Do you beleive in anyone's photos anymore???

Just wondering if others believe anybody's pictures anymore to be a depiction of anything close to reality anymore?..  Not just here on this site...everywhere ....all and any source perhaps. Often I see an image and it looks great, but after a minute of study I'm still looking for that reality connection and it never comes...seems like everything is a fantasy anymore...

Is this a problem??  Maybe I'm just in a mood I guess....But images have just lost a lot of value for me because when I look at most they have no connection in my mind to anything I have actually ever seen because of the "embellishments" bestowed in PS.

Is anyone else going through this or am I just not getting something...??


Paul

My apologies if this topic is too uncomfortable to talk about....

Or maybe I got the cooties or something....

I don't believe anything anymore unless I see it with my own eyes, and even then, my eyes aren't as young as they were.

I can't believe anyone cannot even believe any photograph that he or she himself took

How you interpret the images or even anything that happens in front of your own eyes also depends on your belief.

I can certainly understand your concern, Paul. The ever increasing power of Photoshop and the ever growing ability to use it may prove to be too much of a temptation for many to resist. Plus, let's admit this, it is fun! These days processing a photo can almost be like creating a painting. Ansel Adams was a dark room wizard, and it's hard not to wonder what he'd make of today's digital tools.

Your "fantasy" description is on the money, however. Many web photos, especially landscapes, appear to be Lord of the Ring illustrations these days. I rarely give them a second glance, and I'll bet most seasoned photographer do the same. The history of photography is full of trends that have come and gone. This fantasy thing will eventually run its course. Let's just hope that whatever replaces it won't be even worse.

Phil Shaw wrote:I don't believe anything anymore unless I see it with my own eyes, and even then, my eyes aren't as young as they were.

Depends - I tend to believe a 'technically taken perfect' photo.  My heart likes to believe a creative photo. I don't worry about it. that is why Paul... I appreciate your signature: "A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

Tom Robbins wrote:I can certainly understand your concern, Paul. The ever increasing power of Photoshop and the ever growing ability to use it may prove to be too much of a temptation for many to resist. Plus, let's admit this, it is fun! These days processing a photo can almost be like creating a painting. Ansel Adams was a dark room wizard, and it's hard not to wonder what he'd make of today's digital tools.

Your "fantasy" description is on the money, however. Many web photos, especially landscapes, appear to be Lord of the Ring illustrations these days. I rarely give them a second glance, and I'll bet most seasoned photographer do the same. The history of photography is full of trends that have come and gone. This fantasy thing will eventually run its course. Let's just hope that whatever replaces it won't be even worse.

Tom I think you nailed down some important points.. I'm the same way on a lot of the landscapes I see and have a same reaction as you said....

And I am as guilty as anyone...some pictures  I do very little and some I do a lot.. I don't falsify like compositing, IOW making a visual statement that never happened, but sometimes I embellish quite liberally...Your so right Tom it is a lot of fun..


But what I do and what others do exactly is one thing....It's what does anyone believe anymore?? Would an honest picture survive anymore or would it be like a breath of fresh air???

I can't say it enough though...or think it enough...there is a disconnect in my mind that won't allow me to establish a relationship against what my instincts and learned visual experiences tell me are real. As Phil says its about our eyes only...

When I was young I believed almost all pictures. I could view and accept and be affected by them...Now I'm finding myself trying to bypass what is there that does not pass the believabllity test in my brain and see what truth might be hidden underneath all the makeup just to see if there is any reality there at all. It's like being drunk and finding out what she really looks like in the morning. Or something to that effect.....

Thanks for speaking up Tom...honesty I just kept thinking I'm a dinosaur or something...

Paul

DChan wrote:I can't believe anyone cannot even believe any photograph that he or she himself took

How you interpret the images or even anything that happens in front of your own eyes also depends on your belief.

I don't know about this one Mr Chan... I mean I get your point and all, but don't you think all these cooked images are loosing us??  Like we are loosing the subtleties of life or at least the visual world....

In fashion photography for one example there is more nip and tuck going on than at a plastic surgeons convention...

Travel photographers change all the furniture and trees around and disguise the drought with vibrant green added to the burnt out  brown grass....

Are anybodies sunset images the real thing anymore??  Has anyone seen rainbows as vivid as the ones depicted in many a landscape image??

Would a real picture be boring ....I mean nowadays ...a time when all  images are way over  the top???  Maybe not anymore....


Tom brought up Ansel Adams and I thought about this.. Adam's images were certainly  manipulated,  but everyone knew it and those images he made were considered artistic renditions from the start. After all they were B&W too...a familiar look to all the other artistic photographers of the day so it connected in peoples minds as art not intent to portray reality...

And that's what I'm trying to get at, or find out, if I'm alone on this....Do we believe what we see in pictures today or are we having to sort it out before we can accept them? Why should the viewer have to sort it out..? I should clarify I'm speaking of images that imply or present themselves as an image of reality, I wouldn't be speaking of images everyone in the world knows is some digital art or special effects right off the bat....and then accepts the image on that basis..

Paul

Eia wrote:Depends - I tend to believe a 'technically taken perfect' photo.  My heart likes to believe a creative photo. I don't worry about it. that is why Paul... I appreciate your signature: "A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

My signature does say that doesn't it...

Well ....when I wrote that .....I was thinking more in line with good composition. Things like balance, entrance and exit points, leading lines, lighting for mood and texture, element attraction and power, dead space and so on.. Somehow in my mind I can't equate or reconcile good compositional technique  with falsifying how things actually looked. Certainly some things need to be a genuine representation at least in a range of some believability.  Hate saying this stuff as it's such a quicksand pit discussing it...but that was my thinking behind the signature

Eia...I guess my bottom line point is I don't believe images anymore. I know there is some reality in them somewhere, but my brain is forced to have to sort it out and throw out what looks fake, maybe gaudy and tacky even, and keep what  I know is real....Why this then bothers me is the image as an art form and document gets watered down so to speak and becomes not so special....


Paul

pleverington wrote:

Eia wrote:Depends - I tend to believe a 'technically taken perfect' photo.  My heart likes to believe a creative photo. I don't worry about it. that is why Paul... I appreciate your signature: "A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

My signature does say that doesn't it...

Well ....when I wrote that .....I was thinking more in line with good composition. Things like balance, entrance and exit points, leading lines, lighting for mood and texture, element attraction and power, dead space and so on.. Somehow in my mind and can't equate or reconcile good compositional technique  with falsifying how things actually looked. Certainly some things need to be a genuine representation at least in a range of some believabilty. Hate saying this stuff as it's such a quicksand pit discussing it...but that was my thinking behind the signature

Eia...I guess my bottom line point is I don't believe images anymore. I know there is some reality in them somewhere, but my brain is forced to have to sort it out and throw out what looks fake, maybe gaudy and tacky even, and keep what  I know is real....Why this then bothers me is the image as an art form and document gets watered down so to speak and becomes not so special....


Paul

Oh I totally understand where you are coming from. I think there will always be a need for photos that you is believable.... I think we have to have them and we want to have them. Good points you made. Now I can be confident your photos are believable

Paul I'm going to take a different view of this topic as it relates to landscapes.
I think most any landscape photograph falls short of depicting the landscape "realistically" for many reasons not the least of which is that the photographer is trying to represent a 3 dimensional world in a 2 dimensional medium. Add to that the dramatic influence the choice of lens has on the way the resulting image is depicted and you have already departed dramatically from "reality" whatever that is. So we first need to acknowledge that even the most "realistic" photograph is a major departure from the scene the photographer witnessed. Then you have to factor in the way light influences the landscape e,g, time of day, cloud cover or lack of it, atmospherics - clear or fog or haze to name some of the more influential things that affect what we see when viewing a landscape.
Look at an Ansel Adams' print.
Is it more or less "believable" than today's Photoshopped images?
Is it more believable because it's B&W?
When you look at the original negative of an Ansel Adams' is it recognizable as the print coming directly from it?
By in large Ansel was doing the same thing (perhaps with greater insight and artistic ability), that today's photographers are attempting to do with Photoshop.
That is, controlling the the light, contrast and saturation to bring out some idealized vision of the scene they photographed. In my opinion many of today's photographers fall short of that goal because they have "overcooked" the enhancements. Many seem to feel if a little increase in saturation benefits the image then a significant increase should as well. You and I would probably agree that this is not generally true. Then bring to bear HDR which can benefit many an image with great dynamic range but in far too many cases HDR is overdone and the "grunge look" is thought to be the salvation of a so so image. However HDR when done with restraint and used to tame a blazing sun I find quite pleasing at times. I also find that when contrast is used to enhance an image the way that Ansel and Clyde Butcher have used it to make an ordinary image (from a tonal perspective) look extraordinary, I admire it and try to emulate its look.
To sum up I don't look at these images as being "believable" or "not believable".
I look at a landscape image and say was the photographer successful?
Was he a master of his tools?
Is his interpretation of the landscape believable, not in the truthful sense but artistic sense.
Is this an artistic interpretation I can believe, I don't care if it's "realistic" or "not realistic" it just has to be good.

I hear film is coming back, like vinyl.

Seriously, I have editors demanding HDR processing as it sells more images. I don't agree, It's why I now often shoot landscapes in jpg on my IPhone. Minimal processing and some look great.

I posted this on the 'million dollar potato' thread but I think it works here as well. Please mods delete if not.

----------------------------------------

I found this article titled "What's Your Potato?"  I think it reflects a few other threads posted lately - you can read it in it's entirety here: http://davidduchemin.com/2016/01/whats-your-potato/

--------------------

Some of us will take umbrage with this and write articles -usually on Facebook where academic rigour and common sense resonate less than volume – about how photographers on Craigslist are undercutting us all and how we can’t photograph a wedding for what the market will pay because our gear, our studio, our insurance, and our time, cost so much money and how we need to feed our kids and take the cat to the vet and you know what? All those arguments are true.
But nobody cares.  Nor is it their business to care.

Your clients don’t care how much your gear cost. They don’t care what your bills are. They don’t care if you go bankrupt. Those things are not their concerns nor should they be. And it’s not the responsibility of the young photographer down the block doing sessions for $50 so she can cut her teeth on this craft, to plug the holes in your faulty, out of date, business model.

Your clients, if they are to be your clients, care about the things they care about. The default mode of photographers is to try to convince the market to care about things we think that market should care about. Our default mode is a defensive position. Instead we should be listening.
Why aren’t people paying you $10,000 for your wedding photography? There are probably two reasons. The first is that they don’t value photography the way you do. You’re trying to sell them a Rolex and they’re very happy with their Timex. The second is that you haven’t found something they value more than the $10,000 you’re asking them to part with. In short, you have no potato. Find out what they want. And then connect that, if there’s a connection to be had, with what you do well.

Earlier this month Vogue told readers that among the things a modern bride and groom can do without is a professional photographer. Photographers rushed to the ramparts with flaming arrows to defend the castle. And some of what got said in defence of vocational photography was the undeniable triple truth. But. The one question I don’t see photographers asking, because that article was a profound opportunity to better understand that market, is “what can we learn from this?” Or more to the point, “what does my market or potential market value, and how can I change what I do, and how I do it, to give them that value?” The first ones to re-jig their business based on the never-ending re-mixing of what we are good at and what others want, will win. The last ones out of the gate, because they’re too busy defending what “ought” to be, and what markets “should” value, will lose. They will lose the attention of their markets because they don’t listen to them. How could they? They’re too busy trying to sell them something they don’t want. The question for the open-minded should not be “how many ways is Vogue magazine wrong about this?” The question should be, “what if they’re right?”

Is a photograph of a potato worth a million dollars? That’s not for you or me to decide, ultimately. It’s for the buyer. But I guarantee the photographer, in this case it was Kevin Abosch, a photographer who also charges up to $500,000 to make headshot of people like Johnny Depp, didn’t make his case by telling the buyer how much his cameras cost, and looking nervously over his shoulders for a Craigslist photographer who has a photograph of a yam for sale for $50.

We should be inspired by Kevin Abosch, however absurd we consider his photograph. It should give us hope. It should light a fire under our ass. It should make us take stock. And it should make us ask long, hard questions about our audience and what they find valuable. But it’s easier to mock. It’s easier to huddle together and snicker. Much harder to, instead, go looking for your own potato. Much harder – because this wasn’t Abosch’s first potato photograph – to keep photographing that thing over and over and over until someone bites. It’s much harder to do the work. To study branding and marketing, to fail, and reinvent yourself when the market changes as it most certainly has over the last few years.

To be blunt, in the most loving, friendly way I can, because this sermon, like most of the sermons I preach, is first aimed at myself – the world owes us nothing. And as more and more talented photographers jump in the pool the laws of supply and demand will mean there’s more supply, less demand, and for the commodity that is most abundant, the value will drop. So we – you and I – sure as stuff better have something more than a mere commodity to offer. It’s hard as nails to make a living by charging for something others will gladly do for free.

What’s your potato? And who wants it? If you can’t get past the fact that it’s “just a photograph of a potato” then you understand exactly how much of the market feels about your work. About my work. And until you understand the value you offer, and understand that value is entirely in the eyes of the buyer, your only position will be a defensive one. The question is never “how much are these photographs, or my ability to make them, worth?” The question is always, always: “does my audience see value in what I make?” I will know the answer not by how loudly I proclaim my worth (and you must also believe in that), but by how much time, attention, and money, your market or audience, is willing to trade for it.

Unless a photo is taken with a 43mm lens (on 135 format or the equivalent field of view on another format size) it is not a depiction of reality as the human eye sees it (at least not until we start moving our head and eyes around). So if you do nothing to the photo, it still isn't a depiction of reality. And even if you took every photo with a 43mm lens, since no sensor can recreate the dynamic range of human eye sight, no photo is EVER a depiction of reality as the human eye sees it...

Personally, I strive to render the final photograph as my eye saw it from a color and dynamic range standpoint and use whatever photographic or Photoshop techniques are necessary to achieve that goal. I do not try to render every photograph with the perspective that the human eye sees it with unless I happen to land on 43mm as the right focal length for the shot. Since the human eye can focus in and out and close down the pupil or open it and integrate all of that information into a single picture any focal length and/or exposure or combination of exposures to bring an aesthetically pleasing scene that depicts the area as pleasing as possible without changing the basic tone and color that I saw is what I will do. But the end product is as good and accurate of a depiction of how I interpreted the scene at the time is what I strive for.

When have pictures every represented reality? To me they haven't since I stopped believing the myth that "as picture is worth a thousand words".

Just for fun I'll go the other direction and offer this ... I really don't care what equipment you used or how you took the image or what you did or didn't do in processing. I will admit that I'm not a fan of replacing backgrounds or composite images unless that fact is divulged but beyond that I'm pretty easy. What I want to see is an interesting image, an image that makes me pause and want to look at it, look for the story within the image and admire it and hopefully come back to it and have another look. I view photography, across the spectrum, as an interpretive art with wildlife, landscape etc etc as the reality upon which to build that interpretation. Every photo we take and post is an altered reality from the manipulation of dof, to bird set ups, to fill flash, to selective sharpening and cloning and the list goes on and on .... just a different view on the subject.

Eia wrote:I posted this on the 'million dollar potato' thread but I think it works here as well. Please mods delete if not.

----------------------------------------

I found this article titled "What's Your Potato?"  I think it reflects a few other threads posted lately - you can read it in it's entirety here: http://davidduchemin.com/2016/01/whats-your-potato/

--------------------

Some of us will take umbrage with this and write articles -usually on Facebook where academic rigour and common sense resonate less than volume – about how photographers on Craigslist are undercutting us all and how we can’t photograph a wedding for what the market will pay because our gear, our studio, our insurance, and our time, cost so much money and how we need to feed our kids and take the cat to the vet and you know what? All those arguments are true.
But nobody cares.  Nor is it their business to care.

Your clients don’t care how much your gear cost. They don’t care what your bills are. They don’t care if you go bankrupt. Those things are not their concerns nor should they be. And it’s not the responsibility of the young photographer down the block doing sessions for $50 so she can cut her teeth on this craft, to plug the holes in your faulty, out of date, business model.

Your clients, if they are to be your clients, care about the things they care about. The default mode of photographers is to try to convince the market to care about things we think that market should care about. Our default mode is a defensive position. Instead we should be listening.
Why aren’t people paying you $10,000 for your wedding photography? There are probably two reasons. The first is that they don’t value photography the way you do. You’re trying to sell them a Rolex and they’re very happy with their Timex. The second is that you haven’t found something they value more than the $10,000 you’re asking them to part with. In short, you have no potato. Find out what they want. And then connect that, if there’s a connection to be had, with what you do well.

Earlier this month Vogue told readers that among the things a modern bride and groom can do without is a professional photographer. Photographers rushed to the ramparts with flaming arrows to defend the castle. And some of what got said in defence of vocational photography was the undeniable triple truth. But. The one question I don’t see photographers asking, because that article was a profound opportunity to better understand that market, is “what can we learn from this?” Or more to the point, “what does my market or potential market value, and how can I change what I do, and how I do it, to give them that value?” The first ones to re-jig their business based on the never-ending re-mixing of what we are good at and what others want, will win. The last ones out of the gate, because they’re too busy defending what “ought” to be, and what markets “should” value, will lose. They will lose the attention of their markets because they don’t listen to them. How could they? They’re too busy trying to sell them something they don’t want. The question for the open-minded should not be “how many ways is Vogue magazine wrong about this?” The question should be, “what if they’re right?”

Is a photograph of a potato worth a million dollars? That’s not for you or me to decide, ultimately. It’s for the buyer. But I guarantee the photographer, in this case it was Kevin Abosch, a photographer who also charges up to $500,000 to make headshot of people like Johnny Depp, didn’t make his case by telling the buyer how much his cameras cost, and looking nervously over his shoulders for a Craigslist photographer who has a photograph of a yam for sale for $50.

We should be inspired by Kevin Abosch, however absurd we consider his photograph. It should give us hope. It should light a fire under our ass. It should make us take stock. And it should make us ask long, hard questions about our audience and what they find valuable. But it’s easier to mock. It’s easier to huddle together and snicker. Much harder to, instead, go looking for your own potato. Much harder – because this wasn’t Abosch’s first potato photograph – to keep photographing that thing over and over and over until someone bites. It’s much harder to do the work. To study branding and marketing, to fail, and reinvent yourself when the market changes as it most certainly has over the last few years.

To be blunt, in the most loving, friendly way I can, because this sermon, like most of the sermons I preach, is first aimed at myself – the world owes us nothing. And as more and more talented photographers jump in the pool the laws of supply and demand will mean there’s more supply, less demand, and for the commodity that is most abundant, the value will drop. So we – you and I – sure as stuff better have something more than a mere commodity to offer. It’s hard as nails to make a living by charging for something others will gladly do for free.

What’s your potato? And who wants it? If you can’t get past the fact that it’s “just a photograph of a potato” then you understand exactly how much of the market feels about your work. About my work. And until you understand the value you offer, and understand that value is entirely in the eyes of the buyer, your only position will be a defensive one. The question is never “how much are these photographs, or my ability to make them, worth?” The question is always, always: “does my audience see value in what I make?” I will know the answer not by how loudly I proclaim my worth (and you must also believe in that), but by how much time, attention, and money, your market or audience, is willing to trade for it.

Wow Anna you put some thought down on that.. I hadn't thought to go that far into the process I guess as far as what's going to sell and all. For a few this is of course the end game and I understand that. Surely a different kettle of fish from the many of us say here at this site who are looking not necessarily to make a living at it or even sell that much, but to get out in the field enjoying the day and bringing home some wonderful memories for ourselves and to share with friends....

I don't always express things well enough, but maybe I could do this one:

Say you have a beautiful sunset image over a beautiful harbor. It's a natural scene.. And our minds are very accustomed to natural scenes. Anyways you bring it back home put it in PS and as most do, start adding the saturation and maybe changing color to, contrast for depth, and so on... Well you probably, like most, will take the sliders up to a point where you'll say...no...that looks fake...it's too much...but if I back it down a bit I don't think anyone will know that it wasn't just as I saw it.  Now if that person pushes the sliders way up past any resemblance of being realistic then everyone is fine because they all completely accept the image as art, or special effects, or craziness...Everyone is fine with that just like they were fine with that with Ansel Adams...We know your doing things for effect and it looks exciting and it's ok. But the image that does not cross over to the wild side and tries to imply to the rest of the world "You just have no clue of what you missing because just look at the sunset and how incredible the colors and intensity were". Or look at that rainbow...you could cut it with a knife it looks that thick.

My question and I want to get back to that.... is just an academic one. Do you believe any digital image anymore?

*I wouldn't like the thread to wander into what this person does or what that person does or what I do. We all do it......
*I'm not saying juiced up images don't sell...a part of that is visual impact and PS is great for that...
*I'm not making or implying any sort of judgements
* I'm not talking about HDR images and others that of course everyone knows are not reality, but an accepted artistic technique.
* I'm not saying there is even a problem.... maybe we can keep on going with the sliders past reality and since everyone sees it constantly everywhere in their lives, their minds will adjust and do it's own editing.

My question is very simply do you and others believe what you seeing is an actual depiction of the truth anymore, as we could rely more or less on during film days maybe say, or do all of you know they are jazzed up and fake, yet purport to be in fact reality presentations.

The whole reason I ask is doesn't the fact we know they are augments then diminish their value and emotional impact. I guess visual impact is greater, but the connect in the mind to what we know is how the natural world really looks isn't there.

And with fantastic composition and a great subject do we really need all the makeup??

Anna don't worry I'm not loosing sleep over it but maybe we are shooting ourselves in the foot is what I feel..


Appreciate the insights on value and marketing....


Paul

pleverington wrote: My question is very simply do you and others believe what you seeing is an actual depiction of the truth anymore,

No I don't, and I could care less. Photography is Art, and Art is freedom of expression. There are no rules and everyone should be free to explore their own vision of Art as they see fit, without people placing rules or limitations upon them.

In the film days Velvia was a favourite of many it saturated the colours beyond reality people loved it, whats the difference between that and digital saturation neither is reality?
Just to throw something else into the mix