Josie, finishing up her make-up and hair on her wedding day. Tribeca Rooftop.
I just put this up as my status on Facebook the other day, but I think it bears repeating. I’m tired of vintage. This is hard for me to say, because I love Holga cameras, old Polaroids, and expired film. But, I’m also coming to hate Holga cameras, old Polaroids, and expired film. At first, vintage felt like a nod to heritage and a return to the basics. But then everything became vintage. Vintage clothing, vintage decor, vintage photography. Now, it feels like a label, a look, or a Photoshop filter that creates an ersatz nostalgia.
Vintage is the look of the moment. It’s everywhere. I even use it myself. But I still think it’s gone too far. This isn’t to say it never works. It can create a mood or add a polish to an already well-taken picture. But more often than not, it’s an affectation. It a mask to hide that there really isn’t something there, substituting a manufactured nostalgia, when nostalgia isn’t really something you can manufacture.
When I was in college, my roommate had a clunker of a car. He was dying to have a sports car, so he attached a big spoiler to the trunk (just in case anyone out there isn’t familiar with a spoiler, it’s the wing mounted on the back of sports cars that sticks out, and its purpose is to improve performance by changing a cars aerodynamics). One evening, he asked his friend, a serious racer, if it would really improve his car. “Oh yeah,” he replied, “You just increased the babe factor by 10.” Not exactly the answer he was looking for.
On Toning
I started this post with a picture I took from the last wedding I shot. Nice. Simple. Neither surprising nor exceptional, but I think it works well enough for what it’s meant to be, and the timing is good. Mirror reflections are a bit overused, but that’s another love/hate relationship for another post on another day. Below is a slightly more toned version:
Now, the above picture has more of a “Polaroid Look.” Fine too, but I don’t see that it really adds much in my mind. I’d probably stick with the plainer toning, since I start to notice the toning more, which takes me away from the expression and the environment.
At this point I think it’s going a little too far. If I had pulled the toning back a bit, I think it would still work, but even so, I’d still opt for the original. The color cast is too distinct, calls too much attention to itself, and doesn’t really support any of the elements in the picture.
Above, I’ve placed an overlay to introduce some grunge and really give it a look. In the old days, wasn’t it a retoucher’s job to remove things like this? Textures are a pet peeve of mine. I think they succeed rarely, and more often then not, create such an overpronounced feel that they distract from the meaning of the image itself. I also think they put an expiration date on the picture. Look at spot coloring. Spot coloring is where one thing is left in color on a black and white picture, as was done in the movie Pleasantville. Whenever I see spot coloring, I notice the effect more than anything else. I say to myself “Wow, that’s very early 2000’s!” Instead of feeling the picture, I feel the toning, and I just can’t bring myself to pay attention to the actual content, even if the picture was well done. I think the same will be true of textures. They will date the majority of the pictures they appear in. They will be “so 2009.”
The toning and texturing in the above picture is a distraction. Regardless of whether it looks better or worse, I think the vintage palette and the grungy sense of nostalgia makes no sense. The picture is about Josie’s feeling at a symbolic point in the day. Adding layers of stuff onto that just calls unnecessary attention to the look, instead of the moment and the environment. Just for fun, I also played with a tilt-shift effect below:
A tilt-shift lens blurs out certain portions of a picture (in very general terms). Like vintage toning, it’s also quite popular. I could see someone saying the effect here is dreamy. It certainly fits her expression and the fantasy aspect of a wedding. But I also think it’s less real than the original image, which better lets me focus on the expression and context. The make-up artist’s arm, the beauty products at the bottom – these things give us the context to understand Josie’s expression, and blurring them weakens the image. The tilt-shift effect is also a little heavy handed, here. It says “This is dreamy.” I’d preferred to be allowed to dwell on the image and soak it up. I want to wonder about what she’s thinking and how she’s feeling and come to the conclusion myself that she is feeling dreamy or not dreamy.
I guess all of this comes back to my love for reality. The reality of a wedding is so much richer and better than the fantasy of it. It’s not as perfect, but there’s just more there. So long as the toning enhances the picture, I’m all for it, but something looking vintage doesn’t really mean it is vintage. And what’s really so wrong with the present? Does everything have to be about tomorrow or yesterday? Of course, there’s a kicker to all of this. My office building houses exactly one store. And it’s Cheap Jack’s Vintage Clothing.
——
Below is a picture with a strong color cast from Josie’s wedding. Overtoned or on the mark? I thought it matched the palette of the buildings without hurting anything else. Does it help or hinder their body language and expression?
