It looks shit, lol. For a free (?) app, I guess it's not bad, but my facebook is full of people taking a photo of a random household object, put a half-ass filter over it and voila - they're professional photographers. It gets tiresome.
Agreed spencer, it's like someone decided faded polaroid's looked good? That's what they look like. It's different sure, but massively over-used...not cool anymore.
I personally love that faded Polaroid look; but the Instagram filters are simply terrible. Not having a go at the app itself, for its purpose it's great - taking a photo, putting a quick filter over it to make it a bit more interesting and show your friend. But using Instagram for professional photographs? Madness.
Buck777
Guest
I have both ( polaroid and instagram) apps. The poloroids a bit of a crack up, you can have one with sticky tape logos. But once you've done one photo the novelties over. Tried Picframe? Developed by a kiwi- gets all your shots in one
Buck777
Guest
I don't disagree, except I have seen some stunning photos via instagram.
I do enough photography but am in the.'amateur with a semi expensive camera category'. My late grandfather was into it big time with his 35mm. Spent years getting the right angle, exposure,light....now it's just photoshopped to heck. I don't think photography means much anymore. It's just data collection that someone can play with. So instagram is just growing out of that. All photoshop is (IMO) is a very expensive filter.
I'm also an amateur with a semi-expensive camera (I got brought a 1100D) and I don't necessarily disagree with you either. Photoshop may just be a more expensive filter - however you have a lot more control (I personally don't have/use it btw). Instagram, due to the fact that it's a one-size fit all kinda filter, can look tacky. For example, that Johnson photo that sparked this - the colours are way out of whack. In Photoshop you can have a lot more choice/control and can definitely get a far greater level of professionalism. I guess you also have to factor in a proper SLR photo compared with an iPhone photo. Like I said, nothing against Instagram itself, but I think it's being misused.
To make something attractive in Photoshop you need the knowledge to know how take something ordinary and transform it into something that is not, or you need a bloody good source image - you need talent, one way or the other. If you aren't a skilled photographer, or you don't know your way around Photoshop, you aren't going to produce great results. Not consistently, anyway. I suppose you could luck out now and again. So I take issue with the notion that you can "just" Photoshop something to heck, as if to suggest it takes less understanding and artistry.
The things that made photography great yesterday are the things that will make photography great tomorrow. Photography right now is in better health than it's ever been, with more talented photographers than ever before, now with multiple disciplines. Winners adapt and embrace, losers lose. People have been crying the death of photography with every technological innovation there has ever been, nothing has changed. Good photography is still good photography. Truly talented photographers still win the accolades, mediocre photographers without that talent still fail, no matter how many shortcuts they're given.
Lets remember that as far as art is concerned photography is about as easy as it gets. It's never been difficult to get to grips with photography, it's pressing buttons and turning knobs, technology just like Photoshop(with the distinction being it's much easier than Photoshop). The distinction between the few amazing photographers and the majority nonsense photographers has always been vision and creativity.
Buck777
Guest
I do agree that talent and and eye for the right light and angle is a skill that seperates the great from the mediocre. But, what is photography and what is digital manipulation? When a photographer sees an opportunity takes a shot, in yesteryear he/she would only know if they truly captured the moment or image in the developing room. Now it's instantly dejected or sent to a programme to change the shot until you get something special. In a lot if cases the manipulated shot was nothing what the photographer intended but 'owns' the new image.
We had a ad made on our farm. A professional photographer with $30K worth of camera gear took 5000 shots of a deer in a shed which was live fed to photoshop programmers in sydney and Melbourne until after 3 hours he got the call that they had the shot they wanted. Photography? I'm not convinced.
We had a ad made on our farm. A professional photographer with $30K worth of camera gear took 5000 shots of a deer in a shed which was live fed to photoshop programmers in sydney and Melbourne until after 3 hours he got the call that they had the shot they wanted. Photography? I'm not convinced.
I can see how you would have that opinion, but when it comes down to it art is fluid, it's always in motion and always will be. And there will always be innovative, abundantly talented geniuses who stand out from the crowd, no matter how accessible and easy it is for an average citizen to take a photograph, or draw a painting.
"That's not art" is the story of art, it's the story of driving. There has always been a history of new technology and tools which have made it easier for society to participate in art, and there has always been purists who've bemoaned the evolution of art. Just as there are people who'll say driving an automatic isn't driving. I'm sure if we brought a few chefs from hundreds of years back to today they'd say that by using my modern oven with its fan and timer that I'm cheating. They'd say it's too easy, anyone could do it. Same with music and so many other things.
I agree with you that it's not as difficult as it once was, and a word you'd probably agree on with what you described is maybe 'soulless', but to be a great artist you still need something special, you still need dedication, you still need a sprinkling of insanity and access to psychedelic drugs.
You can be a successful business without that, but I'm not convinced you can be a great artist without it, or a great photographer. However easy it gets to create art there will always be a dividing line that prevents most from being considered artists, in anything other than a technical sense.
That's my view.
"That's not art" is the story of art, it's the story of driving. There has always been a history of new technology and tools which have made it easier for society to participate in art, and there has always been purists who've bemoaned the evolution of art. Just as there are people who'll say driving an automatic isn't driving. I'm sure if we brought a few chefs from hundreds of years back to today they'd say that by using my modern oven with its fan and timer that I'm cheating. They'd say it's too easy, anyone could do it. Same with music and so many other things.
I agree with you that it's not as difficult as it once was, and a word you'd probably agree on with what you described is maybe 'soulless', but to be a great artist you still need something special, you still need dedication, you still need a sprinkling of insanity and access to psychedelic drugs.
You can be a successful business without that, but I'm not convinced you can be a great artist without it, or a great photographer. However easy it gets to create art there will always be a dividing line that prevents most from being considered artists, in anything other than a technical sense.
That's my view.
Buck777
Guest
Yep I think we agree on the same points. Interestingly though people have become a lot more cynical of images posted. Take this one posted on a popular NZ website. Half felt it was an amazing shot of the wellington skyline, the other half felt it was someone with too much photoshop imagination and had 'hollywooded' the shot. No one thinks anything is real anymore.
In the case you mention i have to agree that the Photographer is not the artist, but a hack with a lot of camera gear. I say this as according to you, He didnt pick the photo. However most are not like that. I spend a bit of time with artists nowdays and there is a huge amount of thought that goes in to setting up, possing, lighting, timing before you even begin. Most professional artists do many more finished works before they select 1 that they want to put up for sale. Digital media means once you have all your details worked out you can increase the number of captures and variations, but the artist knows what it is that he is looking for and trying to create, which is what makes them different to the snap happy amateur.
Please note you can put the biggest baddest lens in the world on your camera, but its the CCD that makes the difference, and unless things have changed, the bigger the CCD the better they process the light brought in by the lens. And im not talking size in pixels, im talking Physical size, which is why you Nikon and Cannon SLRs are still much bigger and chunkier than an iphone
Just a last thought - actually a semi quote from a friend David Moore a fine artist selling well in Melbourne at the moment. "For the first time, right now everything is in, nothing is new or different, its all been done before somewhere by someone. So right now art is being judged on its merits alone, its a wonderful time." I take that to mean some instagram is crap but if u see something you like value it.
Buck777
Guest
Very true on the processor, though I saw a challenge a year ago where they gave iPhones to a group of professional photographers. The result was pretty amazing. On the camera front, my friend has the new D800 - 36 megapixels lol. Wish I could afford the 5k on a camera.
I like that saying. It's actually true. More times that not as I scroll through the instagrams I get a laugh or think something's clever amongst the daily snaps.