I’ve been watching James Popsys for a while now, and I really enjoy his videos. Recently, some people have imitated his style:
Seeing this lead me back to something that I’ve been rolling over in my mind for a while: is his style of blowing out the sky to force the viewer to look at the subject of his photos aesthetically successful?
Photos like this:
I think I tend to find them less successful than some of his other work. I find the white white sky to draw the eye away from the subject, then my eye wanders out the top of the frame. Don’t get me wrong, I am enamored with the subjects of his photos, and I generally like his high-key, pastel film-y pallets. But he talks about blowing out the sky alot, on purpose, in post. I can’t get my mind around it. I think it is that, in these photos, there is so much blown out sky. Its at least 1/3 of the frame, which would tell me the blown out sky is important, else why would it take up so much space?
As I went to look for more examples on his home page (I know he has more, I’ve seen them in the videos) what is there tells me he is maybe moving away from that style and leaving some light blue in there:
Nope, I won’t, because like anything art-related, there’s no right answer. It’s an interesting topic, and as someone who has also watched a lot of his videos, I’m also fascinated with his editing style and approach to photography.
He also imposes other constraints on himself, such as using something like a 40mm focal length to approximate human vision, and shooting at eye level to avoid perspectives that we don’t usually see. Again, I find this an interesting approach, although not something I necessarily want to imitate.
For the blown-out skies in particular, it sometimes works quite well, especially when it’s an overcast sky, but I prefer to embrace the expanse of blue or the clouds when they are interesting. I think a big blue sky is a fundamental part of some scenes, especially in hot countries, to capture what it feels like to be there. And I would say James would probably also agree with this, rather than just try and blow it out as a matter of course.
Because ultimately, he tries to achieve a human perspective on his subjects: What does this scene look like through a human’s eyes.
The success of the style is very dependant upon the entire photo. It doesnt work that well many times (imo), but when the subject is strong enough I think it…can.
I think there are 2 big appeals: 1) De-enhanced sky seems very different from most modern landscape-y treatments. Which tend to be variations on a couple of themes. 2) It is vaguely reminicent of the vacation snaps taken by my grandfather in the 50s. The sky in those pictures very rarely had much structure. So Popsys style is a gesture in the “film-look” catagory…which is all the rage.
Which is all to say: There is no need to change your mind…your mind is fine as it is lol
I enjoy his videos, not only for the content but also his self-deprecating sense of humor. I saw his videos on that subject, where he does that because the skies tend to be boring, or the details compete with his subject. I also suspect that he tends to shoot in areas or the time of day that lend to that style.
One of the things I like in his videos is that he often shows a scene as you’d “normally” see it, and then an edit of the finished photo. The differences are subtle, but effective.
It seems like a form of minimalism, but he also has a knack for bringing out his subjects in bright, saturated colors, so I think all that empty space is important for his composition. I would love to be able to do something like that, but it rarely works out for me.
But yes, it does seem that he’s bringing back more sky color and detail.
Related to this point in particular, I have recently been giving more emphasis to skies and large expanses of colour when I feel it is important. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is important as an interesting subject, but it’s important to the feel of the overall photo.
Here are some recent snaps from my trip to Vancouver Island:
I wanted to capture that feeling of the vastness of both the sky and sea in the Pacific Northwest, because that’s the awe I feel when I’m there. I’m also experimenting with fewer “rule of thirds” compositions.
So, I would agree with you that if he is giving a lot of screen space to his blown-out skies, then it has some importance to him. But that importance might just be as a foil to the main subject. But if our eyes are drawn to the foil, as you say, has it worked?
Of course! (I like your snaps by the way). I was thinking of this in relation to my own photography, and living in Southern California, if I waited for something other than clear, blue skies, I’d only shoot like three times a year. I have given effort into making blue skies a part of the composition when I include a lot of it as a foil to the foreground. That generally (I hope) works out well when I’m out in the desert, as I generally get a complementary color grade by default with the yellowness of the desert and the blue of the sky. I think my photos would work less well if I blew out the sky.
There are photos where it works well for James, the photo of the fishing boat in Vietnam, where its really hazy, is lovely.
I suppose it is more about context then: the landscape photographers I watch snivel at the boring sky, and indeed, when they get a boring sky, it is boring.
As others have mentioned it refers (knowingly or not) to a genre of architecture and landscape photography that started on film. Even early digital photographers In this genre tended towards blown out skies perhaps to manage dynamic range.
To my eye it’s a rather natural expression that doesn’t look wrong or extreme. This is probably due to the memory of images rather than what I’m used to seeing with my eyes.
I’ve not seen his videos but most previous photographers didn’t blow skies as a statement or look but rather to make a good looking photo. Even with our great recent tools compressing dynamic range is very difficult. It often results in a worse photo than one that manages dynamic range of a scene by carefully exposing for the limited dynamic range of the output.
The history of photography is simply full of overexposed skies.
Yes, agreed. Someone like Gavin Hardcastle hates blue skies and is very dismissive of anything other than moody, colourful and dramatic skies. But that’s his style. He’s much more of a traditional landscape photographer in that way. I wouldn’t be surprised if James is deliberately trying to be the exact opposite of this kind of photographer, because Gavin’s genre has been done to death.
Of course, I expect James to change his style gradually as more and more people embrace his look and/or the analogue film trend dies down. And maybe he already has started to change as you’ve noticed. Fewer blown-out skies already. It will be interesting to revisit lots of these YouTubers in 10 years and see how things are different.
Sure, film was limited and that defined an aesthetic. James, in particular in his videos, talks about making a concious choice to blow out his skies in post processing as an artistic choice. In his raw files, which he shows, the sky is intact and, at least to me, isn’t clipped, so he could go any number of ways, but chooses blowing them out on purpose. He says the sky often detracts from the subjects of his photos, and he aims to make photos about the subject. I can’t find the video now (hopefully someone knows it and will link it) where he talks about this.
Sounds like bullshit post rationalising to me considering how established the look is.
It’s not easy to know why you’re doing stuff and even harder to articulate it.
To me his photographs don’t have subjects but are typical Dusseldorf, New topographics stuff where the image is a field of many interesting things. To mix this obvious heritage with YouTuber photography subject speak sounds odd. Couldn’t find his background on his website but perhaps he’s self taught and doesn’t have the art/photography background to know it?
I like his images by the way so I’m not critical of what he’s doing.
Living in California might change things but also how much of a morning person you are … Traditionally these photos are taken early as hell to get the light and the skies.
I much of Europe these faded skies feel natural. Blank blue is a rarity.
But aren’t some of Steven Shores stuff from California?
I’ve always thought composition is king, everything else either supports or distracts. I’ve just scrolled through his site, and he definitely has that priority. His Antarctica spread has a few “blue-sky” photos, so he’s not reticent about that. He’s very attune to light, and composing with it, I like that…
I’ve actually sent a few skies to oblivion recently, already a bit washed out and wasn’t going to get anything out of them that added to the photograph.
Sure, but California is large. The first photo you linked is Yosemite, which is Northern California, a completely different landscape and climate than in the South.
2nd I’d guess is somewhere out in the Mojave, which gets more weather than where I am on the coast, but there are still a lot of blue skies, I go out that way often.
We could like, take the artist at his word any try and evaluate if his decisions support (1) what he says he is trying to accomplish and (2) evaluate if the aesthetic is successful or not, instead of writing it off immediately.
I face the same problem in Arizona. And over the course of the day, light gets very bright and harsh quickly. Though we do get some amazing sunsets. When I first got back into photography a few years ago, for the first time since moving out here, I treated that as something that prevented me from taking photos the vast majority of the time.
But seeing James Popsys’ style helped move me into thinking of how I can work with those conditions rather than seeing them as invalid for good photography. The first example you provided I think is just not a great photo. The bright sky is distracting and the subject, the buildings, are partly in shadows and don’t really stand out to me (and aren’t really that interesting of a subject IMO). But the other examples do work well.
Here’s a photo I took last year that I ended up really enjoying, and sort of falls into that high-key James Popsys look. To me, this ended up looking like what the hot, bright, midday desert scene looked like, and this isn’t a photo where I’m really trying to make it look like much more than it was.
This was key for my own photography as well. I was constantly frustrated with conditions but learned how to work with them, and James’s videos were a big help and validated the “boring” look I’m often also attracted to.
Yes I suspect we have approximately the same conditions. I’ve been shooting a lot more during the day lately, and, as long as the sun isn’t directly overhead and coming straight down (which I find to be boring and also the most harsh light) then I feel like I’m getting better at seeing compositions in this light.
Condition chasing is OK, but you have to also be OK with not clicking the shutter if that is your mindset. I don’t condition chase, but I use things like suncalc.org to make plan for when there will at least be some light on the thing I’m interested in, then I go and try and use what is there to make the best photo I can. I think I’ve made more successful photos now trying to work with what is there.
That’s what I did and I concluded that he’s overlooking how much influence previous photography has had. This can be because he:
Doesn’t want to acknowledge his references. In some cultures it’s preferred to be seen as an original creator.
Is lacking awareness of the historical precedences and the theory behind those photos.
His arguments,as relayed here, don’t make sense.
I would answer the question in the topic with, yes his editing is often successful and the aesthetics are generally nice and in line with the genre hes working in.
Watching a lot of landscape photography YouTube for a while, I got quite bored of the colorful HDR sunset shot. So much so in fact, that I went on a photography trip a few years ago, and came away with a few classic sunsets; which left me absolutely cold.
James Popsys was a breath of fresh air in that regard. Others, too, of course. They showed me that landscapes don’t need to be colorful HDR sunsets. They can use grey skies, or soft light, or -gasp- not a sunset. Can we briefly also bring up my worst pet peeve, the haloed horizon? The result of dragging shadows in Lightroom all the way to 100, and Highlights to 0. Just. Dreadful.
Sorry, I digress. I’ve found through careful introspection that I like to see contrast. The compressed HDR look is just not my thing. I like my highlights hot, and my shadows dark, though with a nice smooth falloff. Highlights that softly fade into pastels. And dark shadows that just retain a hint of saturation and structure. But most of my contrast can fall to the midtones, right where I position my subjects.
James’ videos have helped me get closer to that idea. I like his concept of a “thin lens”. Yes, I do desaturate highlights and blues often. And I saturate and darken greens on occasion as well. Though I rarely go as far as Popsys. To be fair, I rarely take as compelling compositions as Popsys, either. But that’s why I’m just a forum warrior, and not a YouTube creator.
This was my thoughts. He has such strong compositions, often in nice lighting conditions, that I’m sure many different post production treatments would work.
I do enjoy his style and its a good reminder we don’t need to tease every detail out of the highlights just because we can. That said, I have a soft spot for high key and pastel more than too much darkness, since the latter became overused in movies.
