dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

In a recent post "Ugly Hedgehog RIP", SteveG expressed frustration with the current trends on UHH to the point of leaving. I am one of those members who have drifted away.

That said, some of the responses to his post prompted me to raise this question: must 'good' photography always involve alteration, exaggeration, substitution, effects, etc.? I see more and more of a trend towards using software to alter reality. Which is a wonderful creative outlet for those with an artistic bent or who create prints for commercial sales. But altered, rather than enhanced, images seem to be of greatest interest, which is why I faded away. I simply love to share scenery from travels all around the West, along with a few waterfalls from my home state. My goal is to present that scenery as well composed and edited, and using the best equipment, that my skills allow. To that end, I have received a huge amount of help on this forum!!

The best reason to stay active on this forum is the network of familiar 'friends' who share an interest in, enthusiasm, and support for the subject matter I post.

So why have I drifted away, you ask? There are a few reasons.
1. Members who reply to ALL posts with the same pat comments. So, does that mean ALL pictures are created equal? Or are they trying to rack up points for the most 'Messages Posted'? Or are they simply meaning to be nice to everyone? Hard to tell sometimes.
2. My own sense that my photography isn't edgy enough to hold the interest of the audience or prove that I am 'growing' my skills, therefore, I don't merit being taken seriously.
3. Of the landscape photographers whose work I have enjoyed tremendously in the past, their presence is getting scarcer to find.
4. A trend towards more family/pet pix being shared without any real attempt at composition or adjusting for HDR and color saturation. Not anyone else's bad, just my own preference for landscapes and nature...without blown out/or artificial looking clouds, clutter**, overcooked colors, or substituted skies.

Regarding #4, a recent encounter while on a waterfall hike exemplifies my frustration. A conversation with an unknown photog who was a self-proclaimed 'master' and who was new in the area led to a suggestion that we might meet up for some photo hikes. We exchanged contact info. and he soon provided examples of his own work, including one with a Milky Way he had plucked from the internet and added to his image of Yosemite. It was a garish sky. I shared one of my Milky Ways and, although I had expressed an objection to people downloading my images without permission, said person took my image and used it to substitute the sky in his picture from Bodie Ghost Town. I understood that he was trying to show possibilities, but two things didn't set well with me: 'without permission' and assuming that, as a 'teacher' of 'altered reality' he was licensed to pilfer.

So, to sum it up, I have great respect and appreciation for many of the technically savvy members who have donated their time and talents to help me learn the process. If I don't hang around on a daily basis, it has more to do with diverging paths. Maybe others, like myself, are in the process of trying to find their niche in a media awash with different photography art forms. I would be happy to land in a travel forum where quality images and tips on the 'where and when' are shared.

**For those that would rush to point out that removing 'clutter' is altered reality, my feeling is that distracting branches or tin cans catching the sunlight do not serve the purpose of enhancing a scene. Removing distractions does not constitute 'altered reality' as in substitutions, IMHO. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but enhancing what is already there is not the same as adding something that the photographer never saw in the first place.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Too much manipulation only indicates that someone has figured out how to use Photoshop. I have seen several photos posted here that have supposedly captured the scene with the sunset/sunrise just beginning to creep over the horizon, for example. Many accolades given to the photographer on this site, but upon close inspection of shadows in the photograph, one quickly sees that it was not taken at sundown/sunrise at all. My immediate thought is that the photographer is not a photographer but a used-car-salesman.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

I agree, I agree.....................................

Most of the images I seen are frankly crap...............

Quixdraw Loc: x

Taking or making photos is a matter of personal choice, just as what you appreciate is a matter of personal taste and sensibility. To each his or her own. No one has to look if they don't care to - there are a few photographers whose posts I never open.

Stephan G

Reasons for drifting? It is no longer "my cup of tea" is a valid reason. This takes ownership. None of us are "under contract" to return to this site.

I visit many sites to see what is out there. Several are very esoteric in their content. I do not view anything for the purpose of setting down. I have too little time to stay 'alit'. (I also hate *cliques*.)

In my participation, my commenting, it will always remain with the understood "This is what I would do if-".

To paraphrase an adage, "To each, his own eye."

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I don't read every UHH post and open just a small percentage of the Photo Gallery, so I always wonder about these complaints about too much processing. Replacing skies is a new feature so it's expected to be a hot topic until things revert back to the norm of Canon vs Nikon and whether to use UV filters.

To test my theory, I scrolled the active pictures. I had to get to the 5th page before I saw an obvious composite. The rest is a mix of good and bad, with a far higher percentage of 'good' in the thumbnails.

I guess my perception of 2020 photography is the natural aesthetic / lite processing appearance is predominate. I don't think I'm naïve and incapable of recognizing altered reality? I assume everyone is processing their images to some extent, whether shooting RAW or JPEG. Maybe I'm wrong?

Hudsonwi Loc: Wisconsin

Here is a picture straight out of the camera that is was reluctant to post because it looks fake.

X-T2 55-200 zoom at 181mm sunset

(Download)

Hudsonwi Loc: Wisconsin

Correction "that I was"

Ourspolair

Although I tend to stay on the "reality" side of image-making in my photography, I have twice substituted skies. Both times by simple substitution of a plain colour when shooting into a canyon contre-jour. If I had been thinking more clearly I would have taken bracketed shots, but since I am not likely to return to that location (in Big Bend) for some time, I felt that the substitution was worth the "risk". On other occasions, I will make a copy of the original, reduce the exposure and use the two layers to produce an "enhanced" version. Pretty much the same thing that I used to do in the darkroom.
As others have said, "to each their own" and "it's my photo, so I can do what I like to it.
Some renderings are obviously over-exaggerated - some of them fall within my aesthetic spectrum and others do not. When HDR took off, lots of people went nuts - some of them are now acclaimed "photographers". Aquick look at 500px shows that lots of people respond positively to extreme colour. Maybe they are among the growing hordes who have played music so loud into their earbuds and in their cars that they can no longer hear or appreciate subtle sounds.
When I stop to download an image on this site, or read someone's post I usually leave what I hope will be a helpful comment. There is no harm in suggesting that an image may be a bit "hot" or overdone. It may even lessen the trend and bring those who are "pushing reality" too far to ease off - or not.
There is a place here for all nature of rendering. If the photographer is trying to "fool" members of the fora, they will likely be called out. We are not forced to download or view images which are not to our liking, so I just don't look further than the "thumbnail" unless there is something that attracts my attention in a positive manner. I am sure that by being selective in selecting the fora which interest you most and subsribing just to them will restore your interest and keep you happy.
It would be sad if you let the things that annoy you, or others, to leave the site - exercising your good judgement should keep you in the "Hog's" fold.
Please stay well and keep on posting.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

I agree with you, Steve--substitutions done poorly are easy to spot for the reason you stated. Another tell-tale sign for me is an over saturated sunset sky over a flat, cool foreground, with none of the warm tones highlighting the ground. Or, instead of leaving a silhouetted foreground, they follow some rule about lifting the shadows and end up with cool, dull, inappropriate daytime mountains. Altered reality, for me, includes Milky Ways over afternoon foregrounds.

But I laugh at myself because someone else might say that no manipulation means I'm not smart enough to use Photoshop!

repleo Loc: Boston

dmeyer
Much food for thought in your post. Some of my random thoughts...

I share your frustration with the dirth of landscapes and nature posts lately. I am sure that is due to the pandemic and the difficulty of travelling. Hopefully, we will see more of them when when the world returns to normal.

As for 'altered reality', if you interpret 'reality' as being what the eyes sees, then photography has been 'altered reality' since its inception. The eye does not see in black and white. The eye does not see landscapes as sharp from edge to edge. The eye is not capable of freezing action at 1/2000 of a second. I think the goal of PP is not necessarily to make the image 'real' but rather to make it interesting and visually 'credible'. Over-cooking is a lack of skill, or sometimes, a lack of taste.

Replies to posts. I post pictures frequently. I always appreciate even the most mundane comments or simple thumps up. It gives me a gauge of appeal, although sometimes the number of responses is due more to timing of the post or the title than the quality of the pics. At my first photography course, the teacher emphasized the importance of finding a place to display your photos and committing to displaying on a regular basis. For me, UHH has become that place. The value of posting is not just in the responses, but rather in the effort that goes into creating images you hope will be of interest. The value in UHH is that posts of all levels, from beginner 'snaps' to professional quality wall hangers can find an accepting and encouraging audience. It is about participation and encouragement, not about critique.

Like you, I am finding myself an a 'diverging path'. I am being drawn more towards the artistic side - not quite 'fine art' but towards considerations like minimalism,mood, atmosphere, emotion, mystery. I have a long way to go and I am not finding much of that on UHH. I would love to hear of other sites that might be more directed to that aspect of photography.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I like it a lot.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

I hope you saw that in my post I sufficiently acknowledged that photography is personal preference and that perhaps people drifting away is more about different destinations and taste, with a nod to images being hijacked without permission. Cannot argue with what you have said.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

A good position to take, StephanG.

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

I think we concur on that matter--PP for enhancement over alteration. For me, the photography is my way to preserve memories from my adventures to new places and altering them would erase the memories.