Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: It seems iPhoneography is a word now.  (Read 2152 times)
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« on: August 18, 2012, 02:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189904/Dial-iPhoneography-The-stunning-images-taken-just-iPhone-little-help-clever-apps.html

Some quite amazing images amongst the dross.

W
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2012, 02:52:15 AM »
ReplyReply

It needn't be used, though. The world's stock of ugliness is already more than adequate.

Jeremy
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2012, 03:29:37 AM »
ReplyReply

So is "iPornography" and no doubt a few other variants.  They'll let anything into the dictionary these days.

That stuff could seriously cut into Holga sales!  Some little elf has been telling me, "this is The Future of Photographic Art."  I never much liked elves.  But it's hard not imagine gallery walls dripping that stuff sooner than later.  It's The Shock of the New, dammit.  RIP Robert Hughes.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2012, 03:33:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I've mentioned before that I think cellpix are going to become the camera of choice for most non-pro applications and even for some of those, if only for the effects that can be achieved. Once the black screens get sorted, the devices will be far more useful than now. However, there's always the chance that over-use of 'effects' will bring boredom and eventual decline in use of not only the 'effects' but of the machines as cameras...

Apple's marketing clout has certainly done a lot for the medium.

Rob C
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2012, 11:39:52 AM »
ReplyReply

There's a parallel to all this in the SX-70, which went from hot to ho-hum back in the 70's to mid 80's.  Until much cheaper but hugely less cool 1-Hours killed them.  You could even smudge 'em, oohwee!  It was cool because Andy Warhol liked them.  Even I liked them!  Google Polaroid Art.  RIP Polaroid.  RIP Andy Warhol.  I'm in a holding pattern.

The scary thing is, for every SX-70 back then, there are 78,297 smartphones today.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 11:41:36 AM by bill t. » Logged
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2012, 12:17:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Plucked this little gem out of that story.

Quote
With over 20 apps available to download to manipulate images the iPhone potentially makes an artist out of everyone

All I can say is ugh.....
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2012, 12:57:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Manipulate=Art, as you say ugh!
Logged

louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 771



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2012, 02:54:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I actually enjoyed seeing those images. Looking beyond the effects mentioned here the underlying images and vision are quite good. My theory is that when I see images that are described as the result of the camera (fish eye, panorama, large format, pinhole, etc.) the process (HDR, Polaroid, colorized, push process, platinum, silver, b&w, infrared, etc.) or, in this case iphone capture, it's the underlying image that makes it sing or bomb.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2012, 11:01:48 PM »
ReplyReply

With over 20 apps available to download to manipulate images the iPhone potentially makes an artist out of everyone

I gotta assume those apps can also make noodle heads out of artists.  Be careful!

I think what were seeing here is the birth of Virtual Talent.  The iPhone and iPad may not be suitable for doing actual creative content creation, but that doesn't mean you can't pretend.  It's Creativity packaged in convenient, bite-sized, pre-digested nuggets.  Welcome to The Future!
Logged
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2012, 12:29:02 AM »
ReplyReply



I think what were seeing here is the birth of Virtual Talent. 


I'll say it again, ugh.....
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2012, 04:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, it's easy to pour scorn and lashings of imaginary superiority over the use of these devices, but when you look at the actual pictures in the original link, you find some damned good images.

One should treat prejudice with caution. Owning an M9 or even the 'miracle' D800 doesn't for a moment imply that you can make better images than have some of the snappers with the cellpix. Therein lies the problem with much photography, marketing and expectation from the latter: your camera is never any better than you are.

Be modest; enjoy your successes and don't bullshit on low-cost technology - it ain't the tech that gives you talent.

Rob C
Logged

louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 771



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2012, 08:25:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, it's easy to pour scorn and lashings of imaginary superiority over the use of these devices, but when you look at the actual pictures in the original link, you find some damned good images.

One should treat prejudice with caution. Owning an M9 or even the 'miracle' D800 doesn't for a moment imply that you can make better images than have some of the snappers with the cellpix. Therein lies the problem with much photography, marketing and expectation from the latter: your camera is never any better than you are.

Be modest; enjoy your successes and don't bullshit on low-cost technology - it ain't the tech that gives you talent.

Rob C

I agree, Rob. In fact I looked again at the images and will amend my earlier comment somewhat to say that these are extremely good images. I find it puzzling to read some of the negative opinions about these. Makes me think way back to the same kind of arguments against digital capture. Remember the f64 crowd? Maybe what we're now seeing is the 72 dpi movement. There will never be a shortage of crap produced by any technology. But I'm looking forward to picking through a new generation of images if this thread's images are any indication of what's coming.
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2012, 08:51:45 AM »
ReplyReply

All I can say is ugh.....

All I can say is live and let live ...

The amount of time some people spend worrying about what other people do with cameras is just staggering!

Fancy yourself an artist?  Good for you ... Go be an artist ...
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2012, 08:53:01 AM »
ReplyReply

It's not the work that's the problem, it's the concept being sold which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Logged

louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 771



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2012, 08:58:51 AM »
ReplyReply

It's not the work that's the problem, it's the concept being sold which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

I don't think you are the market they're after.
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2012, 09:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, it's easy to pour scorn and lashings of imaginary superiority over the use of these devices, but when you look at the actual pictures in the original link, you find some damned good images.

Sure some of the images look good. The processing these images receive in-camere (phone) are meant to minimize flaws, thus the HDR look, noise, antiquing and false colors. These are images where the subject is secondary to the treatment, which is the exact reason that most of the images look alike. I saw a recent display of iphoneography and, despite there being many different photographers, most looked as if they could have come from the same person. That, to me, is sad.
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2012, 03:35:19 PM »
ReplyReply

the problem of course is whether the effects are used to emphasize the theme, or whether they merely obscure the theme. However, perhaps there first need to be a lot of examples, of both the good, the bad, and the ugly, in order for artists to learn the vast possibilities and subsequently for the more proficient, deliberate art to surface.

Anyone have any idea what to make of the recent changes at Hipstamatic, one of the major exponents in this field?
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2012, 05:20:48 PM »
ReplyReply


Fancy yourself an artist? 

Nope. I just enjoy photography and my stuff is mediocre at best.

These apps are akin to paint by numbers kits where "everyone" can be an artist. The marketing behind this stuff bugs me as well as the filters. Applying a filter created by someone else does not make you an artist, maybe the programmer should also get a credit on these works?

Are the images strong to begin with in this show? Maybe, maybe not. It is difficult to tell sometimes because of all the layering going on. I do question the need to mask a strong image in the first place though, if it is that good it shouldn't need to be covered up with a filter just for the sake of it. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2012, 10:25:15 PM »
ReplyReply

These apps are akin to paint by numbers kits where "everyone" can be an artist. The marketing behind this stuff bugs me as well as the filters. Applying a filter created by someone else does not make you an artist, maybe the programmer should also get a credit on these works?

Are the images strong to begin with in this show? Maybe, maybe not. It is difficult to tell sometimes because of all the layering going on. I do question the need to mask a strong image in the first place though, if it is that good it shouldn't need to be covered up with a filter just for the sake of it. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should.

That's it.  Who's the author?

Find an engaging processed image.  Strip off the filter effects.  If the bare image still looks engaging, credit the photographer.  If the bare image reveals itself as crap, credit the filter programmer.

I would say we should routinely credit everybody involved, but if we do that our snapshots will soon have credit lists as long as LOTR "Return of the King" which I believe crawls upward for 26 minutes in the extended edition, requiring about 1/2 mile of film.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 10:36:23 PM by bill t. » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2012, 04:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure some of the images look good. The processing these images receive in-camere (phone) are meant to minimize flaws, thus the HDR look, noise, antiquing and false colors. These are images where the subject is secondary to the treatment, which is the exact reason that most of the images look alike. I saw a recent display of iphoneography and, despite there being many different photographers, most looked as if they could have come from the same person. That, to me, is sad.


Chuck, I'm not making any excuses for the 'effects' but I am saying that some of the pictures are really good, and probably so despite the effects. So, really, my positive vibe is for the cellphone cameras, not added trickery.

In my own stuff these days I never use any filters other than 'legitimate' UVs or Polas; I have experimented with those awful 'tobacco' things that were popular back in the day (for a shortish while) and found them to have ruined otherwise good pictures; Softars were cool for some time, but became a trademark for some people.

Frankly, it's my belief that making a good image is quite difficult enough, and that makiing the likelihood of success even worse by sticking on 'effects' is counterproductive. I don't believe that beauty needs hiding, and neither do I think that effects make a poor snapper a better one - but as someone mentioned, the market isn't people who tend already to be competent enough with photographic arts.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad