No / Little contrast in an image???....

[sarahashleyphotos]

Im reluctant to even bring it up here but it bugs me that no one sees it my way. First of all I know this guy is a beginner and probably did not do this on purpose because I pointed out that he had dust spots in his images and suggested he clean his censor and he replied with "I like the dust spots". His image was very flat and I did a simple leves correction on it to try to show him that it looked a lot better but someone else came in and said that no contrast is a style or whatever so is this a new fad or what? I dont see how an image like that would even print well.

i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/scelestic/correction.png The first image is his and my edited one is on the bottom. Also after seeing this screen shot he said I made it look worse and tried to bash me for useing a mac. idk Im really disappointed about how some "photographers" act towards others.

 

[Big Mike]

"Photographers" are just like any other sample of people in society...some of them are just jerks.

 

[sarahashleyphotos]

"Photographers" are just like any other sample of people in society...some of them are just jerks.

I guess so but about the low contrast. I know my advanced photography teacher would not accept an image like that but other people seem to like it or say its an artistic choice so im confused.

 

[Overread]

Ok art can be anything - to some a bag of rubbish is considered art.
So in line with that any look in a photo can be considered art - the key part is that if you can get people to spend £10,000.00s on it then its art - if they offer you nothing then its trash

I really would not worry about it at all - but do remember that your advanced photography teacher is not god - though also remember that he probably marks your work and gives you grades as well - its all about both expressing yourself in your own image and also (when needed) pandering to give the market what they want

 

[tsaraleksi]

The original image was fairy low contrast but the edit looks radioactive.

 

[sarahashleyphotos]

Ok art can be anything - to some a bag of rubbish is considered art.
So in line with that any look in a photo can be considered art - the key part is that if you can get people to spend £10,000.00s on it then its art - if they offer you nothing then its trash

I really would not worry about it at all - but do remember that your advanced photography teacher is not god - though also remember that he probably marks your work and gives you grades as well - its all about both expressing yourself in your own image and also (when needed) pandering to give the market what they want

XD I know hes not god but its not just him I have been taught to look at histograms and make sure your image is not flat because technically its not right. Also personally I would not look at an image that is s flat and dark twice because I know it can look better. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

[Big Mike]

I have been taught to look at histograms and make sure your image is not flat because technically its not right.

When I look at the histogram, I check for clipped edges, which could mean a loss of detail. I usually don't care about the height of the graph.

 

[rufus5150]

"Flat" images have their place. I use them frequently as a background when overlaying other images on top. If they were as contrasty as the other images in the layout, it would take away from the focus. Images have so many other uses than a solitary, final print.

I firmly believe that if you need to check anything analytically numeric (exif, histograms, etc) to judge the artistic merit of a photo, you're doing something wrong.

 

[MBasile]

While the first image may be art, I don't think many would call it "good" art. On a personal level, the shot doesn't do anything for me, and I don't get the point of it being so drab.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

OP: I think you care too much about the work of others, and frankly came across as just a wee bit snobbish, with a touch of 'holier than thou'. Now, by no means did I say that to be offensive, I'm just calling it like I see it. Not to be a grammar Nazi, but I think you need to focus on spelling a bit more than other peoples photography.


Now, everyone can GIVE constructive criticism, but no one HAS to follow it.

That's my pocket change.

 

[LarryD]

I guess so but about the low contrast. I know my advanced photography teacher would not accept an image like that but other people seem to like it or say its an artistic choice so im confused.

You're right.......it does have lack of contrast, is flat, and not likely one to be looked at more than briefly because there is nothing to catch your interest..

Your edit is much more interesting.

Don't worry about his retort or what anybody else says might, or might not, be art...

There are plenty of shots with lots of "atta boys" and back slaps on every forum that just leave me shaking my head....

 

[DScience]

I think that this kids version is horrid, and it's simply obvious your edit is a better pic. I actually really like your photos on Flickr, and your style of PP.

But I think you should realize what others have said, your 'advanced photography' teachers is not the all telling ruler of correct photography, and determiner of what is artistic or beautiful. If that kid liked his photo horribly exposed, I would not waste a second stressing about ...Just keep doing what you love, and do it for you; not that kid nor your advanced photography teacher.

 

[invisible]

the key part is that if you can get people to spend £10,000.00s on it then its art - if they offer you nothing then its trash

Well, Vincent Van Gogh couldn't sell his paintings to save his life...

 

[conan.]

Sometimes low contrast is good... also, your edit looks incredibly fake and terrible. I hate that kind of photography, the stuff that is run through photoshop and looks like it belongs in cheap stock photography... you say he's acting like a jerk but it sounds like you are one, the way you are forcing your crap aesthetics on him. It's all relative.

 

[William Petruzzo]

Seems to me that flat would be appropriate if there's intention in it. A person who accidentally knocks over a can of paint doesn't produce art, but a person who says, "I'm going to knock over this can of paint and the chaos that falls is what I intend to produce"--he makes art. Albeit, maybe not art any of us would care to look at, but art nonetheless.

With photography, I think people (especially beginners) have a tendency to throw back responses like, "I like the dust" or "I want it flat" out of their insecurity. I don't know if that's actually what he was saying or not. But I know I've heard people respond that way. Hell, I said things very similar to that when I was starting out.

For me, the shift in my own thinking came not when my final product was challenged but when my intention was challenged. When some fellow artists started asking me about my process and my vision that's when things really started to shift. I doubt that the statement, "It doesn't look good flat" will be very helpful--but the question, "Why do you want it flat" could produce something of a Renaissance in their thinking and their creating.

CrazyCanuck also touched on something important, I think, when he said you might have had a pinch of 'holier-than-thou' in your attitude. It might not have really been there, but we've got to remember this is the internet. There's a lot people read into things that might not really be there. I mean, it's not like we can read body language or tones in each other's voices. And, for a novice shooter, nearly every strong criticism can sound like a holier-than-thou statement. It's a really insecure time, or at least it was for me and at least a handful of fellow artists in my area.

But that's why I think we should critique the artist's mind, not necessarily always the finished product. Afterall, the mind makes the artist, not the hands. If we only critique the hands, a brilliant mind might end up discouraged and fail to ever train the hands.

Those are my thoughts. Sorry, that was longer winded that I expected.