Creative Filters: To Use, or Not to Use?

[Derrel]

Brilliantly-stated, Buckster! Concise, and to the point. I wish I wrote that way more often.

And as an aside, I have some VERY nice, all-wooden, 1890's-era soap boxes for rent, at just $10 a day. PM me for details about rental, or even leasing...

 

[Buckster]

I think a big reason you see a rejection of them, is just like with HDR, people overuse them without regard. A bunch of kids started applying them to every picture they took, beyond just selfies, and the concept leaked into real photography. Now we see them being applied to every sort of image, from landscapes, to foodscapes, to cat pictures.

I have nothing against technology or techniques. I have things against making your pictures look amateurish for no reason but to use technology or techniques. I mean have the instagram filters out there are just age old photo-processing techniques.

In my opinion, there was no benefit to using the filter on the image above--It just doesn't match the image. Does that mean never use them? no, but use them wisely. The filter above added heavy vignette, overexposed the girl, and added a yellow color cast, as well as going as far as adding a fake sun bleached edge and made her legs look nasty--almost hairy.

I could see the image benefiting from some filters/processing/chopping, just not the one as is.

So, basically, people should only do what appeals to YOUR taste, or it's wrong, and they shouldn't be doing it.

That pretty much sum it up?

 

[DavidVote]

here's a reallllly good essay. If you look in the photo dictionary under "incredible A-hole" there's an entry for Ansel Adams. Adams was the man who waged a multi-decade war to smear William Mortensen, one of the most-respected Pictorialist photographers in America by the 1930's. Mortensen was one of the best practitioners of a style known as Pictorialism, a style that featured a lot of less-than-sharp images, images with oftentimes a LOT of manipulation done on the negatives, and or the prnts, to make interpretive, artistic, sensitive photographs. Pictorialism was a style of photography that lasted around 50 years, give or take; it was Ansel Adams, and a small HANDFUL of other people who formed the f/64 group. These A-holes decreed that only SHARP, all-in-focus, B&W images done in the style known as straight photography, were the only kinds of serious photography that was worthy of producing and including in museums. Everything else was "crap", or worse.

Monsters and Madonnas Looking at William Mortensen - 50 Watts

Ansel Adams and the influence of the f/64 Group, the straight photography crowd, still holds a lot of sway among people who are not open to any new ways of thinking about photography. Narrow-minded thinking about "how a photo ought to look" has a long tradition among people who follow the ideals set forth by a small handful of photographers and curators and taste-makers who made their fame before WW II. Today we are confroning the SAME, exact issue: the battle of creative freedom and individualized treatment for each image as espoused by the Pictorialist school of practitioners, and a narrow-minded, very rigid, limited straight or "pure" dogma that Adams and his acolytes bitched and moaned about. We're on the brink of another era, just like when Pictorialism was squashed by influential people who had the ear of the museum curators, and the book publishers, and so on. The pendulum has made its long, slow swing, and now we are headed back, repeating history, but sort of in-reverse.

We see the same, exact type of reactionary thinking today, as old-fashioned thinkers raised on the straight photography premises often seek to condemn new ways of imaging that do not follow the basic ideas of keeping things "pure"...whatever the hell "pure" means at this point in time. There's a great lesson of history in the above essay, and in seeing how boring and clone-like the work of the Zone System fanboys came to be once their dogma spread to basically, the majority of photography practitioners.

Speaking of assholes who declare there's a right way to do photography, weren't you basically doing the same thing in the other thread?

 

[Braineack]

I think a big reason you see a rejection of them, is just like with HDR, people overuse them without regard. A bunch of kids started applying them to every picture they took, beyond just selfies, and the concept leaked into real photography. Now we see them being applied to every sort of image, from landscapes, to foodscapes, to cat pictures.

I have nothing against technology or techniques. I have things against making your pictures look amateurish for no reason but to use technology or techniques. I mean have the instagram filters out there are just age old photo-processing techniques.

In my opinion, there was no benefit to using the filter on the image above--It just doesn't match the image. Does that mean never use them? no, but use them wisely. The filter above added heavy vignette, overexposed the girl, and added a yellow color cast, as well as going as far as adding a fake sun bleached edge and made her legs look nasty--almost hairy.

I could see the image benefiting from some filters/processing/chopping, just not the one as is.

So, basically, people should only do what appeals to YOUR taste, or it's wrong, and they shouldn't be doing it.

That pretty much sum it up?

Is there any other taste?

using tapatalk.

 

[Derrel]

In reply to DavidVote, in post #18:

No, I've made no such declaration. A bit of perhaps advanced reading comprehension would reveal that I am advocating that there are NO "bad techniques" per se, and there are no inherently, intrinsically "bad ways" to do photography. There are however, bad photographs that are made in all genres. I am making the point that Ansel Adams and the f/64 groups basically tried very hard to classify ANYTHING that was not "straight photography" as being worthy of contempt, scorn, and ridicule.

I am advocating that people, like the OP, Mr. Morgan, seize ownership of their right--which is to do whatever they want to do, without fearing that others, perhaps older, ostensible authority figures, try to diminish their artistic endeavors. I'm advocating AGAINST the type of dogmatic, monotheistic B.S. that Ansel Adams and his cronies were able to foist off on most of the western world.

I thought that was clear? Well, now it oughtta be clear. And to reiterate: no matter what method, genre, technique, or medium is used, there always will be garbage images, average images, fine images, excellent images, superb images, and masterpiece images. The difference between me, and the f/64 group is that I recognize "other genres" as being actually VALID...those A-holes did the exact opposite.

 

[DavidVote]

In reply to DavidVote, in post #18:

No, I've made no such declaration. A bit of perhaps advanced reading comprehension would reveal that I am advocating that there are NO "bad techniques" per se, and there are no inherently, intrinsically "bad ways" to do photography. There are however, bad photographs that are made in all genres. I am making the point that Ansel Adams and the f/64 groups basically tried very hard to classify ANYTHING that was not "straight photography" as being worthy of contempt, scorn, and ridicule.

I am advocating that people, like the OP, Mr. Morgan, seize ownership of their right--which is to do whatever they want to do, without fearing that others, perhaps older, ostensible authority figures, try to diminish their artistic endeavors. I'm advocating AGAINST the type of dogmatic, monotheistic B.S. that Ansel Adams and his cronies were able to foist off on most of the western world.

I thought that was clear? Well, now it oughtta be clear. And to reiterate: no matter what method, genre, technique, or medium is used, there always will be garbage images, average images, fine images, excellent images, superb images, and masterpiece images. The difference between me, and the f/64 group is that I recognize "other genres" as being actually VALID...those A-holes did the exact opposite.

It's clear now. Sorry I misunderstood you before.

 

[407370]

I think a big reason you see a rejection of them, is just like with HDR, people overuse them without regard. A bunch of kids started applying them to every picture they took, beyond just selfies, and the concept leaked into real photography. Now we see them being applied to every sort of image, from landscapes, to foodscapes, to cat pictures............

So you managed to get everything I despise about "REAL PHOTOGRAPHY" into a single paragraph, well done.

1. "is just like with HDR, people overuse them" - in your opinion
2. "A bunch of kids started applying them to every picture they took" - what is wrong with that exactly?
3. "and the concept leaked into real photography" - your definition of real photography is really narrow and thankfully in a minority
4. "Now we see them being applied to every sort of image, from landscapes, to foodscapes, to cat pictures" - different is not bad

Look around you, there are millions of photographs being posted and viewed every day. Photography has moved on and become a disposable form of communication and part of that communication is personalising images for instant effects that are only used as an instant effect and then forgotten about.
Instagram is a primary form of communication for millions of people expressing themselves in a combination of pictures and words. The speed of the communication renders neanderthal attitudes of preserving the purity of REAL PHOTOGRAPHY redundant.
A digital image has literally millions of things that can be done to it but that decision is made by the person posting it. The validity of that decision does not depend on age, skill, equipment, software or following outmoded concepts.

 

[Forkie]

Yep, I'm in the yaysayers' camp.

If the filter suits the image and is what you were going for when to took the original photo, then it's absolutely right to use them.

Whether the filter is a one-click thing, or build one yourself using adjustment filters doesn't really matter - you end up with the same result.

In your original image, I think the filter is a perfectly valid way to enhance the shot. The subject is in a fantasy costume - it stands to reason that she would be in a fantasy setting and if the filter is what creates that, then use it.

I actually have no problem with Instagram filters either. The only time it gets a bit annoying is when it's assumed that just putting a filter on a photo will automatically make it good. If the right filter is used on the right photo, great.

 

[Lana Ron]

Hey guys:

Below is an example of a photo I took recently, using a "creative" filter, and not.

View attachment 95657 View attachment 95658

I'd always been against using Instagram filters like these (I was told it was wrong, and it's an indicator of an amateur), but from a more holistic artistic standpoint, the edited image certainly looks more interesting/engaging. My photographer friend uses a program called Perfect Photo (which has tons of these filters) to edit his images, and they look really good, e.g. Kelly - Left-handed Photography Facebook

What do you think of using filters like these? Yay, nay?

I think, that usage of filters and effects should be righteous, I mean, It depend on what goal do you have. If it is very good picture and that's all, what do you need, why should you use the effects? And is you try to make some unusual atmosphere, some effect, try filters. Especially if you try to make a composition with different pictures. I use Photo Collage Maker - best photo collage software for Windows

 

[Braineack]

different is not bad. but a different opinion than my own is.

 

[bribrius]

Meh,

i don't believe ansel adams was a purist. Too much time in the dark room. Most artistic visions is b.s. Usually brought up by those that can't paint, sculpt, write, or even draw. Pre-visualization, is kinda hit or miss. Often i think even ansel adams took five photos of the same thing and frigged with it ten ways to sunday in the darkroom until he thought "hey, that is neat!". People do much the same in pp now, except perhaps easier. We have art coming out of our ears there is so much of it kicking around from filters and pp. Was reading a interview of a photographer (link might have been posted on here?)the other day. semi famous. They kept asking him about artistic vision. He said he had none. He turned out some very artistic images. But for previsualization or artistic vision he was pretty up front in saying he didn't really have much in that way. So i wonder why people keep insisting on it and romanticizing it, when we have well known artistic photographers that actually discount it.
"hey, i thought this would be neat when i was friggn with it in the dark room" about the size of it.

I don't actually have anything against filters though, used correctly. My own fascination with them is that some follow previous formats, styles of photography. So while i may not often use one, when i do i use it, it has much to understand a previous style of photography or action (in a more literal historical sense) by watching how it effects the image. Creating that effect without the digital filter would be even better, but none of us have endless amounts of time to waste on every aspect of photography or the ability to recreate without digital processing. When given the option of using a filter, i hardly ever do. Occasionally, i kind of think "i wonder what ....style would look like in this?" and that is about when i get into filters. Even if it makes the photo look better, i often just don't use it. I have no great love or care for them beyond passing historical interest. My intention is to learn more filters, more processing. But my major concern is gaining the equipment and skills to create the effect i want outside of digital imaging. i want to shoot the real image, not create it after the fact. That takes a lot of skills, and money, and work. Because then i would be doing it for real not moving the slider or using whatever tool...

i discount the hell out of most digitally processed photos, including my own. Want to impress me, do it for real.

 

[bribrius]

here's a reallllly good essay. If you look in the photo dictionary under "incredible A-hole" there's an entry for Ansel Adams. Adams was the man who waged a multi-decade war to smear William Mortensen, one of the most-respected Pictorialist photographers in America by the 1930's. Mortensen was one of the best practitioners of a style known as Pictorialism, a style that featured a lot of less-than-sharp images, images with oftentimes a LOT of manipulation done on the negatives, and or the prnts, to make interpretive, artistic, sensitive photographs. Pictorialism was a style of photography that lasted around 50 years, give or take; it was Ansel Adams, and a small HANDFUL of other people who formed the f/64 group. These A-holes decreed that only SHARP, all-in-focus, B&W images done in the style known as straight photography, were the only kinds of serious photography that was worthy of producing and including in museums. Everything else was "crap", or worse.

Monsters and Madonnas Looking at William Mortensen - 50 Watts

Ansel Adams and the influence of the f/64 Group, the straight photography crowd, still holds a lot of sway among people who are not open to any new ways of thinking about photography. Narrow-minded thinking about "how a photo ought to look" has a long tradition among people who follow the ideals set forth by a small handful of photographers and curators and taste-makers who made their fame before WW II. Today we are confroning the SAME, exact issue: the battle of creative freedom and individualized treatment for each image as espoused by the Pictorialist school of practitioners, and a narrow-minded, very rigid, limited straight or "pure" dogma that Adams and his acolytes bitched and moaned about. We're on the brink of another era, just like when Pictorialism was squashed by influential people who had the ear of the museum curators, and the book publishers, and so on. The pendulum has made its long, slow swing, and now we are headed back, repeating history, but sort of in-reverse.

We see the same, exact type of reactionary thinking today, as old-fashioned thinkers raised on the straight photography premises often seek to condemn new ways of imaging that do not follow the basic ideas of keeping things "pure"...whatever the hell "pure" means at this point in time. There's a great lesson of history in the above essay, and in seeing how boring and clone-like the work of the Zone System fanboys came to be once their dogma spread to basically, the majority of photography practitioners.

Much of the idea of pure photography might actually come down to pre visualization and knowing the desired effect while in shoot. There is a difference between using the correct lighting for effect and friggn with it in post until it looks right. There is a difference between color filters during the shoot and friggn with it in post until it looks good. There is a difference between having the correct space and backlight between your subject and background and friggn with a layered mask until it looks good. There is a difference between having your framing correct and being aware of what is in the frame rather than cloning chit out in post and friggn with it until it looks good. etc. etc. etc. etc. Other day i was using control points with lighting adjustments. Course the entire time i was friggn with it i was thinking if i shot it correctly to begin with i wouldnt be friggn with the control points. Course the control points are much easier than actually doing it correctly from the start. That is the difference, i think.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I think that post production is as part of the process as the actual picture taking. If something would make a great composition, but there's a stupid pole in the background, I'll clone it out. We have that ability now, and I won't hesitate to use the tools available to make good art. It's not just about the pictures anymore, it's about the final product.