I've been browsing numerous portfolios on many photographers' websites, and digesting different styles, posing, etc. I've noticed a common "theme" among many: blown-out photos. I don't mean just a few blown-out highlights here and there, but people missing facial features, half of their body, etc.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the experience or technical knowledge in the world, but I personally see it as a flaw. Sure, in some photos, it produces a sort of "artsy" effect, but in people's faces? At first, I thought it was just the mom-with-camera wedding portfolios, but it seems to be prevalent in many professional portfolios as well.
So, my question is this: Have blown-out photos become a "new" style? Somewhat similar to the cliche, intentional lens flare?
M A S T E R S wrote: I've been browsing numerous portfolios on many photographers' websites, and digesting different styles, posing, etc. I've noticed a common "theme" among many: blown-out photos. I don't mean just a few blown-out highlights here and there, but people missing facial features, half of their body, etc.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the experience or technical knowledge in the world, but I personally see it as a flaw. Sure, in some photos, it produces a sort of "artsy" effect, but in people's faces? At first, I thought it was just the mom-with-camera wedding portfolios, but it seems to be prevalent in many professional portfolios as well.
So, my question is this: Have blown-out photos become a "new" style? Somewhat similar to the cliche, intentional lens flare?
You have an example? Just like anything else, if it's done well rules can be broken with fantastic results.
Just a guess but I suspect that what the OP may be referring to is some extreme examples of high key. High Key is what's in vogue for a lot of fashion and portrait work these days. Now in theory, high key shouldn't involve blownout highlights. But effectively it's been used that way by a number of photographers. Thus we get the added distinction of "hot white".
The first few photos in the slideshow illustrate my point. In some of the later photos, I can see where it works well.
While I have seen it done to very good effect, I agree with you that the first few photos in that video just look poorly done imho.
It is similar to many of outdoor photos done with deliberate flare from the sun - it can be done well and really contribute to the mood of the photo, but is often be executed poorly and takes over the photo.
If you really want to blow your mind with how great blown out photos can look, check out Lillian Bassman. She was probably one of the "pioneers" of the blown-out look back in the 1950s, and continued working up 'til her death last year at age 94 (even working with photoshop!).
I'm a very technical photographer so when things blow out it drives me crazy. But, I've started to loosen up a bit and recognize that sometimes when things blow out its nice. same for shadows dropping to black. it's ok to break the rules if it helps create a stronger image.
The examples you provided are probably someone not breaking the rules as much as not knowing them.
M A S T E R S wrote: So, my question is this: Have blown-out photos become a "new" style? Somewhat similar to the cliche, intentional lens flare?
When done in an outstanding artistic manner, conveying an image that has impact and attention, the use of the technique will be quite effective, one which advertising agencies are always looking for.
studio kgm inc wrote: I'm a very technical photographer so when things blow out it drives me crazy. But, I've started to loosen up a bit and recognize that sometimes when things blow out its nice. same for shadows dropping to black. it's ok to break the rules if it helps create a stronger image.
The examples you provided are probably someone not breaking the rules as much as not knowing them.
What we like and find acceptable is always a very subjective thing for sure. Your post did make me realize a subconscious predisposition of mine though. While I rarely find blown out photos attractive, I've never had the same feeling about loss of detail in deep shadow, two sides of the same coin. Thanks.
The first few photos in the slideshow illustrate my point. In some of the later photos, I can see where it works well.
Well in that example video the technique is used to cover up the fact that the model in those first few frames (I couldn't make it any further) is about 57 years old, smokes, has a terrible complexion, and probably has 3 different Cesarian scars.
I don't believe this is a "new" style by any means. Technically imperfect images - including pronounced hot spots - have a long history; being used in Vogue and other fashion magazines at least as far back as the 1920s. There are some applications of photography that require technical perfection (scientific, etc). Otherwise, my opinion is to each his own. It's that sort of diversity that makes photography an art form rather than an industrial process. Personally, I don't think it works in the example the OP has shared, but that's just my POV.
It's a matter of style and def not a flaw ... give folks some credit. We know how to take pictures. In fact most cameras nowadays make it difficult to even take a washed out photo My style is soft focus photography ... yet you'd be surprised at how many know it all critics are so quick to chime in with comments like "great photo, except for the focus issues" ... makes a brother want to scream ... tack sharp is not the be all to end all! L et the folks shoot what they like ... we all have different taste.
I think that it all depends on the eye and what people think looks good. Many people have no concept of what looks good. if a bunch of people that have no concept agree on liking a photo style, you then have a bad style turned trendy. I do think that your selection of sample images stink. Its just bad photography and bad lighting.
Dan OMell wrote: the example isn't a style, is absolutely horrible, and looks to me almost like this:
a bit more reasonable example could be, for example, here:
The top photo (the bad example) is terribly done. Unfortunately, some photographers don't move these to the trash where the belong.
The bottom photo is not a blown out photo at all. It's a beautifully done High Key photo. A well done high key image is a beautiful thing. In a way, these are like comparing apples to horses. But, in another way they illustrate the difference between high key and blown out, technically inferior images.
Well in that example video the technique is used to cover up the fact that the model in those first few frames (I couldn't make it any further) is about 57 years old, smokes, has a terrible complexion, and probably has 3 different Cesarian scars.
I'm a huge fan of Kesler Tran's work. Creating and capturing an evocative aesthetic (in this case, one that incorporates imperfections and a sense of chaos) and is faaaar better than "correctly" metered, technically perfect, classically composed images that come across as sterile.
Those images might appeal to me as a photography nerd, but they don't speak to my soul.
It may be some sort of a new trend. Kinda like editing your images to look all "Instagram"! I personally, just don't like High key unless it's done very well. I like shadows. I like the dark. But, to go along with this thread, my avatar is what I consider "over exposed". I had to blow her out a bit to get her skin that white, but I still maintained the shadows I wanted, so it's ok. It really all depends on how it's done, but no. I'm not one for blown out highlights. If it is a new trend, I hope it dies a quick and yet, painful, death.
Caveman Creations wrote: It may be some sort of a new trend. Kinda like editing your images to look all "Instagram"! I personally, just don't like High key unless it's done very well. I like shadows. I like the dark. But, to go along with this thread, my avatar is what I consider "over exposed". I had to blow her out a bit to get her skin that white, but I still maintained the shadows I wanted, so it's ok. It really all depends on how it's done, but no. I'm not one for blown out highlights. If it is a new trend, I hope it dies a quick and yet, painful, death.
God the instagram trend drives me nuts.
On certain images I believe you need to walk a fine line between getting great highlights and blowing out a picture. The further you push that boundary with blowing out an image and maintain the important structure in your photograph the stronger it can be. If you shoot in raw you can usually recover your highlights as long as there not to over exposed.
sometimes blown out highlights work and sometimes they don't. it is a trend I see especially in wedding photography paired with a shallow dof.
I would say try it for yourself and make it tasteful however you feel comfortable with it, it could only help your photography by expanding your horizons.
On certain images I believe you need to walk a fine line between getting great highlights and blowing out a picture. The further you push that boundary with blowing out an image and maintain the important structure in your photograph the stronger it can be. If you shoot in raw you can usually recover your highlights as long as there not to over exposed.
sometimes blown out highlights work and sometimes they don't. it is a trend I see especially in wedding photography paired with a shallow dof.
I would say try it for yourself and make it tasteful however you feel comfortable with it, it could only help your photography by expanding your horizons.
I'm with ya on the Instagram thing. I dunno, I'm more of a realist or something like that. As well as the rest of your statement, I agree. About the only real place I'm "Ok" with losing detail is in my shadows. Sometimes, I'll edit them up a bit, to retain that information, but I'm also ok with letting it go. It does bother me to loose information in the highlights though!
In the fashion world...they have to produce cash flow year after year. If they have the same old fashions...then their cash drops...so they claim...yesterdays fashions are out of date...the new look is in...this is hot this year!
Same thing with photography and magazines. We were once all trying to get perfect skin colors and tones, now its cross processing and color casts that are the new thing. People got bored of seeing all skin look perfect and the same color...so we declared a change.
Is the blown out look hot this year...to some people it is. They are the vanguards of change and newness for the rest of us...they pull us along kicking and screaming...and we eventually give in.
Do I really look good in dark, black, heavy eye glass frames that block out most of my face and make me look like a nerd. NOPE. Dont want their fashion trends...they really blew it by bringing back the 50's eye glasses...I hate the look. But there are some newsayers...and not naysayers...that say I need the buddy holly look.
Are hot photos hot this year...NOPE. Just someone experimenting at trying to be different and being happy at doing something different. To me those white images looked a bit odd...but thats art... if enough people say it is. Hey, I just buy the stuff...im not supposed to be able to have a say in whats hot this year. Not me...THEY make those decisions for me!! NOT.
Rebel Photo
Posts: 11,381
Florence, South Carolina, US
new style? bad photography isn't a "style" it's just no skill set. All one has to do is look at the vast majority of photos of recent posted in this website.
My style is soft focus photography ... yet you'd be surprised at how many know it all critics are so quick to chime in with comments like "great photo, except for the focus issues" ... makes a brother want to scream 
| 
| 
| edu