As with any creative medium, there are blips of unfortunate comedy. Photography has had more than its fair share, and let's be honest, many of us have tried them. So what are the worst fads of all time?
As is the case with literal taste, your eye for photography and what constitutes good and artistic, and moreover, what doesn't, alters over time. When I look back at my earliest photographs, I often wonder what I saw. It seems almost unthinkable that what I see today and what I saw all those years ago could possibly be the same. I have noticed a real trend in my older photography: the more I leaned into a fad or a style that was in vogue, the worse the image aged. This is true of many other creative mediums too. Think Britney and Justin in double denim or how "busy" the decorating was in your grandparents' house.
When I think of photography fads, a few instantly jump to mind, and many of them I have tried. Let's kick this off with my own mistakes from the very early days with a camera.
The Famous Three
HDR
This has to be the most common answer to that question: HDR (High Dynamic Range). Admittedly, the above image is on the extreme side of things and HDR — when used subtly — can be effective. But 10-15 years ago, there was a craze for this brand of over-saturated, over-sharpened, contrasty abominations, filled with halos. What's worse is this above image was a highly calculated outcome. After photographing a dull piece of industrial architecture, I opened the file in Photoshop and with a magazine open next to me, I followed their guide for achieving the punchiest HDR.
Spot Color
This trend has been around for far longer than HDR and has admittedly dissipated from prominence in recent years. This style seemed to be exclusively saved for red things. Armistice Day would forever yield poems over the top of spot-colored images of poppies, but that much I could stomach. Where my tolerance was exceeded was London. Living in and around London means you have to see spot color images of busses and telephone boxes on every corner and by every hobbyist photographer on holiday.
Soft Focus / White Vignette / Vaseline Lens
Like many things, the 80s ruined this effect. I've combined a number of techniques that essentially walk the same "creative" line. The white vignette is still occasionally observable by outdated wedding photographers. The soft focus/Vaseline lens is much rarer to spot in the wild however. You might find it on occasion in high street photography studios that have been lurking around for 40+ years. Outside of that, if any woman in her 50s or 60s has portraits done in a cheap studio some time in the 80s or early 90s, you're likely to get a simulation of looking at someone while having cataracts.
Current Fads for Future Cringes
This is the most interesting part of this discussion for me. As is often the case with fads, at the time they're popular and in circulation, they aren't seen (by many) as dreadful. If history has taught us anything, it's that it repeats itself where possible, and so you can safely assume that current trends will one day be openly mocked. So what present day editing and photography styles will not age well?
Personally, I think there are two prime contenders. What makes me reticent to name them is that I quite enjoy both techniques, but I obviously liked HDR at one point many years ago, so I can't be trusted.
Orange and Teal
This color-grading technique is more common in and made famous by cinema. One benefit it has over a great many trends is that there is at least some color theory behind it, and complementary colors can make an image. That said, it's being used a lot. Whenever you think of eras of cinema in particular, there's usually a "look" associated. For a few decades after a trend, it will become desperately uncool before sometimes returning to the limelight in the cyclical nature of fashions. I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade from now, the teal shadows and orange highlights aren't seen as dated and undesirable.
Crushing the Blacks
It was difficult for me to find a good example of this from my own work. Not because I never crush the blacks, but rather because I do it often and subtly. There are a lot of explanations on how to do this effect and what exactly it does, but for me, I just enjoy the uniform and distraction-free shadows. That said, the above image was for a band and pushed much further than my normal tastes. The term again originates from cinematography, and the technique is commonplace there, but it has crept into photography far more over the last decade or so. It's typically a staple of many filters and presets that can be downloaded, and VSCO practically built a business off the back of that.
It seems that weddings are often the harbingers of trend death. Several on this list have been a staple in wedding photography at some point or another, whether it's white vignette or crushing the blacks and making an image look matte, or sometimes just flat. An interesting area of debate is if you ought to follow trends, avoid them entirely, or create your own look and run with it. There's no simple answer from an artistic standpoint, and I believe the water gets muddier from a business perspective. Catering to what is in vogue at any point in time can be lucrative, though how you make transitions from style to style organic and keep a cohesive portfolio is a key problem with that approach.
What Say You?
So what are the worst photography fads in your opinion? Which current trends will be the source of shame and mockery in the years to come? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Lead image (which is beautiful and not at all part of a fad) courtesy of Moose on Pexels.
well just look at instagram and %90 of it :)
Blue and red gel lighting? It does look good but is it going to be overdone (or is it already?)
Forest vertical motion blur?
I think any "fad" style can look good in the right hands and used correctly, but if you miss the point of when to use it then no amount of trendy style is going to save a bad photo
My biggest pet peeve is blurred skin and over sharpened eyes and that's instagram face apps and bad retouchers.
Yeah, and this raises the question of setting an impossible standard of beauty.
Imperfections are part of us. Well, of you lot maybe.
Agree with above, in addition to: tilt shift, strobism, ringflash.
I'm not sure there's actually enough people doing tilt shift for it be considered a fad. It's pretty esoteric and aren't fads supposed to be popular?
Tilt shift may not be hugely popular right now but I did have a few real estate agents recently ask for this look for the first time in...well, ever. Fingers crossed this isn't on the rise!
Yeah... I'm going to hope that I don't get an agent asking me for the Mr. Roger's Neighborhood effect.
It is fairly popular with a lot of younger shooters to get that miniature effect, aka Mr Rogers Neighborhood, like mentioned below. Lensebabies made this very popular.
I am into half and hate half
You will never catch me doing HDR (HDR that doesn't look like HDR is fine)
SPot color
White Vignette
Never can get enough of
f.1.4
Good when done well
ring flash
Gels in complementary colors
Not a big fan of presets in general.
I am into half and hate half
You will never catch me doing HDR (HDR that doesn't look like HDR is fine)
SPot color
White Vignette
Never can get enough of
f.1.4
Good when done well
ring flash
Gels in complementary colors
Not a big fan of presets in general.
Are you really talking about HDR, or tone mapping? The surreal colors and depths are a result of tone mapping (fake hdr) rather than actual hdr.
I think the vsco look will fade out. At least I hope it does. I’m talking about the ones that don’t even look like film. Super desaturated, dark, overly orange skin.
Also the Video trend of crazy color grading just to say it’s color graded. I see so many videos on YouTube and Instagram with exaggerated teal-orange color grading thinking that the color grade alone makes something “cinematic”
Orton. Especially badly done Orton.
Yeah, and over tone-mapped HDR.
1)Seemingly random color gels on strobes- as though that alone will make your portrait cool/hip/artistic.
2)(a NY Times Style section favorite)- gaudy flash- often held below(!) the subject giving vampire ghoul lighting and deer-in-the-headlight look. Another 'look how ugly/amateur I MUST actually be hip and skilled' fad for those who cannot master the artful use of strobe...
M4/3 and the idea you don't need FF(APS-C is a good enough) but you do need MF.
This might be specific to automotive photography but I'd say light painting. It's a decent effect if used in moderation but so much of it is wildly overdone. Very much like HDR and landscape.
Also all those lens hacks. Prisms, CDs, whatever. Like the vaseline lens, if you want to shoot a dream sequence then sure that makes sense. But it just looks weird in regular portraits.
Definitely agree on light painting. As is the case with pretty much every fad, if used in moderation it can be effective. Those long white streaks along body panels where the angle of the light brick is reflecting in the image ruin the shot for me.
Bought lightstickwand thing, going to use it on everything.
Hey I bracket damn near every landscape I take so you do you boo.
Faux tilt-shift effect.
Yeah, and even the lensebabies version
As someone who shoots almost explicitly(near 95%) in black and white the only thing I relate here is the idea of “crushing the blacks”. Admittedly I am super guilty of doing this albeit in a subtle manner but for it stems from an addiction like need to create space black shadows in my image. I believe it draws your attention to the finer details of the “colored” portions of the image because your mind knows there’s nothing to gleamed from the blacks. My own opinions of course but still. I also tend to agree that it can very easily be over done and can ruin the emotion of the image.
In terms of what I think are over done fads... one stands out to me and it’s the idea that Photos need to be bright and full of color spectrum so that they invoke a happy emotion. Not every picture needs to appear positive and happy and I can damn well show the full range of emotions with my monochromatic addiction. IMO
But what if your client likes one (or all of the mentioned effects), and is willing to pay for it? Do you refuse?
What the client wants, the client gets with regards to editing. That said, I won't be sharing it or adding it to my portfolio any time soon!
I think that’s difficult, because later these pictures will pop up everywhere with your name next to it, so I don’t...
if the client wants something I’m not comfortable about, it’s better to move on
(unless it’s a 50k Coca Cola commercial or something, obviously i’m not thát stupid)
I always do what the client wants.
My job is to realize their vision, not impose my own.
Fake sun beams and fog are still popular... They shouldn't be.
Fake Flare is here to stay.
Down vote in protest
Oh, oh, oh, adding fake snow, leaves blowing or cherry blossom petals blowing in the wind to “enhance” an image is bad when it’s used poorly, especially when it’s just thrown on top of an otherwise snapshot level image. It seems to be the popular thing to do in Japan these days.
Edit: oh, and fake birds.
Dude in hoodie and facemask, holding a smoke grenade...ugh booooring.
Titled wedding photos.
oops
Selective colour.
Selective colour.
And
Selective colour
I always smile when i see this specific lens flare in commercial images :)
A photograph taken from above of a woman on her back surrounded by flowers.
I totally agree. My tagline has always been "creating images to last a lifetime." Fads come and go, but good images will always stand the test of time.
Everyone will hate me for this one but I'm bloody tired of long exposure waterfalls. Every waterfall pic on the net is LE. They all look alike and I think that's what bugs me the most. No originality. I wish that fad would die. Maybe it's not a fad but it's like nobody wants to take a picture of a waterfall or water streams in real time. Other than that nothing else bugs me.
I agree on one hand but I also haven't found a great alternative. Stopping the motion in time with a fast shutter doesn't look realistic to me and slightly longer exposures just look a little blurry and out of focus. I think it's one of those things where our perception of a waterfall involves some 'mental averaging' and visually averaging the shot with an ND filter is as close as I've been able to get. The superior option would be a cinemagraph to really convey that movement without the foginess but moving pictures don't translate to many mediums.
Fast shutter I think looks more realistic than white foamy vertical blurred milk ... I think experimenting with different settings would be a nice challenge project. And of course every photo would look different as water never falls the same way. Unless you look at it in LE and then it all looks the same pic after pic. It is just my opinion which means nothing but the author asked and I felt compelled to express my thoughts on this. It has been bugging me for a long while.
I'm hesitant to rail on the artistic choices of others, but ...
The orange and teal thing has just gone beyond ridiculous. As pointed out in the article, at least it's based on some semblance of color theory, and at sane, subtle levels it can even make a photo pop. But it's gotten to the point where it's like a race to the bottom; who can have the most orange and teal. You now see people mixing it up, as it were, by apparently, in the Calibration module pushing the Red Primary all the way to the right, the Blue Primary all the way to the left, and then taking it a step further by sucking all the blues out; probably in HSL.
Another thing that usually makes me cringe is heavily practiced by many wedding photographers; the completely blasted out skies or generally lacking in contrast. I have my own theory as to why it's a "thing" (beyond client demand), but I won't get into it.
Completely agree and the over-exposed wedding edit is an absolute horrible trend that I wish would dissolve. I think these wedding photographer types most likely watched one CreativeLive course too many.
I went through a heavy HDR phase 10-11 years ago but managed to wean myself off it. When I look back at some of those images now I cringe. Somewhat related: I was heavily addicted to the tonal contrast effect in Color Efex Pro for quite a while.
I am currently guilty of orange and teal color grading and crushed blacks, but I've been trying to dial it back a bit lately.
I often cringe when I see the "in thing" in food photography these days where they place crumbs or whatnot on the table around the food item to make it look casual and real life. You'll see it on most food ads, menus, and signs these days. (You won't be able to unsee it after. Sorry.) It's not that I don't think it looks bad at all. It looks fine. I just think it's a little unoriginal and too trendy anymore. And try-hard too, when you know they spent significant time and effort to make the perfect random and casual look.
Outdoor shots full of desaturated pastel colours. I have a particular personal reason: I'm sensitive to bright light and so wear glasses with photochromic lenses, which give a slightly saturated view of the world, and this reflects in my own post-processing (although not to extremes, I hope). Anything going the other way feels unnatural to me. YMMV.
christmas/string lights, lens spheres need to die a quick death in IG