I find it amazing that many of these looks replicate the ravages of time (fading, etc.) or what us film guys of old considered exposure and/or processing mistakes.
For instance, the muddy black effect on the photos on the linked site is easy to replicate in film, just underexpose a stop or so. That will lead to no shadow detail and blacks that aren't black but a muddy gray. The B&W conversions just look like really bad B&W prints done by someone who is clueless in the darkroom.
Post processing effects can certainly enhance a wedding presentation, but too often they are used to mask mediocre photography. Shitty photo? No problem! Just open up a can of Rad effects and no one will notice!
dmacmillan wrote:
I find it amazing that many of these looks replicate the ravages of time (fading, etc.) or what us film guys of old considered exposure and/or processing mistakes.
For instance, the muddy black effect on the photos on the linked site is easy to replicate in film, just underexpose a stop or so. That will lead to no shadow detail and blacks that aren't black but a muddy gray. The B&W conversions just look like really bad B&W prints done by someone who is clueless in the darkroom.
Post processing effects can certainly enhance a wedding presentation, but too often they are used to mask mediocre photography. Shitty photo? No problem! Just open up a can of Rad effects and no one will notice!...Show more →
Truth.
What used to be considered as bad processing is now in vogue. These sort of images are very trendy now. You can see them even here and are highly praised as film quality. It is so popular that there are a few iPhone apps that provide this finish.
It's ironic, because the reason for high end gear is to capture all the DR, sharpness, contrast and vibrant colours. Such capabilities are for naught once the images they capture go through a "vintage" present. Might as well shoot with a Rebel and kit lens.
and I dunno... I mean it kind of looks to me like someone just discovered low contrast and lightroom's "you can add color with me" gradient filters.... lots of those directional gradients all over the book.
Seems like bad form to rip another photographer's work when they didn't even ask for a critique, or for that matter have no idea they're even a topic of discussion.
Mitch W wrote:
Seems like bad form to rip another photographer's work when they didn't even ask for a critique, or for that matter have no idea they're even a topic of discussion.
It's the sharing of opinions. Pretty much no different than your statement: "bad form"
TTLKurtis wrote:
Oh please like you've never said Nikon or Canon suck, or an Apple product sucks. Or some musician sucks. Or some photographer is an idiot.
Grow up.
I've never said Nikon sucks. I use Apple. I've never said another photographer is an idiot. Although at times like this I'm tempted.
Mitch W wrote:
Seems like bad form to rip another photographer's work when they didn't even ask for a critique, or for that matter have no idea they're even a topic of discussion.
I hear what you're saying... but I dunno to what point I agree. I'm not sure that sharing one's opinion of another photographer's work (or an aspect of the work, or the text on the website) should be predicated on that photographer expressly requesting critique or having knowledge that there is some sort of discussion.
If someone posted here asking about some dual strap I might chime in saying that I've owned the cameraslingers dual straps and find the spiderholster to have a lot of advantages, for instance you're less likely to swing your camera into a kid's face while bending down to help them up. Something I've done with the cameraslingers strap. Would that be wrong because cameraslingers didn't ask me to express my opinion, and are not aware I just shared that?
I think that when you put your product out in the marketplace you lose control of the conversation from clients and from other observers. And I'm not sure why it would be ok to talk about one's perceived shortcomings of a strap but not of one's perceived shortcomings of the processing in an album.
lisy78 wrote:
I hear what you're saying... but I dunno to what point I agree. I'm not sure that sharing one's opinion of another photographer's work (or an aspect of the work, or the text on the website) should be predicated on that photographer expressly requesting critique or having knowledge that there is some sort of discussion.
If someone posted here asking about some dual strap I might chime in saying that I've owned the cameraslingers dual straps and find the spiderholster to have a lot of advantages, for instance you're less likely to swing your camera into a kid's face while bending down to help them up. Something I've done with the cameraslingers strap. Would that be wrong because cameraslingers didn't ask me to express my opinion, and are not aware I just shared that?
I think that when you put your product out in the marketplace you lose control of the conversation from clients and from other observers. And I'm not sure why it would be ok to talk about one's perceived shortcomings of a strap but not of one's perceived shortcomings of the processing in an album.
Where does the difference come in?...Show more →
If we were brides on a wedding site then I could see a conversation happening about the virtues of one photographer over another, a valuable process being used to select their wedding photographer. There would be recommendations made as well as possibly poor reviews. This is similar to your dual strap analogy.
But what we have here in this thread is more akin to spider holster going on a widely read industry blog and bashing dual straps behind their back. It has a feeling of pettiness and sour grapes.
