The work of these two photographers made me wonder at what point does an image become more about the processing than the shot. I thought some of Ogawa’s images were really beautiful (some of the vignetting is OTT, IMV) but I can’t imagine myself deviating so far from reality. Feels a bit tricksy.
I got this when trying to play the first video…
Oh. I’ll reinstate the publisher’s link that has the video. Just didn’t want to look like my post was an advert
Thanks, for the thread title. I wanted to use this expression last week but it totally could not leave the tip of my touch for the life of me, but I digress.
I think the styles are fine, but they are kind of simultaneously overwhelming and boring, or so overwhelmingly boring that they are overwhelmingly underwhelming.
My point in the repetition in my previous sentence is that, while a play on words is stylish, if I do that in every single one of my posts/writing, I end up being a caricature of myself.
That is how I feel about these photographer/artists based on the few short minutes I looked at their work from the links given.
Overwhelming is a useful word. Like putting sugar or msg in every dish. Interesting at first, then everything becomes veiled by the style?
In other words, it is that VSCO or Instagram filter phenomenon all over again.
Yes. That’s it, I guess. Logical conclusion of photobook/assignment photographer’s needing a recognisable look, p’raps
At the same time, it could be fun for the photographer and image manipulator. It is just that it does not hold up in the end for public consumption, at least not for very long.
I was so taken initially by Ogawa’s images (plus, I have an interest in Japan), that I preordered the book, then cancelled a week later
Dang, pretty harsh here. I’ve started working on my own collections, so I thought the video flipping thru all the pages was really interesting. The heavy use of color clearly caught all of your eyes, but the alternating heavy color then almost monochrome dark photos, and the two photos per spread, then one per spread was really an interesting layout.
I think the photos bring you up with an intensity of not quite complementary colors, then smacks you back down with muted, dark monochromes, then surprises you with an empty page.
I think a lot of photography has passed needing to be technically excellent and even moves past technical excellence to reach for something more flawed and human; that’s what I see here.
Oh God, do I have to preorder again…
Yes, no doubt being harsh on Ogawa. His style seems to have varied a bit over the years, as well, so he’s not a one-trick pony by any means. The original question wasn’t meant as a criticism of these particular photogs
Did you read the few paragraphs that explains the book? It was on the page you linked to buy the book. I thought it framed it up pretty well.
I guess my question is, would you have likes these more if they were unstylizied?
Yes, I did.
Apart from the obviously eye-catching style, I like the fact that it represents a Japan that isn’t shown in the cliches. The emptying out towns (demographics), the messy impromptu cities and countryside. I quite like Japan’s combo of cherry blossoms, car parks and ugly 80s architecture, rural disintegrating junk in among the rice paddies and orchards.
Having said that, I can’t help seeing the style. Like, woah that’s a heavy vignette, and it kinda distracts.
I thought maybe it was a modern take in the style of photography from that period.
Life would be much simpler if you hit upon one style and used it every time. I often try to work out how to achieve every different style, which is not very practical.
Agree with that. I have no consistency
I just wing it… Each image comes out a j kit different.
I can appreciate other’s styles though. I just think it’s cool to see different approaches to images that can result in drastic changes to reality.
A consistent style is good until it’s at odds with the individual image’s best interests. Then again there are lots of legitimate exceptions to that approach, and (my) talk is cheap. So, easier said than done.
It’s tricky because old photo books, from when everyone shot analogue, often have photos that diverge a lot from reality as far as colour and contrast go. Printing technique, development, paper, exposure, film all gave a strong look. From pale softness to crunchy depth. Generally speaking I just accept it but question it more in digital photography.
My hunch is that Yasuhiro Ogawa’s work will look good printed. On a screen some of that moodyness just look forced and lacking nuance. On paper some of that might make more sense.
It’s been mentioned here before but I’ve been really disliking cinematography since like the first SAW movie. Something happened where films are just to controlled and the colour palette to reduced. I’ve recently come across quite a few texts/discussions that agree with this so I’m hoping we’ll see a shift in movies. I think shooting analogue is part of this feeling. You get a strong look but it somehow doesn’t feel overly controlled.