I think we all realize at this point that certain subjects of themes wax and wane out of popularity at a given time. I thought we could discuss what is popular right now to better create content that our audiences want.For example I feel like the classic bikini girl and glamor shot is very out of trend. As is car photography. Landscapes seem down too however I am noticing a lot of nature subjects increasing, such as good photos of trees.I also see black and white high contract coming back a bit.What are your thoughts /p/? Things that seem out of trend to you or on trend. We could get a good list with 20 or so of us working together.
>better create content that our audiences wantI'll take pictures of what I want to take pictures of and the audience can CHOKE ON MY DICK
>>4461569Eggs never left, but they are 100% making a comeback.
>>4461576Tell me more.>>4461575homo vibes
>>4461586You just take nice pictures of eggs. It could be any sort of picture, but with eggs. Generally speaking the bigger the sensor or film the better, but a nice egg pic is a nice egg pic no matter how it was captured.
>>4461590i only have a lf salon camera, so eggs might do. maybe a ostrich egg
>>4461592What is a salon camera? Sounds nice. I haven't moved past chicken eggs yet. There's so much to photograph with just a single kind of egg!
>>4461569maybe the food photography like beef patty dark soos maybe chicken egg white bread obviously lettuce for colour
>>4461569Post-documentary is the big and emerging thing right now, at least in the art world of photography. Twin palms publishers and trespasser books if you want examples.
>>4461599is that like narrative heavy photos?
>>4461593I think xer means studio.
>>4461569While genres do come and go, ones as ubiquitous as "cars" or "landscapes" as there will always be photographers with interests that cross over. I think it's more interesting to analyse the coming and going of the styles and artistic devices within said genres. For example, look at the landscape photo you posted. You can tell immediately that it's a relatively modern (last 10 ish years) image from the>bloomy haze>clipped highlights>narrower focal length >fine detail>limited dynamic range In contrast look at picrel, a landscape shot from 20-ish years ago. >Ultra-pushed dynamic range, almost nothing clipped, >ultra ultra wide focal length>bright, high luminance colours>shadows pulled up with blackpoint left alone>probably shot at f/16>details mushy from compression, denoising and diffractionI'm not about to say one is better than the other, to be honest, I've actually come back around to the more dated, hyper-Rockwellian style of shooting and editing early digital landscapes. If you have good resources to see older photos, it can be fun to compare the new with the old, and maybe you'll even find aspects that have fallen out of favour that you'd like to implement in your own work. I don't really have a point, I just thought it was interesting.
>>4461723This old style taught an entire generation that digital is shit and only film looks good, simply because it was impossible to apply so much tasteless HDR and unsharp masking to film for most people.
>>4461723Stuff like this fell out of favor because of smartphones doing so much computational stuff and bracketing. That ultra processed HDR look became the norm and people want to get away from that.
>>4461755It also just looks like fake shit.
>>4461755I think you're absolutely right. Furthermore, I think there are other fads that can be explained by the want to move away from "smartphone looking" photos. If you look OP's pic and then compare to the one I posted here >>4461723you can see that there is absolutely zero background separation on the latter, whereas the former was probably shot at f/5.6 or 6.3. I think introducing shallower depths of field into photos or genres that may have neglected such a device is a modern trend, as its something that small sensor smartphones inherently struggle with.
>>4461773If we define "fake shit" as something that looks unnatural, or now how we humans see it through our eyes, then you could say a huge portion of photography is "fake shit". Human eyes can't really render a shallow depth of field, they can't see really far away compressed objects up close like you can with a telephoto lens, you can't see super super wide like you can with a circular fisheye. I don't think something looking fake inherently makes it shit, so long as the photographer can explain it and accommodate it into their coherent artistic vision for the photo.
>>4461802Yeah the light looks like fake shit
>>4461803What light?
>>4461806>t. autism
>>4461812Well I'm sorry you couldn't participate in the discussion. I hope you find somewhere that american teenager shitslinging is welcomed
>>4461814>autist proves autism Nice
>>4461700try google retard hehe
>>4461723that's like 40mm not ultrawide
