Removed backgrounds - commercial photography syndrome

03/06/2007 06:50:49 PM · #176

Originally posted by boysetsfire:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by boysetsfire:

Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result.

are we? by whom?

By the nature of the site it is after all a competition. Thus the hopes of a positive result or do you submit to score low?

so if your style of photography does not grab the attention of the masses then you are expected to change your style to suit?

It's a contest. If you don't enter to win then no you don't have to change anything. This whole thing about appealing to the masses isn't quite accurate. It's really just about having an idea and communicating it within the very short timeframe people spend voting on each image.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

03/06/2007 07:00:31 PM · #177

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I thought I'd just drop Richard Avedon into the conversation. He seemed quite good at taking the odd portrait and most of his images have some sort of artistic merit and are quite interesting to look at.

Note that I was careful to say "rarely", rather than "never". A talented photographer can use a removed background to create something interesting. However, most DPC pictures with removed backgrounds do not fall into that category, IMO.

Any chance you can shed some light as to why Richard Avedon's photos "work" with a removed background and the ones you've selected at DPC don't?

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/06/2007 07:01:03 PM · #178

Originally posted by Gordon:

Do you like the picture or not ? If you do, you score it high, if you don't you score it low.

I think that's how most people vote. Some have a 'sense of art' and vote that type of photo higher. Others deduct points (or add points) according to the number of nipples displayed in the photo. ;-) Yet others deduct for noise, for white isolated backgrounds or lack thereof.... Always for one member or other that particular choice is going to irritate in one way or another. Luckily, the more people we have voting the more balanced the result.

So why not get back to voting ladies and gentlemen.

Greetmir

Nikon D60

03/06/2007 07:04:57 PM · #179

blah blah blah ... we are all different ... so WHAT?

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

03/06/2007 07:09:57 PM · #180

Originally posted by yanko:

Any chance you can shed some light as to why Richard Avedon's photos "work" with a removed background and the ones you've selected at DPC don't?

Because Avedon's images touch me on an emotional level, while most DPC's images with removed backgrounds tend to be simply photographs of objects.

Bruce_the_Robert

Nikon D7000

03/06/2007 07:21:40 PM · #181

I honestly didn't read all of this thread, it got to be too much at some point, but I did read a lot of it, and then scanned the rest. I'm curious about the one objective part of this I haven't seen mentioned: how do you tell (when you decide to deduct two points) whether a background has been removed?

How about this:

Background removed, or not (ignore the frame, it's bloody annoying, but this wasn't a challenge submission, and I was playing around with the technique; the question here is about the image itself)?

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

03/06/2007 07:24:47 PM · #182

Originally posted by rheverly:

Could we please stop talking about the points, and concentrate on the important aspects of this discussion?

Bruce_the_Robert

Nikon D7000

03/06/2007 07:27:46 PM · #183

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by rheverly:
I honestly didn't read all of this thread, it got to be too much at some point, but I did read a lot of it, and then scanned the rest. I'm curious about the one objective part of this I haven't seen mentioned: how do you tell (when you decide to deduct two points) whether a background has been removed?

Could we please stop talking about the points, and concentrate on the important aspects of this discussion?

Okay, so remove the "points" comment (delete the entire parenthetical, it's unimportant to the entire post), and the primary question remains: how do you tell?

03/06/2007 07:44:12 PM · #184

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by yanko:
Any chance you can shed some light as to why Richard Avedon's photos "work" with a removed background and the ones you've selected at DPC don't?

Because Avedon's images touch me on an emotional level, while most DPC's images with removed backgrounds tend to be simply photographs of objects.

Early in this thread you gave 5 examples of DPC photos where you didn't like how the background was removed and 3 of them contained people not objects. So I ask again what makes Avedon's use of no backgrounds effective in his shots that DPCers aren't doing in theirs? Perhaps it's not really about the background after all?

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 19:45:04.

03/06/2007 08:06:50 PM · #185

Originally posted by yanko:

People are also objects. This is why I said "objects", not "things". I am talking about glorified stock images, and I am quite sure that you understand what I mean.

Let's look at a few Avedon's images with removed backgrounds, all taken from this page: one, two, three.

Now look at this:

In Avedon's pictures I see *persons*, they are intimate. On the DPC's pictures above, the personality is removed, I just see *people*, I hope you understand the distinction.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/06/2007 08:09:02 PM · #186

Arcady, you don't seem to like much of what is on DPC why do you stay around. surley there must be somewhere you can go that has more people with your ideals. I am not telling you or asking you to leave just wondering why you stay somewhere that doesn't suit your tastes.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/06/2007 08:12:04 PM · #187

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by yanko:
Early in this thread you gave 5 examples of DPC photos where you didn't like how the background was removed and 3 of them contained people not objects. So I ask again what makes Avedon's use of no backgrounds effective in his shots that DPCers aren't doing in theirs? Perhaps it's not really about the background after all?

People are also objects. This is why I said "objects", not "things". I am talking about glorified stock images, and I am quite sure that you understand what I mean.

Let's look at a few Avedon's images with removed backgrounds, all taken from this page: one, two, three.

Now look at this:

In Avedon's pictures I see *persons*, they are intimate. On the DPC's pictures above, the personality is removed, I just see *people*, I hope you understand the distinction.

the people look dirtier and less pretty. why does that make it more real to you? Honestly I feel that if 10 years from now Larus was considered a master you would then like his images. you seem to like things as a status type thing. just the was you come across to me at least i may be way off base.

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 20:12:29.

03/06/2007 08:21:59 PM · #188

Originally posted by agenkin:

In Avedon's pictures I see *persons*, they are intimate. On the DPC's pictures above, the personality is removed, I just see *people*, I hope you understand the distinction.

You still haven't answered my question. Let me be more direct. Why does the removed background "work" in the first photo below by Avedon and "not work" in the second photo below by Qart?

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 20:22:56.

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/06/2007 08:24:37 PM · #189

Originally posted by agenkin:

This is such a rediculous comparison and honestly beneath you. Are you really trying to compare an image that was taken for a challenge titled 'Sticky' to one of these you linked? This is getting more and absurd all the time. Tell me, was there anything redeming in this image at all. The lighting, any good? composition? imagination? Anything?
Because I honestly don't think I've ever seen you utter a single positive word about anything or anyone here.

03/06/2007 08:26:33 PM · #190

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

I stay here because there are quite a few interesting photographs in the sea of the primitive, and because the situation isn't really better elsewhere. Also, I stay here because of the excellent interface that the DPC provides, it's a rare quality.

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

Honestly I feel that if 10 years from now Larus was considered a master you would then like his images.

This gave me a good laugh, sorry. :)

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/06/2007 08:29:21 PM · #191

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Arcady, you don't seem to like much of what is on DPC why do you stay around. surley there must be somewhere you can go that has more people with your ideals. I am not telling you or asking you to leave just wondering why you stay somewhere that doesn't suit your tastes.

I stay here because there are quite a few interesting photographs in the sea of the primitive, and because the situation isn't really better elsewhere. Also, I stay here because of the excellent interface that the DPC provides, it's a rare quality.

Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Honestly I feel that if 10 years from now Larus was considered a master you would then like his images.

This gave me a good laugh, sorry. :)

while it was said tounge in cheek. i do feel if the same images you hate were by a master or someone you admire you would like them.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/06/2007 08:34:37 PM · #192

Originally posted by Qart:

This is such a rediculous comparison and honestly beneath you.

You may have a point here, I was hesitant giving in to Yanko's request to compare the DPC'ers images to those from Avedon. Note that this was not my idea.

Originally posted by Qart:

Because I honestly don't think I've ever seen you utter a single positive word about anything or anyone here.

Look at my very first post in this thread. Well, maybe there isn't a word, but there is a link to an image that I like *a lot*.

Please note that there was nothing personal in me picking out your image for the demonstration purposes. I just went through a list of recent challenge ribbon winners and chose some, almost randomly.

Techo

Canon EOS-7D

03/06/2007 08:41:06 PM · #193

I really don't see how having a non black background or any other solid color would work better there. Dont even think a gradient would work there. Black actually works really great for that shot, anything else I'd find distracting. I would really like to have your opinion on my Low Key II shot, but do not want to reveal any more detail than... I thought about your argument and decided to experiment with the background, in the end I really have mixed thoughts about it. For comparison I burnt out the blackground completely, and like the shot more.

You singled out one of my shots in one of your forum posts on black background use. I don't mind. You dislike the shot, maybe even hate it, ok, that's your opinion. But I did try different backgrounds for that shot and still came to the conclusion that black was what I wanted. You can browse my other shots and see it's not always my choice.

So having a solid white/black background is a creative choice and not because it's always easier or one is looking for points. For beginners I do think starting with black(more than white) is an easier choice, and then grow from there. DPC has photogs of every level and with basic editing challenges and lack of lighting supplies it isn't always possible to get exactly what one has invisitioned but you can get pretty close.

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 20:45:17.

03/06/2007 08:47:27 PM · #194

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by Qart:
This is such a rediculous comparison and honestly beneath you.

You may have a point here, I was hesitant giving in to Yanko's request to compare the DPC'ers images to those from Avedon. Note that this was not my idea.

LOL. And why not? If all of a sudden you wanted to try out this thing called "tact" you could have just PMed me the answer assuming one exists.

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 20:48:25.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

03/06/2007 08:49:01 PM · #195

Originally posted by yanko:

You still haven't answered my question. Let me be more direct. Why does the removed background "work" in the first photo below by Avedon and "not work" in the second photo below by Qart?

You know what, Qart is right, let's at least compare a portrait to a "portrait". So I'll be talking about mpeters's shot.

The white background on its own does not work any better in one image, than in the other. However, Avedon's portrait does not look like a stock/commercial image, while mpeters's does (with the plastic skin and overdone eyes), and the white background adds a lot to that impression. It, in a way, completes the circle.

Edited to add:

Originally posted by yanko:

LOL. And why not? If all of a sudden you wanted to try out this thing called "tact" you could have just PMed me the answer assuming one exists.

Mr. Tactful, you asked a public question, and got a public answer. We are both equally guilty.

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 20:51:50.

Axleuk

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/06/2007 09:01:44 PM · #196

I think someone is bored and lonely.

03/06/2007 09:13:05 PM · #197

Originally posted by agenkin:

Originally posted by yanko:
You still haven't answered my question. Let me be more direct. Why does the removed background "work" in the first photo below by Avedon and "not work" in the second photo below by Qart?

You know what, Qart is right, let's at least compare a portrait to a "portrait". So I'll be talking about mpeters's shot.

The white background on its own does not work any better in one image, than in the other. However, Avedon's portrait does not look like a stock/commercial image, while mpeters's does (with the plastic skin and overdone eyes), and the white background adds a lot to that impression. It, in a way, completes the circle.

Thank you. It doesn't make much sense to me as it pertains to the background but ok. If I were to argue your point I would just stop at the plastic skin and overdone eyes as to why it's too stock photo-ish. The background is just an innocent bystander to those charges, IMO. Mind you I don't agree with your point but to me this would at least make sense.

The reason why I selected Qart's image that you earlier posted was because his I felt utilized negative space well similar to Aveodon's photo so it serve purpose even though it was featureless and didn't enhance the personality of the subject. As Techo already mentioned there's probably not another background that could have worked better. In mpeter's shot I think the background enhances the subject given her an almost angelic quality. Perhaps an even softer focus would play that up more and make it less commercial but that's up to mpeter to decide based on the purpose of his image.

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 21:16:35.

fotomann_forever

03/06/2007 09:14:11 PM · #198

Originally posted by Axleuk:

I think someone is bored and lonely.

Or will be soon :-)