Everyone has their own taste. Overall my blog is nice and warm and positive in tone but for once I’ll let out the dark side and tell you which types of photographs I hate and why. Within each category there will be exceptions of course, because the first rule of photography is that there are no absolute rules except the first rule.
In no particular order then...
Bad HDR
Over 90% of HDR images are absolute rubbish. They’re flat, lacking in contrast and it often looks like someone has smeared black pixels across the highlights and mid-tones. HDR generally looks unnatural and cartoonish. It produces bland pictures with no sense of light; without mood. Everything is on display, depriving the image all quality and character. In contrast (no pun intended) non-HDR images do not give up all their secrets. The viewer is left to use their imagination, to fill in the shadowy areas and their eye is led skilfully by the photographer from one light area to another as they are seduced by the mystery and tension in the frame. Women have long understood that to preserve a little mystery makes you far more attractive. HDR photographers on the other hand believe in baring all.
Sharpness issues
I come across so many images that are unsharp. I don’t mean completely out of focus. I mean that search as you may you will not find a single area that is completely sharp in a huge number of images. Usually the cause is camera shake but sometimes it’s bad processing too where the pixels have been so messed about that they fall apart.
Of course poor focus also has to be mentioned. I see a small thumbnail on screen of a lovely portrait and open it only to be thoroughly disappointed. The photographer has focused on the tip of the subject’s nose or their ear instead of on the pupils of the subject's eyes.
Then of course you get those photographers who over-sharpen their images producing all manner of unpleasant artifacts. I suspect over-sharpening is often resorted to by photographers who are trying to compensate for unsharpness in the original. Forget it. Unsharp is unsharp. No software can match getting it right in camera in the first place.
Colour casts, heavy vignettes and effects filters
I’m all for using colour creatively but I hate ‘artistic colour casts’ applied without any rhyme or reason. Colour has meaning. It conveys emotion. So why for example take a picture of a young pretty lady and then obliterate her with a bilious green colour wash. It doesn’t make the image more interesting or artistic. Newsflash: art does not equal going mad with the hue and saturation sliders in Photoshop or applying one or other kitsch effects filter.
And please spare me from the arbitrary and random use of blur, dark vignettes, lighting effects and assorted filters which photographers apply to make their images look like anything except a photograph.
A few, a very, very few photographers can get away with using the full Photoshop and assorted plugin arsenal of effects because they ultimately create an image which has the power to move the viewer's emotions and it communicates. It is such a rare treat to discover one of these.
I also do not like the highly oversaturated images with eye popping intense colours, which would be totally unprintable. Just because you can move the colour saturation slider all the way to the right doesn't mean you have to do it!
An image file is a delicate and fragile thing. Apply auto levels, use massive curves adjustments and push contrast and brightness sliders too far at your peril. Image quality will suffer. It is always best to get the image right in camera. Besides saving image quality you also save a lot of time sitting at the computer and the ultimate frustration of producing an image which looks OK on screen but is totally unprintable in a book or magazine.
Assorted other reasons
To me every element and aspect within the frame should contribute to enhancing the image. In a way it is like a piece of music and the photographer is both the composer and the conductor, bringing everything together in way that the audience can enjoy and instantly grasp. But if the percussion instruments are not keeping time, the violins are doing their own thing and the brass section is off key – well you've just got a noise – or to transfer the metaphor back to photography a badly put together disharmonious image, unintelligible to the viewer.
In summary here is a list of comments I could make when looking at images on the internet:
- Skew horizon for no reason (sometimes it can add a dynamic element but most of the time it just looks bad)
- Poor composition
- Too far away from the subject
- Boringly photographed subject matter
- Poorly lit
- Boring light
- No clear focal point
- Underexposed
- Oversaturated
- Overexposed
- Colour cast
- Overmanipulated
- Poorly manipulated eg bad cut outs
- Oversharpened
- Bad or awkward pose
- Disturbing visual elements eg an unattractive foreground
- Camera shake
- Blurred
- Badly focused
- Cliché
- Bad make-up on the model
- Airbrushed to death – you know these portraits with plastic skin and not a single bit of skin texture left, and eyeballs as white as a ping pong ball in the sun.
- Bad vignetting and unexplainable dark patches clearly added in Photoshop.
- Texture filters and 'arty' effects
While writing this I had a chat with my wife, pro photographer Magda Indigo and she made an interesting observation. She said that it seemed like a lot of photographers were trying to make their images look like paintings while at the same time there are painters who try to make their paintings look like photographs. What's that all about?
In this day and age of digital photography it has never been easier to produce a technically perfect picture. Why not aim for pure photographic quality? It's far harder to achieve than taking a mediocre snapshot and messing around with it in a software program. The true art of using image manipulation programs is knowing when to stop. I wonder how many really good photographs are currently buried under a ton of software filters and effects.
There I've said it.
Cheers,
Paul
www.indigo2photography.co.uk
Follow me on twitter
My blog with tips, advice, analysis and stories.
Comments
Cheers,
Paul
I think some of the issues you mention are part of the learning curve when one starts to take photographs. I know I have been ‘guilty’ on several of them.
Not only do we have to learn the technical aspects of the art of photographing, but one has to also learn to ‘see’ differently and develop the skills on how to see in our minds how the photograph will turn out before we click.
Many a time I thought I took OK photos only to find out that there are disturbing elements in the foreground or background. My mind was so focussed on the subject I didn’t ‘see’ the overall picture. Taking pictures the old-fashioned way (analog) has forced me to think a lot more before I click – also the fact that there are only 36 takes on one roll has helped me a lot. We have to learn to see the difference in ‘this is a beautiful subject’ to ‘this is a beautiful photograph’. It takes a while to develop that skill.
Photographing is not just clicking and posting but there are so many different aspects of it, and they all have to become natural in the process flow, from the moment we take our cameras in hand to the moment we post the photographs, or print them.
Photoshop, although a wonderful tool, has to be learned thoroughly in order not to mess up the images by overly manipulating them. And a bad photograph will remain a bad photograph, no matter how much one manipulates them in Photoshop. That too I had to learn – throw away the crap photos and just keep the better ones.
Another big problem (for me anyway) has been (and is) the correct calibration of my equipment which can ruin photographs posted on the net. Again, now I have learned to calibrate regularly and properly in order to avoid these problems.
The good thing about the overly processed HDR photographs is that it is a fad right now so these will go away in a while :-).
The thing with many photo sites is that there are not many people who dare to give honest critiques – so one ends up with lots of ‘oohs and aahs’ but not many people will give an honest critique on the –sometimes obvious- faults on an image. How will we ever learn how to do better if nobody brings our attention to the aspects which are wrong in an image ? Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t think that way and get offended sometimes resulting in retaliatory critiques and even bullying.
Thanks much for this post and your previous posts – we do learn by reading them !
Have a great weekend,
M
I always enjoy reading your blog entries as they are so well written and thoughtful. I particularly like this entry because it is so true.
I totally dislike HDR images (though I have found a few people who seem to do it without all of the plastic feel of some HDR) and the fact that these images seem to get all of the attention...
As for the other items on your list, I also agree though I think that there are some exceptions. I have seen people use some of the PhotoShop functionalities very effectively to create artistic image but you are right that one needs to know when to stop.
Thanks for this great entry...always makes one think and improve their own look at photography.
Suzanne
Agree with you, many photographers thinks about a "art of noise" , a normal exposed photo instead! As result, we can see a
"artistic filters" work, "much more CRAZY colors", "fantastic sharpening" "overdetailed" , dead works.
Finally, a new game for the "technophiles" are exist now - HDR!
And What we can see at the finish?
FLAT and Lifeless works, "cracking" saturated, poor colors, no space, no Life!
You have the best camera already (your eyes), take a look at your subject first, go around it, take pictures with your eyes, then use your imagination on how you're seeing the final photo, if Photoshop is needed for it FINE, but you need to use it in the right way not in the "crazy beginner" way. Then use your brain to get the best out of your camera by knowing all the technical things about it.
Like I said, I don't mind photoshopping, but only when an imagination requires it.
And as for post-processing. How can you make something good if your raw materials are poor (if you'll pardon the pun). An old English idiom also springs to mind. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Cheers,
Paul
But for me it is a phase in the process of learning new techniques, so I unintencionally overdo it the first few times until I find what I think is the right balance.
That's the hardest part I think, find the right balance between a picture that is better than the original but not yet overcooked.
My article isn't aimed at any specific individual but if someone reads it and then finds fault in their own work, then they have made that judgment. They have come to a realisation and if that realisation niggles away at their consciousness then maybe it is because it's the truth.
People always can choose to take advice or leave it. Actually I wasn't really trying to give advice here, just expressing my personal feelings.
We're all learning every day. It can be a painful process at times and at other times when you see a big improvement in your work you get the best buzz ever. To use Joe McNally's term, The Moment it Clicks.
I'm not knocking amateurs and beginners. I'm just providing a few sign-posts that may be helpful to those who genuinely want to improve their photography.
Cheers,
Paul
The thing is with HDR and you don't mention that, it that 99% of the HDR pictures use automated software and especially the process of tonemapping is fully automated.
It's like putting your camera on 'auto' but not only that. It's also like the camera chooses the subject itself. That hardly could be a good shot, because the photographer almost doesn't count.
That's my feeling about HDR in the sense most people use it. And ofcourse most images loose al their depth and secrecy. A computer can't be selective in an aesthetic/emotional level. So it treats every part of the shot the same.
All colours and contrasts are levelled in almost all HDR photos. While they normally would signal depth they all become shallow.
A lot of the HDR shots remind me of Bob Ross or even worse.. those 'paintings' with those moving waterfalls and stuff.
Don't know what they are called.. but I googled an image
http://fotos.marktplaats.com/kopen/0/aa/o7yR8YGTbB5wZdJB5dl+pQ==.jpg
sorry for my horrible English.
I used to edit my photos and when I look back on them, I feel only self-contempt. Now I don't even touch my photos except the brightness/contrast as a last resort (not a very good choice though).
Found this blog via Flickr btw. :)
The principle I work to is that composition, use of light, subject matter – everything – including any Photoshop work, should all compliment the subject matter to enhance the emotion, communication and visual unity of the image.
There are photographers who use loads of Photoshop effects and their images are wonderful because the manipulation they apply suits the subject matter and enhances it. I find their work awesome. I have a friend who does amazing surreal stuff and I really like his work because it all hangs together – there’s unity and a powerful emotion.
Ultimately I would like this article to encourage people who use HDR and Photoshop effects to improve their technique and make sure that what they do suits their subject.
However as a matter of personal preference, taste, choice, whatever you want to call it, I usually prefer photographs that look like, well … photographs.
As an amateur, I felt identified with some of the "sins" you enumerated in the article. One of the problems for people like me, that didn't have any formal education in the art of photography, is that we tend to achieve the quality or the vision of a lot of photographer we admire...too fast.
Since I uploaded my first picture, almost 2 years ago, I "used" Flickr as the media to self-educate, to know about composition, to find inspiration, and to receive critical comments.
The last months I'm trying to focus in subject, emotions, an a theme ... and to use PS only to compensate the lack of equipment (I know, I know Paul, is not enough excuse for bad shots) and like a sort of dark room to correct levels or exposition.
It's always wellcome read an article like yours. For me is time to thinking about me as photographer, not a graphical editor, and that is why I appreciate the concepts and views of your blog.
I am not a photographer and sometimes I just play (as much as I can) with my photos :)