p.1 #1 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
Okay, FM Friends! I want to run something by all of you!
We've all seen the new fad on display in the last number of months: "Vintage" as it has been referred to here, on the forum, or images "toned," sometimes with colors that traditionally, might not be selected for portraits:
Mixtures of greens, blues, purple, reds, and any number of others.
The objective of this exercise is to determine if you feel a particular photo is improved but the application of "Vintage" filters in post or if a more traditional post processing treatment is preferable for the posted image.
The rules of the game:
- For the purposes of this exercise assume the crop, composition, model, pose, expression and wardrobe are perfect--we want to focus on the post-processing.
- Compare the three photos below and if you wish, articulate why you like or dislike the post-processing by commenting--keeping in mind the objective.
- Vote in the poll to select the version of the photo you like best (if any).
p.1 #6 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
#1 all the way. I think for some things vintage works, but call me a tradionalist when I say that those times are often portraits of traditional things (reenactments, trains, old bridges) and not just straight up portraits.
p.1 #7 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
hatch1921 wrote:
#1 25 years from now... would you want to view a nice clear/crisp shot or something with special effects? Some trends are nice... but...
p.1 #9 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
xerofun wrote:
#1 all the way. I think for some things vintage works, but call me a tradionalist when I say that those times are often portraits of traditional things (reenactments, trains, old bridges) and not just straight up portraits.
p.1 #12 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
Given the options, I would choose #1.
I use vsco myself, and it looks like you applied vsco std profiles on top of your processed image? If you did, the largest tool in vsco is in the profiles. Create a virtual copy in LR and start from scratch in LR with vsco and then do your photoshop work.
p.1 #13 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
Although I am pretty much a purist, therefore #1 is obviously my choice I feel that 2 is also nice and has it's place. #3, in my opinion has too much texture and is distracting. When I am viewing actual vintage photos I find that my mind is often times trying to correct them. When I scan images for restoration my goal is to clean them up as much as possible and then correct as much of the aging/deterioration process as possible...... so..... having said that now let me say 1 more thing. If I have a client that wants a vintage (lets say pin-up) image and we set the scene and create the image and a vintage look fits the image well, I still prefer 2 but would be open to trying more radical approaches. Thanks for the excercise!
Stuart
p.1 #14 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
SloPhoto wrote:
Given the options, I would choose #1.
I use vsco myself, and it looks like you applied vsco std profiles on top of your processed image? If you did, the largest tool in vsco is in the profiles. Create a virtual copy in LR and start from scratch in LR with vsco and then do your photoshop work.
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate your experienced opinion. That certainly adds to this experiment. I understand your point that there may be some difference in end result using the VSCO profile on the unprocessed raw file.
However! I think that there is a distinct difference between what I'm doing here and than those that post only the final processed, "Vintage", images, that needs to be highlighted:
- In this experiment, I'm allowing the participants, to see the before "normal" image and two possible, after versions, for side-by-side comparison (in effect). Thus allowing the participant to choose in real-time which image looks best given the subject matter in the image.
- In most cases, someone that posts "Vintage" processed images only shows the final version of the image and does not allow viewers to choose between a before and after version. I suspect this fact is significant to this test.
Now...I'm trying not to skew the experiment with too much of my own opinion--at this point. I intend to add some final thoughts to this thread after this thread has gone cold.
p.1 #15 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
pepperman wrote:
Although I am pretty much a purist, therefore #1 is obviously my choice I feel that 2 is also nice and has it's place. #3, in my opinion has too much texture and is distracting. When I am viewing actual vintage photos I find that my mind is often times trying to correct them. When I scan images for restoration my goal is to clean them up as much as possible and then correct as much of the aging/deterioration process as possible...... so..... having said that now let me say 1 more thing. If I have a client that wants a vintage (lets say pin-up) image and we set the scene and create the image and a vintage look fits the image well, I still prefer 2 but would be open to trying more radical approaches. Thanks for the excercise!
Stuart ...Show more →
Thanks very much, Stuart! I had hoped to get real, experienced opinions like yours!
p.1 #16 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
bruce13turner wrote:
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate your experienced opinion. That certainly adds to this experiment. I understand your point that there may be some difference in end result using the VSCO profile on the unprocessed raw file.
However! I think that there is a distinct difference between what I'm doing here and than those that post only the final processed, "Vintage", images, that needs to be highlighted:
- In this experiment, I'm allowing the participants, to see the before "normal" image and two possible, after versions, for side-by-side comparison (in effect). Thus allowing the participant to choose in real-time which image looks best given the subject matter in the image.
- In most cases, someone that posts "Vintage" processed images only shows the final version of the image and does not allow viewers to choose between a before and after version. I suspect this fact is significant to this test.
Now...I'm trying not to skew the experiment with too much of my own opinion--at this point. I intend to add some final thoughts to this thread after this thread has gone cold.
What I was saying was more that the third sample was a bad example of a film-like processing. Had #3 been better processed, I likely would have picked it.
Without the profiles, VSCO would be useless to me.
p.1 #17 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
SloPhoto wrote:
What I was saying was more that the third sample was a bad example of a film-like processing. Had #3 been better processed, I likely would have picked it.
Without the profiles, VSCO would be useless to me.
Don't worry, the point wasn't lost on me--I just think my point about the side-by-side comparison is also valid and likely meaningful to this test. Besides, standing on its own, I don't think the VSCO sample above is *that* bad.
Why don't you post a photo showing a before and after that illustrates your point. I think that would be very informative and in context.
p.1 #18 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
I certainly don't have the experience many others here have but my visceral inclination is to number 2. I like that softened looked. I think its just a little more sexy as opposed to the more contrasty no. 1 which is also nice, but side by side not as appealing as number 2.
I think having less experience enables me to answer more from the gut than what my expectations might be if i had more technical experience. It might be a fad now, but it seems to be a reasonable one because it just looks so nice.
p.1 #19 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
In 20 years number one will considered vintage, and maybe people will be trying to recreate the old timey digital look from the 2010s.....before everything became a 3D hologram with smell-o-vision.
p.1 #20 · Testing A New Fad...Our Subject:Beautiful Kaitlin
sidefunk wrote:
I certainly don't have the experience many others here have but my visceral inclination is to number 2. I like that softened looked. I think its just a little more sexy as opposed to the more contrasty no. 1 which is also nice, but side by side not as appealing as number 2.
I think having less experience enables me to answer more from the gut than what my expectations might be if i had more technical experience. It might be a fad now, but it seems to be a reasonable one because it just looks so nice.
Very good observation!
I like your description of a "visceral inclination." I think that's certainly the way the customer or subject of the image gauges whether an image is good or bad.
