Lo-Fi = Good??

[mangtarn]

I was interested to see what younger photographers' work look like, so I googled 'young aspiring photographers'. the first two results were this and this (the flickr account of the second one seems to have taken a lot of damage). Both of these photographers produce images with the lo-fi look. I have noticed quite a few other known photographers that does similar style.
I think some of those look nice but I don't think one should strictly stick to this style. So does lo-fi = good?

 

[unpopular]

instant art.

 

[mangtarn]

instant art.

thats what the general public seems to think

 

[unpopular]

I think it's more just lacking of sophistication. i think though that there is so much staleness in the majority of digital photographs that I can understand the rebellion from the glitzy, over-glossed and lacking of subtlty that we see a lot of. But often this rebellion drives the images, which would be mediocre without the effect to hold our imagination of some distant Instamatic era.

 

[Derrel]

All these 20-something females shooting their own selfies, day after day after day. Cindy Sherman complex lives (without the Cindy goodness)!!! Flickr is filled with this same kinda stuff. Many of these young women really seem to get off on being their own subjects. It's a very fascinating shift. Not saying it's good, or bad, or indifferent, but just noting that incredibly narcissistic selfie portfolios that go on for HUNDREDS of frames have become the norm among more-educated "Mills College" and "Reid" type of coeds. The thing I notice is that now, due to the internet and so much machine-printed, machine-edited photography, the majority of these peoples' work seems almost interchangeable and indistinguishable...it's weird...the influence of taste-setters and trend setters has become so,so pervasive due to the web that it seems like there must be 10,000 young women who shoot almost exactly alike...Flicker and Tumblr and so on allow images to be seen by many people FAST...if something is worthwhile it will be imitated and copied and reproduced over and over and over, by huge numbers of drones. Mass-distribution of canned Photoshop, Lightroom, and iPhone image manipulation packages are making "instant art" easy, and so,so many people are using the same,exact stuff (Hipstamatic, for just one really popular, flavor-of-the-month example). I notice the same thing in Family Photography too...lotsa' clones...

 

[MrSleepin]

can't afford real lenses... so they settle for holga.

 

[unpopular]

hell. I can't afford a "real" lens, but I know enough to settle for CZJ.

 

[MrSleepin]

my first lens purchase was a manual focus 50mm 1.8f nikkor series-e

$50

i think i use this lens more than any of my $300+ lenses

 

[DiskoJoe]

lo-fi will always be good.

 

[analog.universe]

So, without commenting on whether or not this work is good, I do think there is more motivation for creating it than the somewhat cynical ideas presented so far... (not to say that they're not true sometimes). I think that these sorts of styles emphasize the medium and the method, and not just the contents of the scene being captured. It's decidedly "not real" and takes you out of the transparency that's become the norm for supposed well produced photos. If the motive of producing art is to communicate, things like this let you communicate more than reality has to offer. They cause the viewer to think not only about the scene, but also about the low contrast, flare, whatever it is... The same argument happens in music. People complain about guitarists using too much distortion to cover up bad playing, failing to realize that sometimes it's as much the effect as it is the content.

 

[MLeeK]

It's a trend and as with any trend it should be used sparingly and only when appropriate or it is going to be very dated in a few years.
It can save an image that was previously poor, but it can also be hard to achieve a GOOD vintage edit, so... I'd say it falls somewhere in the things I think I'll stay away from unless specifically asked.

I think that looking for young aspiring photographers specifically in a search is going to kind of limit you in what you find. Most young photographers aren't advertising themselves as such. A few definitely will be, but the majority just don't know to say as much yet.

This website is an 18 year old young man I am pretty proud of. He's got some good stuff and better stuff and a few that aren't so good on here. Andrew Steen Photography
His facebook has more recent and better stuff: Albums by Andrew Steen | Facebook

 

[Garbz]

No.

Good pictures are good.
Lo-fi is Lo-fi.

You need to combine the two elements to make a good lo-fi picture.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

A good shot is a good shot and that requires the post processing to add to the shot. Look at great shots from 50+ years ago that unintentionally lo-fi by our standards. Are they any less great?

 

[SCraig]

The reason Lo-Fi is so popular with "Young Aspiring Photographers" is because that's all their cell phones can manage. Most of the people I know have spent time trying to get rid of that over exposed, mushy look.