Switch to English Language Passer en langue franηaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,548,871   Online: 1167
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    It is/was also the trend of 2000. Look at the movies and tv series. (US police shows from 2000's are especially good examples). They desaturate colors at post and get a muddy brown-grey-blue look. I never liked it a second. It seems to be over now; at least I hope so. Most of these films are shot on film (and destructed in digital post) and I think it is/was a total wasting of film. Good thing though they are keeping Kodak alive.

    Anyhow, this trend can be seen clearly also in how people shoot and scan&manipulate their images on Flickr etc.

    Please note that many digi shooters manipulate their images in the same way. They usually look even more dull. And note that any image on Flickr will almost automatically receive enormous number of comments like "GREAT CAPTURE!!" "NICE COLORS!!" etc. It's just flickr, don't take it too seriously .

    "HDR" (nothing to do with dynamic range) images (shot completely digitally, always!) are a complete opposite to these dull pictures. Still, they look as awful. It's just as the dullness effect; it's interesting for a few minutes. Then it loses it power.

    However, great thing with film is that there are so many options. I think that the correctly exposed colorful neg look will be back soon. It has a dynamic range of "HDR", but it doesn't look like "HDR". It has realistic, natural colors without being dull. It has contrast, but not too much. It looks automatically like a bit contrast masked (but not too much), even when it's not.

    Many small (and not so small) things, like the introduction of colorful Ektar 100, make a way for the renaissance of this 1990's look. Ektar may be too unrealistic for some people, but it's not dull and that's most important. It's a message. People who make their photos dull even in 2010 are just slow. They are clinging to a trend that has come to its end. Most of people start to get bored and are looking for alternatives.

  2. #22
    accozzaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sweet home Toronto, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    514
    After looking on Fuji 800Z and Provia 400X on Flickr, perhaps I'm not seeing what you're saying, B&Wpositive.

    I see a few photos where there is severe overexposure, blowing out any contrast and de-saturating colour. I see some where the colours look badly skewed. I also see some that are very underexposed and hard to make out anything. I also see a couple where there was deliberately digital de-saturation implemented. In short, I see a dog's breakfast of results.

    In the end, there are three considerations to allow:
    1) Many film photographers are in a constant learning process, some further along than others (while some just don't progress beyond a certain point);
    2) Some photographers don't hew to a notion — or an agreed one — of "traditional" methods, as you expressed;
    3) Style is highly varied between different photogs — just like other artistic media — and one's saturated, underexposed, contrasty shot is another's undersaturated, overexposed, flat shot.

    Personally, after seeing some of Jose Villa's work — his name is new to me — I must say that I really do not appreciate his style, one I would call "milky and washed out". But again, this is entirely a subjective call. Clearly his style resonates with the wedding client crowd, and rightly so, his formula appears to pay off. When working with colour — more specifically, when working with reversal colour — give me someone who underexposes by 1/3rd or 2/3rd stop in order to saturate colour and give shadows a rich darkness. I really don't like seeing blacks that end up being greyish and highlights which look like white crinoline was draped over the lens.

  3. #23
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    I can't say this has been my experience on Flickr, but then I have to admit I don't spend that much time looking at an extensive list of images on there. It's more just the place I can stick some of my stuff.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,215
    I looked at a few pages of 800Z photos and what stood out was how grainy many of them were. Even ones taken on medium format show more grain at 4"x5" on my screen than my 10"x8" optical prints from 35mm.
    Steve.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    135
    It is/was also the trend of 2000. Look at the movies and tv series. (US police shows from 2000's are especially good examples). They desaturate colors at post and get a muddy brown-grey-blue look. I never liked it a second. It seems to be over now; at least I hope so. Most of these films are shot on film (and destructed in digital post) and I think it is/was a total wasting of film. Good thing though they are keeping Kodak alive.
    Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! This has plagued movies/tv shows for the longest time. Many times, the digital intermediate work they're doing on films now totally ruin it for me.

    One thing I never understood about Flickr is how they decide which pictures get featured. I've seen wonderfully composed pictures on Flickr with no attention, and then some absolutely dreadful (to my eyes) images with pages of comments. As one poster said, it's almost as if people are more attracted to the "pretty colors" of photoshopped images than they are images that are striking in more ways. I've also never liked the insane amount of xprocessing and lofi...seems like it is mostly people experimenting, but hey...if they're trying out film, I'm happy!

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by marylandphoto View Post
    As one poster said, it's almost as if people are more attracted to the "pretty colors" of photoshopped images than they are images that are striking in more ways.
    That helps. Pictures of girls help too. Or anything that makes a 100x100 image stand out from 30 other ones. Some people get a lot of views because they are in a ton of groups too.

    My most viewed photo is a street shot of a guy sitting on the curb with his ass crack hanging out. The most frequent search term for that photo, surprise surprise, is 'ass'. I would imagine that the photo doesn't really show what the searchers want it to, but they still click.

    I can't be bothered with a bunch of that stuff, so typically my pictures get few views. Even if they were good

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by marylandphoto View Post
    ... I've also never liked the insane amount of xprocessing and lofi...seems like it is mostly people experimenting, but hey...if they're trying out film, I'm happy!
    You're not alone brother! I once tried to find pictures taken with E100G and there was a huge amount of xprocessed stuff (shot with Holgas), but only a few normal shots. All that catchy stuff... But as you say, if they use film, I can't really complain.

  8. #28
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    680
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Which is exactly why I've said, and still maintain, that you cannot get a decent idea of how ANY film stacks up against another when looking at samples from Flickr or any other photo sharing site. Sure there are good examples there, but you don't run across too many of them.
    Absolutlely wrong.

    A note on flickr: It's not a gallery where all the greats are hung; it's the cafe down the street where evrything is game. Put it in perspective.


    A great photogapher will get a great image out of anything - eggwhites, salt and toilet paper! If you want to see what the film can do, look at what the masses are actually doing with it.


    I personally post images that I am working on or just some examples for a technique. Rarely finished works. Any image I show here as an example, is hosted there. If you want to judge them as art, your time not mine.....

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    You are so completely off base with your comment that it is hardly worth a retort. I said nothing about the quality of the work on Flickr. It's not for me to judge, and honestly, I don't really care. All I am saying is that it is impossible, with any degree of certainty, determine which film was used to make a given photograph, nor to judge the relative merits/demerits, of one type of film against another based on Flickr observations. There are far too many variables involved to do that.
    Frank Schifano

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    16,412
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by zk-cessnaguy View Post
    huh? why are you talking elvish?
    otnay vishelvay,
    iglatinpay ...

    don't want istermay ooooglegay
    to ickpay upay all my igitalday-sakspay ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin