Because of the extensive photoshopping (and HDR as the other comment mentions), none of these photos look real to me, more like a video game background. Which I think is a shame, because I like ruins and scenes of industrial decay, so I do like the subject matter. And the author clearly did a lot of work to find these old cars and photograph their interesting character. I understand the desire to fix the light (and certainly the dark forest settings were difficult to capture), but it just looks overdone to me, no longer real life.
Maybe check out Kyle McDougall, he is a photographer interested in similar themes (decayed motels, cars, ghost towns, etc), but his photographs are much more compelling.
At the other end of this same spectrum, there’s Troy Paiva, who has gotten quite a bit of press for nighttime “light painting” of abandoned aircraft, cars, rural buildings, etc.
Those are nice, and they remind me of pulling the exposure with film (overexposure and under-developed) to give that slightly washed out look. But it works with his subjects—and still looks natural to me—because it matches the bright light and slight haze of the high plains and desert.
BTW, I found the original submission photos to be compelling, very cool compositions just jarring colors.
My personal favorite photographer on social media is Nick Carver out of Orange County, CA. He covers similar themes (Americana, forgotten architecture, desert landscapes) all on medium and large format film. He walks through his techniques and is very enjoyable to listen to!
We don't see much "real pictures" anymore - everything is so edited to the max (extreme saturation, filtering, color adjustment, unreal sharpening, boosted highlights) that pictures look fake about everywhere now. At least if it were done in a subtle way I would not mind, but 90% have no taste when doing it.
It's also about your monitor compared to the editors monitor. Those cheap displays that are set to look good in the store next to all the others will make you do things to photos that won't look good anywhere.
> I understand the desire to fix the light (and certainly the dark forest settings were difficult to capture), but it just looks overdone to me, no longer real life.
It seems for me, that the goal of editing was not to fix the light, but to move away from real life. Probably something along lines "to reduce level of detail, to let onlooker's mind to fill gaps in details by itself". Or maybe not: this possible explanation is a result of my mind filling gaps, so it is a projection of my mind onto reality which speaks more about me than about reality.
You’re probably right that the photographer intended to make the images slightly surreal on purpose, and then it’s a matter of taste whether it resonates with the viewer. I suppose all I’m saying is that I prefer to see photography that is still based on real conditions.
I realize all photos are enhanced, either in post or in the phone camera. Sometimes it’s necessary to “fix” bad lighting or make something “pop,” but I prefer it when it’s subtle and still realistic. Ansel Adams tweaked the heck out of his prints (contrast and dodging and burning), but the result still looks like a natural scene, as it might appear when the light is just right.
Instagram filters have the same problem, they might convey a mood but many of them look unnatural, for example an outdoor shot with fluorescent sunlight. I probably shouldn’t call it a problem, it’s just an artistic statement (for example choosing a hue to match the mood), though with filters it does feel a bit commodified nowadays.
Some of them are way overdone. So much so they’re hard to look at because they look garish. Others are more muted and add some “atmosphere”. Overall I agree that natural light or even stage lights would have been preferred.
Okay? And? Go take your own shots and develop them however you see fit.
Purely documentary photography only happens in news stories, crime scenes, surgical theaters, and morgues. Everything else is art, to some greater or lesser degree. If you don't like impressionism or whatever, fine, but you add nothing to the conversation in just saying "this is bad because I don't like it" as if that had any use to anyone - that's not even valid criticism, which is an embarrassingly low bar to fail to clear.
Since we're on this topic, is there any explanation why these over-processed images (particularly when they're over-sharpened) make me physiologically uncomfortable/disgusted? Like, literally vomit-inducing.
Probably an evolutionary response for ingestion of psychedelic compounds? I would also like to know more so if you know the name of this phenomenon please share.
Seems like straight out of a boys book - abandoned shed, dozens of cars stored in there, nobody knows that they're so valuable. I don't know anything about cars but from looking at the pictures in the OP, I can't help but think that some of them would be worth quite a bit? Certainly more than the scrap metal value?
I know that people build replicas of expensive Ferraris. But they always seem to take a shortcut and put a modern engine/driveline in it.
Most of the magic of a Ferrari is in the engine, driveline and running gear. When some Ferraris fetch north of $20m, if I was super rich and wanted one, I'd just have a machine shop build a duplicate - including the engine, etc. It can't be that expensive to do it, after all, the originals were built in a machine shop.
That's a massive amount of work (and money) and he's re-using and modifying existing castings and using off the shelf rotating assembly components. If you're not doing it yourself it's going to be cheaper to just buy the Ferrari you want.
I don't think you understand just how much having everything be one off pushes up the cost.
I think the value of these cars is in their rarity and originality - the replica would be worth a tiny fraction of that, because its not original, and many buy them because of their investment potential not because they are a great car to drive (a lot don't get driven as it reduces the value and is risky).
Also, don't underestimate the cost involved in making something like this. While obviously not $20m, having every part created from scratch involves creating accurate drawings and understanding the specifications of the materials and processes involved, which isn't simple. Even creating a replacement set of gears for an existing gearbox takes an immense amount of investment in time, and creating something complex such as an engine block or gearbox casing would be considerably more.
Yes, the originals were built in a machine shop, but also a foundry, and a design department, with a larger supply chain for many of the smaller components, and you'd need to replicators, or all of their work - a substantial effort.
A lot of these 'abandoned' cars are valuable at this point. There's a forest near Chatillon in Belgium where US servicemen parked their cars at the end of WWII, hoping to return one day and retrieve them.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/dtdesign/belgian-car-graveyard...
I lived in Chatillon for 15 years and was going to tell you that this US servicemen story is made up, but I read the article you've linked and was pleased to see that the truth is finally out ;)
Based on the popularity of YouTube channels aimed at restoring or even just getting abandoned cars' engines to start, I'd say they have a lot more than just intrinsic value.
(It makes me wonder if, e.g. 50 or 60 years from now, people will be finding abandoned Teslas and such and trying to get them moving again.)
The beauty of older cars are their simplicity and the fact they were designed to be owner maintained. Teslas and virtually all modern cars require expensive unique software diagnostic tools, getting past drm hurdles and a lack of workshop manuals.
Modern cars are also typically sold with services packages included for a 3 year/mileage amount after which value drops significantly. It would be great to get back to basics with a simple EV that is owner servicable in the future
Coming from a country where the average age of cars is over 14 years, I'm afraid that modern vehicles won't look nearly as good abandoned and exposed to the elements.
I've seen my share of VW Passat B3, B4 and B5s rusting away around allotments and they bring to mind images of illegally disposed of appliances like washing machines etc.
Farming equipment on the other hand - new and old - doesn't give off this vibe. Perhaps being designed to bury into dirt they don't invoke an expectation of being clean and tidy.
Plenty of specimens around my neck of the woods. Also many grizzly twisted wrecks laying on the side of the road. Good reminders to drive carefully in a place where you could be hours or days away from help!
Should self-driving cars be required to have a failsafe where under specific parameters of disuse and remaining power they drive themselves to a repair or storage facility, like my robot vacuum does? Probably not.
Readit News
Edit: link to his website https://www.kylemcdougallphoto.com/
At the other end of this same spectrum, there’s Troy Paiva, who has gotten quite a bit of press for nighttime “light painting” of abandoned aircraft, cars, rural buildings, etc.
https://lostamerica.com/photo-items/the-mojave-airport-boney...
BTW, I found the original submission photos to be compelling, very cool compositions just jarring colors.
It seems for me, that the goal of editing was not to fix the light, but to move away from real life. Probably something along lines "to reduce level of detail, to let onlooker's mind to fill gaps in details by itself". Or maybe not: this possible explanation is a result of my mind filling gaps, so it is a projection of my mind onto reality which speaks more about me than about reality.
I realize all photos are enhanced, either in post or in the phone camera. Sometimes it’s necessary to “fix” bad lighting or make something “pop,” but I prefer it when it’s subtle and still realistic. Ansel Adams tweaked the heck out of his prints (contrast and dodging and burning), but the result still looks like a natural scene, as it might appear when the light is just right.
Instagram filters have the same problem, they might convey a mood but many of them look unnatural, for example an outdoor shot with fluorescent sunlight. I probably shouldn’t call it a problem, it’s just an artistic statement (for example choosing a hue to match the mood), though with filters it does feel a bit commodified nowadays.
You might well like this:
https://www.abandonedamerica.us/
Purely documentary photography only happens in news stories, crime scenes, surgical theaters, and morgues. Everything else is art, to some greater or lesser degree. If you don't like impressionism or whatever, fine, but you add nothing to the conversation in just saying "this is bad because I don't like it" as if that had any use to anyone - that's not even valid criticism, which is an embarrassingly low bar to fail to clear.
HDR is great, but if you can tell it's there its too much.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
Seems like straight out of a boys book - abandoned shed, dozens of cars stored in there, nobody knows that they're so valuable. I don't know anything about cars but from looking at the pictures in the OP, I can't help but think that some of them would be worth quite a bit? Certainly more than the scrap metal value?
Most of the magic of a Ferrari is in the engine, driveline and running gear. When some Ferraris fetch north of $20m, if I was super rich and wanted one, I'd just have a machine shop build a duplicate - including the engine, etc. It can't be that expensive to do it, after all, the originals were built in a machine shop.
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/build-projects-and-p...
That's a massive amount of work (and money) and he's re-using and modifying existing castings and using off the shelf rotating assembly components. If you're not doing it yourself it's going to be cheaper to just buy the Ferrari you want.
I don't think you understand just how much having everything be one off pushes up the cost.
Also, don't underestimate the cost involved in making something like this. While obviously not $20m, having every part created from scratch involves creating accurate drawings and understanding the specifications of the materials and processes involved, which isn't simple. Even creating a replacement set of gears for an existing gearbox takes an immense amount of investment in time, and creating something complex such as an engine block or gearbox casing would be considerably more.
Yes, the originals were built in a machine shop, but also a foundry, and a design department, with a larger supply chain for many of the smaller components, and you'd need to replicators, or all of their work - a substantial effort.
YMMV. For me that is not a shortcut (although it is a lot less valuable) but a prerequisite. I will like modern technology and I like old style.
(It makes me wonder if, e.g. 50 or 60 years from now, people will be finding abandoned Teslas and such and trying to get them moving again.)
I've seen my share of VW Passat B3, B4 and B5s rusting away around allotments and they bring to mind images of illegally disposed of appliances like washing machines etc.
Farming equipment on the other hand - new and old - doesn't give off this vibe. Perhaps being designed to bury into dirt they don't invoke an expectation of being clean and tidy.
Plenty of specimens around my neck of the woods. Also many grizzly twisted wrecks laying on the side of the road. Good reminders to drive carefully in a place where you could be hours or days away from help!