low-contrast... ?

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

Hey.

As most are probably aware, FaceBook is the new way for *photographers* to promote them-selves and show their 'work'. Which this is fine.. i guess..

How-ever... i've been noticing that ALOT of people who advertise to do cheap weddings and portrait sittings have been producing really flat uber-low-contrast images... I was just wondering why ? Has anyone else started noticing this... it is kinda bothering me because there is quite a few *photographers* around my area (which ain't a big town...) and a high proportion of them are going for this flat look, how-ever them appear to be getting customers... I just can't see the appealing side of these images...


Thoughts ??



EDIT : I am aware of F.B.'s image compression head-aches, although if you use the HTML version it doesn't seem to affect the colours.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Dirt_Bike_Ryda

=

How-ever... i've been noticing that ALOT of people who advertise to do cheap weddings and portrait sittings have been producing really flat uber-low-contrast images... I was just wondering why ? =



EDIT : I am aware of F.B.'s image compression head-aches, although if you use the HTML version it doesn't seem to affect the colours.

Its all in the image compression. FB's algorithm treats images differently depending on their colour space and bit depth. So if an image was relatively flat before being uploaded, it's gonna go to hell and a handbasket online. The same can also happen to an image that is VERY contrasty: it goes straight flat as soon as its put through the FB wringer.

[NZMXr]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Its all in the image compression. FB's algorithm treats images differently depending on their colour space and bit depth. So if an image was relatively flat before being uploaded, it's gonna go to hell and a handbasket online. The same can also happen to an image that is VERY contrasty: it goes straight flat as soon as its put through the FB wringer.

Yeah tell me about it ... I dont like what FB has done to most of my photos, even posting them on this site they seem to lose alot of quality

[BigVinnie]

The trick is to prep for facebook. This is a public album on my facebook page.

I have a simple action in photoshop that from raw file creates the simple border, does high pass sharpen and then "save for web" reducing to 800 on the wide side. Anything larger and facebook reprocesses the images. At this size they strip a little bit but it is not that noticeable.

Feel free to tell me that my images are crap and I just don't know the difference

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

The trick is to prep for facebook. This is a public album on my facebook page.

I have a simple action in photoshop that from raw file creates the simple border, does high pass sharpen and then "save for web" reducing to 800 on the wide side. Anything larger and facebook reprocesses the images. At this size they strip a little bit but it is not that noticeable.

Feel free to tell me that my images are crap and I just don't know the difference

Those photos are nicely coloured.

and replies to everyone else

yes im aware of the compression things. how-ever i don't think that is the cause for their work, i'm more asking if anyone has noticed alot of people going for the whole low contrast look, or is it just bad photography ?

[BigVinnie]

There is a trend especially here in the northwest toward a vintage look. Seems most of it is done via Alien Skin plugin. I've done some myself.


Link to larger image.

We have a lot of old hippies around here.

Weddings and portraits traditionally are low contrast images. Kodak sold tons of Vericolor for just that use. It is a low contrast film that reproduces skin tones well. I used to shoot with Fuji 400 just to keep the contrast low.

Everyone seems to want to push the sharpness and bold colors of digital but that is not always what clients want. What you might be seeing is a bit of a backlash to the over processed digital.