I'm sure you know what Instagram is. If you've been active on social websites and apps on mobile phones, you would know what Hipstamatic is too (was). But even before these whole faux-vintage photos became such a fad for mobile phones, I was already hooked to the look of vintage because some of my idol photographers would do this to their images on the web. But it's not like those over-saturated treatments that I mostly see from these apps rather the more less-contrast, sharp (or sometimes not), pale look with a slight tint on the overall. That's about when i discovered Lomography and in there I started to appreciate the vignettes, more saturated color tints and the other qualities of expired films. But other than the look, I didn't really understood why I like those kind of photos. It's old, it's outdated, it's not correct as that's not what the eye can see, it may be what the past looks like but it's artificial, and it's not where the technology of photography is going to. Sensor technology is progressing to recreating that natural look, what you see is what you get. Not over saturated, not tinted, just the right colors. But I liked these "old" looks still. I find it creative in a way but that's it. I didn't try to find the answer as to really why I am in to faux-vintage images. I wonder but I didn't really bother.
Only recently I found my answer to this little question of mine after I read about an essay in The New Inquiry. It's titled Pics and It Didn't Happen by Nathan Jurgenson. Although the topic of his essay (which is really interesting) isn't really directed to this concern, the essay is talking about Snap Chat and how it affects our over photo-lated world by making photos scarce again. As in any other essays, there are links to his references and one of those is titled The Faux-Vintage Photo. In this one, he explained what this fad about vintage-look photos is all about, how it started, it's effects and even it's possible future. It's quite a read for me but one thing sticked to me more that the other points of the essay; he said that all this vintage-y photos offer nostalgia for the present as well as authenticity.
I've never really thought of it that way before. Old = authentic. All I know is that this image looks like it came from the 1980s although the subject of the photo is clearly modern. A portrait looks vintage in it's colors but I know it was shot a few months back based from the description of the photographer. I never thought that I looked in to these kind of treated images and felt, these are authentic. There is a point there, old images are regarded as authentic and real, because they stood the test of time, it captured a memory, all of those are the primary goals of photography, capturing a moment and preserving it. On top of my impression that such a photo looks creative, I may have viewed it as real and tactile like any printed photo even though I'm just looking at it from my laptop or my phone.
Before the Internet, DSLRs, and mobile phones, photos can only be seen three ways. First is when the photographer snaps a shot (in concept form), the other as a negative (during processing) and the last is as a print (the one we hold and share to others). All of these made photos during the old times physically real. Compare it to todays way of sharing pictures, they are mostly on the web, displayed by screens either through the computers or through smaller ones in mobile phones. Digital. It's not a bad thing, it's actually convenient, not bringing albums upon albums of photos from one's euro-trip or from a party by the beach. But there is something to things that can be touched that makes it more authentic even though the images seen from the screens are as authentic as they are captured (unless overly photoshopped, I'm talking about captured moments here).
I guess Nathan is right. The appeal of the faux-vintage images comes from nostalgia and the effect of making an image seem more real just like prints. Maybe I still haven't printed that many images to appreciate the "look" of modern day photography showing the right colors, but for now, the vintage-y look works for me. If I want to view the modern look, I go to 500px (this website hosts the best of photography in the web, IMO). If I want the old look, I visit the blogs of my idol photographers or browse through DeviantArt or look through my feed in Instagram (yes there are really good photos in there too, you just have to look). In the end, the images are successful. Photos should either convey a message or invoke an emotion from the viewer, in a way, vintage-y images does that even though I haven't realized it before.
Even if the fad fades, and people go back to horrible HDRs or whatever it is next in line, I think I'll stick with faux-vintage photos, but it's not like those over-saturated treatments that I mostly see from apps rather the more less-contrast, sharp (or sometimes not), pale look with a slight tint on the overall.
*Those photos are of my drooling nephew and my sister's new puppy. Ow, and read those articles/essays, they're really good.
Only recently I found my answer to this little question of mine after I read about an essay in The New Inquiry. It's titled Pics and It Didn't Happen by Nathan Jurgenson. Although the topic of his essay (which is really interesting) isn't really directed to this concern, the essay is talking about Snap Chat and how it affects our over photo-lated world by making photos scarce again. As in any other essays, there are links to his references and one of those is titled The Faux-Vintage Photo. In this one, he explained what this fad about vintage-look photos is all about, how it started, it's effects and even it's possible future. It's quite a read for me but one thing sticked to me more that the other points of the essay; he said that all this vintage-y photos offer nostalgia for the present as well as authenticity.
I've never really thought of it that way before. Old = authentic. All I know is that this image looks like it came from the 1980s although the subject of the photo is clearly modern. A portrait looks vintage in it's colors but I know it was shot a few months back based from the description of the photographer. I never thought that I looked in to these kind of treated images and felt, these are authentic. There is a point there, old images are regarded as authentic and real, because they stood the test of time, it captured a memory, all of those are the primary goals of photography, capturing a moment and preserving it. On top of my impression that such a photo looks creative, I may have viewed it as real and tactile like any printed photo even though I'm just looking at it from my laptop or my phone.
Before the Internet, DSLRs, and mobile phones, photos can only be seen three ways. First is when the photographer snaps a shot (in concept form), the other as a negative (during processing) and the last is as a print (the one we hold and share to others). All of these made photos during the old times physically real. Compare it to todays way of sharing pictures, they are mostly on the web, displayed by screens either through the computers or through smaller ones in mobile phones. Digital. It's not a bad thing, it's actually convenient, not bringing albums upon albums of photos from one's euro-trip or from a party by the beach. But there is something to things that can be touched that makes it more authentic even though the images seen from the screens are as authentic as they are captured (unless overly photoshopped, I'm talking about captured moments here).
I guess Nathan is right. The appeal of the faux-vintage images comes from nostalgia and the effect of making an image seem more real just like prints. Maybe I still haven't printed that many images to appreciate the "look" of modern day photography showing the right colors, but for now, the vintage-y look works for me. If I want to view the modern look, I go to 500px (this website hosts the best of photography in the web, IMO). If I want the old look, I visit the blogs of my idol photographers or browse through DeviantArt or look through my feed in Instagram (yes there are really good photos in there too, you just have to look). In the end, the images are successful. Photos should either convey a message or invoke an emotion from the viewer, in a way, vintage-y images does that even though I haven't realized it before.
Even if the fad fades, and people go back to horrible HDRs or whatever it is next in line, I think I'll stick with faux-vintage photos, but it's not like those over-saturated treatments that I mostly see from apps rather the more less-contrast, sharp (or sometimes not), pale look with a slight tint on the overall.
*Those photos are of my drooling nephew and my sister's new puppy. Ow, and read those articles/essays, they're really good.
.JPG)
