The Bebington Salon

[John]

I enjoyed last night's showing of images from The Bebington Salon. Well done Keith Richardson - two images in and great to see ADAPS members taking part in the wider world of photography.

I though everyone seemed in a Very Good Mood with the show last night and the lively presentation by Bob Dennis made for a splendid evening.

[PhilipHowe]

John, I mostly agree. The photos in the nature section were brilliant. You can't have too many kingfishers.

Some of the others as well, for instance, the landscape one that came second was superb. The two black and white portraits were great as well, something I'm well into.

However, I do have a problem.

My problem is with photos that clearly aren't photos. For instance, the one of the three sailing boats with the red sails, which won. Now, I understand that the judges have to agree, and maybe if all three voted for that as their third, it could accumulate enough points to win, that's fine. The problem I have is where are the photographic techniques that were used to take the photo? We've all had photos that a judge has said 'it's not sharp', 'it's not straight', 'it's doesn't lead you anywhere'. There was nothing photographic in that whatsoever. There are also photos that have all the techniques, but no actual interest, so that gets marked down, and I understand that. But, how can something with no photographic technique and no interest be accepted, let alone win.

I've been looking on the L&CPU website for any guidance notes on what the judges look for. For instance, I've been on the website of the 10 I'm led to believe we shouldn't mention from just up the road. They have photos on there that are winning comps, where a model have been taken in a studio (you can tell from the lighting), plonked into a scene that doesn't fit and then had the same wishy washy technique applied as the sailboats and it wins. Where's the photography? I can see the photoshop. I can see the digital art.

Before anyone thinks this, by the way, I am not on about HDR at all, just making a photo look like a half hearted painting is my problem. HDR, you can see what was taken, it has just been adjusted pixel by pixel.

I came last night as I was hoping to enter some salons, but other than buying the new version of photoshop and downloading some actions that make your photo not look like a photo, I don't think I'll bother.

Can I just say, by the way, in the nature section, I can't tell how you pick a winner and I can't tell how it wasn't a dead heat between ten or twenty of them, they were fantastic.

Finally, of course, well done to Keith, ADAPS King of the Salons.

[John]

That's fair enough Philip and that's why I suppose there are all sorts of schools of thought about various styles of art or photography or where indeed the two overlap.

The arguments are not new, no doubt painting clubs were outraged by those upstart photographers who just recorded a scene as it was, not even in colour, with no skill whatsoever....but in fact those photographers produced a set of new skills and proceeded to make images that no-one had thought possible before.

Try this:

Later, black and white photographers were outraged by colour photography being affordable to the masses, by glass slides giving way to 35mm slides, by digital photography taking over from film....and so it goes on. When we move onto 3D holographic cameras with seamless video I'll probably give up as well.

The real danger though is getting carried away with the techniques at the detriment of the content. It can be very self-indulgent and knowing where to stop is the trick. That's why a genuine emotion-filled image of a person, landscape, nature, etc. will always do well, regardless of Photoshop. We will get tired of over-Photoshopped images, after we've got it out of our systems.

My personal place at the moment is finding beauty in the natural world, so I use Photoshop as I used my darkroom. However, I will happily admit that I have always done manipulated images as well, first in the darkroom and now in Photoshop. It depends on the mood.

[John]

Incidentally, for those new to photography, I should have explained that Rejlander's 1857 photograph is actually comprised of dozens (hundreds?) of diferrent negatives all combined into one print. This acaused its own outrage at the time and is called "The Two Ways of Life".

[Paul Jones]

My problem is with photos that clearly aren't photos.

For instance ... photos on there that are winning comps, where a model have been taken in a studio (you can tell from the lighting), plonked into a scene that doesn't fit and then had the same wishy washy technique applied as the sailboats and it wins. Where's the photography? I can see the photoshop. I can see the digital art.

I have sympathy with Philip's thoughts. We're seeing a lot of this kind of "copy and paste a person onto a phoney background" shot. For the most part they just look terrible as they haven't been very well done. Apart from that they've now become as cliche as 'American Beauty' red petals, stripey socks, long cigarette holders and daft hats, etc...

Still, if it makes them and the judges happy, each to their own.

[Paul Jones]

The real danger though is getting carried away with the techniques at the detriment of the content. It can be very self-indulgent and knowing where to stop is the trick. That's why a genuine emotion-filled image of a person, landscape, nature, etc. will always do well, regardless of Photoshop. We will get tired of over-Photoshopped images, after we've got it out of our systems.

^^ THIS ^^

Just because you CAN do something in Photoshop doesn't mean that you have to.

[mike-e]

Sadly there is only one right and one wrong way in photography
and that is to be IN FASHION
If a picture style or technique genre or trend currently ticks the boxes required, then almost ANY image regardless of quality or finish will do well
If its Out of fashion then woe betide you.
Berts Puffin picture was a prime example in the St Helens comp, excellent as Bert is and this is an image of outstanding craftsmanship it was deemed 5 years too late and out of current fashionable trend.

Current social photographers with no real or formal training create 'journalistic reportage' styled images and can pass themselves off as bonefide working photographers because it is the current trend.

The film guys are sadly diminishing , even though for many the true craft of light writing is waning.

The current crop of video camera wieding ( ie digital cameras) fanatics, shooting everything that moves and making somthing exceptional is here to stay.
For those who can cross over to this 'advancement' the future looks bright
for to keep in the loop we need to be current.

[DaveSouthern]

Yet another excellant night at the club last night watching the Bebington Salon presented by Bob Dennis.
To those who didn`t make it you missed a bloody good show last night.
Let`s try to get more of ADAP`s photo`s in it next year as we have more than our fair share of excellant photographers at the club.
Well done to Keith Richardson for his photo`s.

Regards
Dave Southern

[Walter Brooks]

Mike-e wrote

The film guys are sadly diminishing , even though for many the true craft of light writing is waning.

Check out the FADU [film and darkroom user] web page to see 'waning light writing' and 'photography' alive and well.
and

Sadly there is only one right and one wrong way in photography and that is to be IN FASHION

well thankfully there are still a few of us about who are not fashionable, and in not being 'a la mode' means we can concentrate on the photography
whilst the 'in crowd' concentrate on the fashionable trend as they eagerly await the next ...

Walter

[mike-e]

Check out the FADU [film and darkroom user] web page to see 'waning light writing' and 'photography' alive and well.

It is true that the spirit of film photography is strong for those who follow it, but it is now becoming a niche hobby, and those who look for the golden hour of the day or chase the right light are fewer than ever.
However this is what many perceive as true photography. Just because the numbers are becoming less doesn't diminish the skillset involved in creating something beautiful. Its just compared to those who shoot digitally film users are losing popular ground.

well thankfully there are still a few of us about who are not fashionable, and in not being 'a la mode' means we can concentrate on the photography

Walter [/quote]
Being in fashion doesn't neccessarily make one better than being out of fashion, it can just make your images more popular.
The skillset now is different- more images cheaper to shoot, see, save, and play with often means less care is taken at the taking stage and more;- pleasure/ pain, skill/ toil art/science is needed once at the computer.

The end result is what we are all judged by and not often how we got there.
In competiton mode being fashionable IS the right way,
In commercial photography being fashionable IS the right way,
In social photography being in fashion IS the right way
However if your photography isn't particularly made for others then fashion doesnt matter!

[mark dyson]

I have had conversations with a few young students in photograph and graphic design and they have expressed interest in film photography, simply because it if different. They have grown up with the digital age and want to find something new that they can call their own. I take photographs for myself not to a recipe and I know I will not be as successful as I was doing digital but that is the choice for me and I have never regretted it. If people want to follow the trend so be it but to be successful at photography, take pictures of what you are passion about. Burt springs to mind, he has a long history in motorcycling and this shows in his pictures. photography is a broad canvas.

[PhilipHowe]

I've calmed down after my rant. I'm looking for Salons to enter. It doesn't matter what anyone else enters, if my photograph is worthy of inclusion, then it will be. Winning may be something different.

As my wife says - "It would be awful if everyone thought the same".
"Not if they all thought like me", aparently, is not a valid reply.