cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

I would like to give a different prospective on this subject about my own photos. After post processing I have noticed on some photos that have been put on my phone, print and other media look to be over processed. Trying to figure this out led me the brightness of my computer screen, which made me over saturate photos. Most of us are amateur photographers and don’t want to spend a lot of money on screen calibration but on camera equipment. This along with age has made me tend to want the screen brighter along with brighter lights in my house. Hope this may shed a little light on the subject, pardon the pun.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thank you, P-J.
--Bob

P-J Loc: UK

Good reply & makes a lot of sense.

Thanks

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

I wholeheartedly agree with "overcooking"! If you see a picture of mine it is what the camera sees, not a computer altered make believe. I did crime scene photography for many years, it must be real and I've never had an inclination to change my style, just for the sake of popularity. Like it or leave it.

Collhar Loc: New York City.

Of course.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I agree on some colors here are way too cartoonish. I have done it a bit but have found after doing the PS that it does look freakish, especially in landscapes that look sci fi like.
But some like it so it is accepted.
As to language, I agree with you. My late wife was from South Hampton so we had a mix of language in the household and kids learned a mixture.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

I agree with Andy and gvarner

dave.m

my thoughts:
there are a number of photographic genres: reporting, documentary, fine art, to identify 3 that reference this thread.
For me it is unforgivable to photoshop reporting imagery except, and only to make the image clearer in what it is reporting (eg bring up shadows to be able to see relevant detail that would not be visible otherwise.) Anything else is potentially manipulating the truth.

* Documentary work is similarly but there is some latitude providing it is not deliberately attempting to deceive (a classic is images of the northern lights - the human eye is very poor in the green spectrum in low light whereas the digital camera is not. When you see the images the sky is alight with great swathes of swirling green, often sufficiently so that there is green illumination of the land as well - on the occasions when I have been fortunate to see the lights, my view is nothing like so bold as the photo.

* fine art - whether by a professional or amateur is an expression of what the photographer saw in their mind or wants the viewer to experience. For me, anything goes. Obvious cases include using black and white instead of colour. In the vast majority of cases you can't get a more unrealistic representation than that. Similarly the ramping up of magenta on sunset images; use of HDR etc etc.
The level of photoshop 'cooking' is a matter of personal taste, and as has been mentioned, imagery processed on one screen often looks a lot different on another. Yes, some looks overdone to me but that is my view and not that of the originator.

And for this thread, the rhetorical question: is wedding photography reporting, documentary or fine art? !!

And definitely the last comment from me - any language such as English will naturally evolve in the locations of most common usage - there are about 4x as many Yanks as Brits so it will tend to evolve more rapidly in USA than UK - and thank goodness they use English instead of German (which was seriously considered at one time apparently!) So celebrate and smile at the differences I say :)

hammond

Before photography, there was painting. Once Realism was mastered, it became sort of common, and new styles emerged that no longer aimed at simply reproducing reality as seen through our eyes. Impressionism, abstraction, and other styles emerged that broke free from the pursuit of replicating what we see: instead attempting to evoke feelings and pasions through interpretations of life through more extreme styles.

Photography is not just a method of documenting the world, it is a form of expression. It also involves a process of experimentation, and post-processing techniques allow an artist to transform an image into a wide range of expressive variations.

America has a long history of leading innovation in art and technology. Taking risks and shrugging off failures as part of a learning process is embraced in the States in a way I have not seen anywhere else in the world.

Perhaps this is part of the reason we see more flamboyant use of post-processing techniques in American photography (though this is not a general trend I was aware or nor necessarily agree to be true).

pgiraudin3

I also agree that the US tends to over Photoshop. I entered a contest in the early 1970's only to be very disappointed with the judges grand prize selection. It was a photo of a tree on a hill with a bull under it. As it turned out, there were two exposures printed to be one in black and white, then copied to make a new negative. Lastly, it was reprinted on color paper with an orange filter. The result appeared to be a bull under a tree looking like the sun might be rising. To me, it didn't even appear to be in focus! I decided then that I would not bother entering any more contests, and would stick to shooting and selling what the camera saw without any gimmickry. I'm retired now, and feel like I was successful and made a good number of people happy with the results. I worked as a corporate photographer for a major oil company, and shot weddings, and events on my own time.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I believe their are more similarities than differences. As is the usual.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

All of the above points have a measure of truth to them, but how much is down to the photographer. One thing that struck me on a long U.S. tour was how 'clean' the country seemed compared to the U.K. I don't mean in terms of litter (but where I went that was better too) but atmospherically.

To me, the whole of the U.S. looked brighter and if you grow up there it must influence how you see things elsewhere. Some of this is down to the higher average elevation (U.S 760m - U.K. 162m) leading to much denser skies. The most noticeable form of this, I found, was highway overpasses. Crisp, clean, white, for you - dour grey and black here, yet they are made from the same material. It's getting cleaner here (or so it seems to me) but it's taking a while. Some of it is down to the weather. We sit under 4 converging systems so I think the dirtier air circulates more. It would be interesting to note if others have noticed similar structures looking quite different either side of the pond.

Dvorak didn't call it the New World for nothing.

bengbeng Loc: Houston, Texas

I am from the UK , but have lived in the US for a few years now. When I first arrived I noticed the extensive post processing too. However, i also noticed the bright blue sky, yellow sun, green grass ( Texas) and colorful foliage , things are actually brighter, clearer and more colorful here, England is grey , cloudy and a more muted pallet.
So that may be one factor.

srt101fan

Interesting observations!

JennT Loc: South Central PA

I post regularly on a British site---There is definitely a difference in thinking--vision, etc. I find. myself working very hard to do my own thing, rather than be pushed around by someone else 's rigid set of rules--- although, I admit to have learned a great deal from the site in general!