Reading mode: Light Dark

How can I duplicate the PP

Go to last post
I guess, Nev, you haven't read the rest of the discussion.

What does "best" mean? If you take photos only for you, then you decide what best means. If you think technically perfect photos are best then there are a lot of famous photographers that you must think suck. Like Cartier-Bresson.

The photos may be rubbish to you but that only tells me that you don't get out of the box very often.
Nev Cross said:
I accept that in someone's opinion this technique might be attractive, but I can't think why anybody would pay good money for a Nikon DSLR that is capable of excellent pictures and then wanting to convert them to look like they were taken with a Box Brownie pointing into the sun.

I would think that the first and foremost rule of photography would be to take the best photographs that both you and your camera are capable of.

As you say, " It's all opinion " and as such, I'm entitled to my opinion that these photographs look like rubbish. What would you think if you paid a wedding photographer who presented you with pictures like these? I don't think you would be very happy.
All I am saying, is why would you want photographs to look terrible?

Nev
happypoppeye said:
Nev ...not a good thing to say. You are basically saying that you don't understand the first and foremost rule of photography - it's all opinion. If you don't understand that, your going to be very very limited.

John
Nev Cross said:
Why would you want to? If I took pics that looked like these I would give photography away.
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
Click to expand...
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
I'm sorry but if you think that these pics are not rubbish then it is you who does not get out of the box often.

Would you be proud of pics like these, I think not, they are terrible, but that is just my opinion and I am just as much entitled to my opinion as you are to your's.

I'm not saying that the OP is wrong in wanting to emulate this look, I am just curious as to why anybody would want to.

By the way, this is a forum, and the purpose of a forum is to discuss topics from different viewpoints, I have my views on the topic and you have yours,

Nev,

Getting back into box :)
winparkman said:
What does "best" mean? If you take photos only for you, then you decide what best means. If you think technically perfect photos are best then there are a lot of famous photographers that you must think suck. Like Cartier-Bresson.

The photos may be rubbish to you but that only tells me that you don't get out of the box very often.
Nev Cross said:
I accept that in someone's opinion this technique might be attractive, but I can't think why anybody would pay good money for a Nikon DSLR that is capable of excellent pictures and then wanting to convert them to look like they were taken with a Box Brownie pointing into the sun.

I would think that the first and foremost rule of photography would be to take the best photographs that both you and your camera are capable of.

As you say, " It's all opinion " and as such, I'm entitled to my opinion that these photographs look like rubbish. What would you think if you paid a wedding photographer who presented you with pictures like these? I don't think you would be very happy.
All I am saying, is why would you want photographs to look terrible?

Nev
happypoppeye said:
Nev ...not a good thing to say. You are basically saying that you don't understand the first and foremost rule of photography - it's all opinion. If you don't understand that, your going to be very very limited.

John
Nev Cross said:
Why would you want to? If I took pics that looked like these I would give photography away.
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
Click to expand...
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
Click to expand...
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
 
Nev Cross said:
I accept that in someone's opinion this technique might be attractive, but I can't think why anybody would pay good money for a Nikon DSLR that is capable of excellent pictures and then wanting to convert them to look like they were taken with a Box Brownie pointing into the sun.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a delusion that the function of an SLR is to take better photos than a compact, and many people buy them based on this premise. The real value of an SLR is the control and creative advantages it provides over the average compact.
Nev Cross said:
I would think that the first and foremost rule of photography would be to take the best photographs that both you and your camera are capable of.
Click to expand...
As winparkman wrote, how do you define "best"? It's completely subjective. The photographer that took these photos most likely considers these their best photos, otherwise they wouldn't be on their website.
Nev Cross said:
What would you think if you paid a wedding photographer who presented you with pictures like these? I don't think you would be very happy.
Click to expand...
If it's what I wanted, I would be happy. In this case, I can only assume the couple wanted photos like these. Not everyone wants technically perfect, cookie-cutter wedding photos.
 
Better give your gear to the next person you see then. Well,l after looking at what you submitted here and you call others for there PP skillz, ewww.


Nev Cross said:
Why would you want to? If I took pics that looked like these I would give photography away.
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
 
Wow I just looked through this thread for the first time. Do you people who write things summarily dimissing these photos know what MISERABLE people you sound like? Who cares what you think of the photos--nobody asked you!

Now leave the OP alone and get back to telling those neighborhood kids to get off your lawn.
 
That is right, Nev...everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sadly, you've missed my point.

First off...you made a comment about the first and foremost rule. I think you are wrong about that and I said so.

So, if you mean that purpose of this forum is for you to determine what is good and bad, then I think we have another disagreement.

As to being in the box...let me explain. A person is in the box when they seek only the technical perfection of which their camera is capable. Is that not what you meant when you described your first and foremost rule?

" I would think that the first and foremost rule of photography would be to take the best photographs that both you and your camera are capable of." See, if we all did that then we would never have those happy mistakes that keep us coming back for more. And when we have those happy mistakes, it tempts us to experiment and make new ways of taking photos.

So, don't be in such a hurry to call someone's photos rubbish.
Nev Cross said:
I'm sorry but if you think that these pics are not rubbish then it is you who does not get out of the box often.

Would you be proud of pics like these, I think not, they are terrible, but that is just my opinion and I am just as much entitled to my opinion as you are to your's.

I'm not saying that the OP is wrong in wanting to emulate this look, I am just curious as to why anybody would want to.

By the way, this is a forum, and the purpose of a forum is to discuss topics from different viewpoints, I have my views on the topic and you have yours,

Nev,

Getting back into box :)
winparkman said:
What does "best" mean? If you take photos only for you, then you decide what best means. If you think technically perfect photos are best then there are a lot of famous photographers that you must think suck. Like Cartier-Bresson.

The photos may be rubbish to you but that only tells me that you don't get out of the box very often.
Nev Cross said:
I accept that in someone's opinion this technique might be attractive, but I can't think why anybody would pay good money for a Nikon DSLR that is capable of excellent pictures and then wanting to convert them to look like they were taken with a Box Brownie pointing into the sun.

I would think that the first and foremost rule of photography would be to take the best photographs that both you and your camera are capable of.

As you say, " It's all opinion " and as such, I'm entitled to my opinion that these photographs look like rubbish. What would you think if you paid a wedding photographer who presented you with pictures like these? I don't think you would be very happy.
All I am saying, is why would you want photographs to look terrible?

Nev
happypoppeye said:
Nev ...not a good thing to say. You are basically saying that you don't understand the first and foremost rule of photography - it's all opinion. If you don't understand that, your going to be very very limited.

John
Nev Cross said:
Why would you want to? If I took pics that looked like these I would give photography away.
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
Click to expand...
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
Click to expand...
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
"Trigger feelings of nostalgia? I think winjands said earlier, "yuck." - lol

I'd bet you that if a pro submitted that to clients, most of them would complain or not pay for those shots. Well, maybe someone would like it, so in that case it could serve a purpose.
winparkman said:
I think you miss the point. It is because they trigger feelings of nostalgia, of looking through old shoe boxes, that they work. Photography as art is meant to illicit an emotional response from the viewer and these accomplish that. When you become overly-technical...what do you have? Art? No, just technically good photos that no one cares about.
wijnands said:
It is nostalgic because they look like kodak boxie shots that spent 50 years in a shoebox. Don't think for one second that back in your parents'or grandparents day a production like this would have been acceptable.
--
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
Click to expand...
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
http://standavidson.com/post/Birds
 
I assume you are a pro, then?
DStan said:
I'd bet you that if a pro submitted that to clients, most of them would complain or not pay for those shots. Well, maybe someone would like it, so in that case it could serve a purpose.
winparkman said:
I think you miss the point. It is because they trigger feelings of nostalgia, of looking through old shoe boxes, that they work. Photography as art is meant to illicit an emotional response from the viewer and these accomplish that. When you become overly-technical...what do you have? Art? No, just technically good photos that no one cares about.
wijnands said:
It is nostalgic because they look like kodak boxie shots that spent 50 years in a shoebox. Don't think for one second that back in your parents'or grandparents day a production like this would have been acceptable.
--
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
Click to expand...
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
http://standavidson.com/post/Birds
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
 
Actually, long ago, I did weddings for a while, long before digital. Customers were very picky and almost all would've been displeased with such a picture. By the way, I did say, "Well, maybe someone would like it, so in that case it could serve a purpose." Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, if the customer wants such a photo, that's OK with me. IMO such customers would be the exception, not the rule. Myself, I'd not want this done to my wedding pictures.

Stan
winparkman said:
DStan said:
I'd bet you that if a pro submitted that to clients, most of them would complain or not pay for those shots. Well, maybe someone would like it, so in that case it could serve a purpose.
winparkman said:
I think you miss the point. It is because they trigger feelings of nostalgia, of looking through old shoe boxes, that they work. Photography as art is meant to illicit an emotional response from the viewer and these accomplish that. When you become overly-technical...what do you have? Art? No, just technically good photos that no one cares about.
wijnands said:
It is nostalgic because they look like kodak boxie shots that spent 50 years in a shoebox. Don't think for one second that back in your parents'or grandparents day a production like this would have been acceptable.
--
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
Click to expand...
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
http://standavidson.com/post/Birds
Click to expand...
--
OK, not so purely a hobby.
Click to expand...
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.
http://standavidson.com/post/Birds
 
Try the retouching forum... I gave it a quick try in PS... got close but not good enough and I don't have anymore time to play.

BTW, I like the look of the photos... very vintage and nostalgic. It's a good trick to know but I understand that it may not be for everyone. Also we are all voicing our opinions here. None are wrong or right... you either like it or you don't.

--
Some of my stuff here...
http://www.modelmayhem.com/11581
 
Nev Cross said:
I accept that in someone's opinion this technique might be attractive, but I can't think why anybody would pay good money for a Nikon DSLR that is capable of excellent pictures and then wanting to convert them to look like they were taken with a Box Brownie pointing into the sun.
Click to expand...
Just because the photographer applied that effect to those particular photos does not mean that all his or her photos look that way. Furthermore, sometimes people buy DSLRs for other reasons besides image quality (eg: AF speed, shot-to-shot time, ergonomics, etc).
Nev Cross said:
I would think that the first and foremost rule of photography would be to take the best photographs that both you and your camera are capable of.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that statement is pertinent to your point if you also agree that it's all up to individual opinions. If someone loves that look in their photos, then your rule has been met.
Nev Cross said:
As you say, " It's all opinion " and as such, I'm entitled to my opinion that these photographs look like rubbish. What would you think if you paid a wedding photographer who presented you with pictures like these? I don't think you would be very happy.
Click to expand...
I would bet that the client liked the photos, or else the photographer wouldn't have produced them. That would be like saying that clients would be upset with the b/w look, or the photojournalistic style, or the formal style, etc. There are many styles of wedding photography because different clients have different preferences.
Nev Cross said:
All I am saying, is why would you want photographs to look terrible?
Click to expand...
In your opinion, they're terrible, but with regard to these photos, your opinion (and mine) doesn't matter. The question is whether or not the client likes them. I would be very surprised if the photographer came up with that "vintage" look without consulting with his clients, first.

larsbc
 
Carl, you conveniently forgot to mention that the B & W shot of mine was entered in the CONTRAST challenge, the portrait was done that way to fit the challenge.

If there is a challenge for terrible photographs, the pics on the OP would win hands down.

You can denigrate me all you like for my opinion of these pics but it does not change the fact that they are rubbish. If the clients of the photographer requested that they look like that then fine, but all it means is that they wanted pics that look terrible.

ps I don't see many of your photos in the challenges.
carl_yeomans said:
Better give your gear to the next person you see then. Well,l after looking at what you submitted here and you call others for there PP skillz, ewww.


Nev Cross said:
Why would you want to? If I took pics that looked like these I would give photography away.
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear,
is he still wrong?
 
I really like the color shifting. The pictures themselves are good, but better yet is that they have some originality to them. Isn't photography art?

They actually remind me of cross processed film, which is what I recommend you try and you'll probably get something very close to those. Can't remember if it was E6 on negs or C41 on chromes to get that, now I'll have to go try again to remind myself. You can also try freezing and burning the negatives to damage them and get some unique looks in the print.
 
Lets see a show of hands. Be honest. If a client asked for this look, how many of you would be able to do this?

Once you've mastered tack-sharp images and accurate color then producing looks like this is the next step. I for one would love to have this tool in my bag of tricks. Post-processing is probably more important than the actual image capture.
 
FoolyCooly said:
Lets see a show of hands. Be honest. If a client asked for this look, how many of you would be able to do this?
Click to expand...
I could do the processing, but I might have trouble intentionally missing focus during the shoot (not many examples of that in the OP, but there are on the photographer's site). Of course, I'm not the one bashing the look, so maybe that doesn't matter.
FoolyCooly said:
Once you've mastered tack-sharp images and accurate color then producing looks like this is the next step. I for one would love to have this tool in my bag of tricks.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is the next step, but it is a next step.
FoolyCooly said:
Post-processing is probably more important than the actual image capture.
Click to expand...
I think they are equally important. Processing can make a good photo great but it can't make a bad photo good.
 
Nev Cross said:
You can denigrate me all you like for my opinion of these pics but it does not change the fact that they are rubbish. If the clients of the photographer requested that they look like that then fine, but all it means is that they wanted pics that look terrible.
Click to expand...
Included in this set are prenup photos taken for Allen Tan and Roselle Nava, two Fillipino celebrities. Their wedding was a major press event in the Phillipines and a full blown multimedia production. I'm sure if they'd wanted a plain vanilla/VFW hall/hokey pokey style presentation they'd have had no trouble obtaining it. Clearly they were looking for something a little more stylish and were willing to pay for it too.

Also, since there were probably about a quarter million photos taken by others, the safe stuff should have been pretty well covered just in case an odd aunt or two might also have expected something a little more traditional.

--
'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'

Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top