e.g. many sunset images are spectacular, but once you've said 'Wow' about the sky, it has nothing else to offer)

Try not to have pet hates. Think if someone can see something they like in an image and I don't its me that's missing out.
However trite, run of the mill images don't interest me. Could be because I take too many of them.
Don't mind over worked images or ones that have little to do with reality.
Ok, one pet hate landscapes / seascapes that are sharp from front to back and over loaded with too much detail.

I guess that the trends in photography are just like all other trends through out life. Do I think that some look daft and i would not follow? Yes I do but that is my choice in the way that I view something. The next person to read this post will not have the same view as you or I.
There are merits to all trends along with the down sides:eek:
Some times you just need to step back and take another look and you may just see somethingthat blows your mind even if it's one in ten thousand pictures.

Some trends have more merit than others.

+1, Everybody sees something different in every image.

Dave

Badly done HDR or being able to tell its HDR.

Altering a photo (ie cloning out) then still insisting its a photo when its clearly not.

Badly edited photo's that scrape your eyeballs.

Pet Portraits

Wonky photo's

Steve...:)

Number two intrigues me, if you say clone out some rubbish rather than physically remove it (maybe it is impossible or dangerous to remove) what does the photo become? A drawing , a painting or what? Photographs are always altered reality and are basically expressing what the photographer wishes to state. Some obviously are done better than others and of course the reaction of the viewer varies as everyone is different. Hey ho, always a good one for a discussion! :)

Thats fairly easy to explain, consider the following.

The word photography derives from the Greek (phōtos), genitive of(phōs), "light" and (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".

Now, cloning out is editing pixels..NOT drawing with light so is therefore an image not a photograph.

If there is litter in the scene then I would suggest you walk to it, pick it up and remove rather than cloning out later in post processing. Set your scene rather than make it in Photoshop or other editing programme.

Its much the same as a Photographer will walk towards the Bride and straighten the hem of her dress or turn the bridesmaids slightly one way before taking the photograph, they are setting their scene and not relying on post processing to make the shot.

Incidentally, Its my opinion that PP is required as even todays modern cameras are still not a patch on film of yesteryear.

If I cannot remove something due to dangerous circumstances then it stays in the shot.

Steve...:)

Derivation of words can be very interesting but the Greek root of the word photography does not set the meaning in stone. Language and meaning evolves, always has and always will.
I was bought up on film and did my own B&W developing and printing, believe me there was plenty of playing around with different parameters like the grade of paper, different films, different chemicals and even different types of enlargers to alter the final image. Dodging and burning were routine to overcome the inadequate dynamic range of even the best films so no essential difference there. Things were added or cloned in too. Did medium format plus of course 35mm film.

The only trouble with being such a purist is that you let other people dictate what you can or cannot take. I agree with you up to a point in that I do little post processing and massive construction of an image is not for me (yes I did use that term image) but I will not let other people dictate the photo I can take just because they are litterbugs or whatever so I will clone where necessary. There are people who would argue that you interfere too much by removing the litter or would consider straightening a hem wrong but that everything should be shot exactly as it is regardless.
It is a matter of opinion and preference where you draw the line so I am happy to differ. :)

Its as I said, its something that bugs me in answer to the original posters question, and it will also continue to bug me for ever more, its just my opinion and I dictate to no one how they do what they do.

But in the technical sense of the word a photo is as taken in the camera, drawing with the light, and altering by cloning or sky replacement it becomes an image as your now drawing with pixels..its a fairly simple thing to understand with a clear division, the main problems occur when people wish to stretch or bend that division.

And I'm far from being a purist, oh no..not me.

Steve...:)

No one is accusing you of being pure! :D
Sorry, you did indeed just answer the original posters question so I will happily leave it there.

I've been called a purist before for my views on this very subject and I'll happily discuss it at length on another topic. Its true as software develops making editing easier than ever, the division I mention is differing for many.Especially with tools such as Content aware in Photoshop

It goes without saying that if I had to use cloning myself, no doubt it would become part of my workflow and so my divsion would shift too. I do hope not though.

Steve...:)

A helpful spammer just bought this thread to my attention... Can't think why I didn't comment at the time but as it is about trends it might be interesting to see what opinions are now.

So here are some of mine...

HDR done in such a way as to be obvious, subtly done it can be great but normally it looks horrible.

Colour popping - I am guilty of having done it in the past but wish I hadn't. For me it is over used and under effective not to mention more that a little cheesy!

Both of those could be combined into the fact that I don't like a photo to look processed. I have no issue with a bit of PP and will happily crop, tweek or clone photos if I need to but I like to keep it close to the photo I took. PP should enhance a photo not distort it. That said I do love to shot with a shallow depth of field and get smooth backgrounds which clearly doesn't represent reality. So I like to distort reality with a lens but not with a computer, but I never claimed to be consistent!

My other big irritation is people taking photos of captive birds/animals and trying to pass them of as wild. I waste a lot of time trying to take photos of birds and hate the fact that a good photo is often doubted because so many people cheat.

I hate every time experiments with HDR, Photo effects, Filter, focal lengths, contrast because so much experiments make photo ugly.