The Latest Gimmick

So have you seen that new trendy style where someone drops part of an old picture into a new one using Photoshop?

Human beings are strange. They love what they love and they're gonna do what they're gonna do, and that's just that*. Human beings also love gimmicks. And excess. Collectively speaking. We just do.

Being an "idealist" type, I don't care for gimmicks and excess. I like "purism" better. Not as in "my way is better than your way"; it's just what appeals to me, and gratifies me. (Of course I do think my way is better. But everybody thinks that whatever appeals to them is best.)

There have been innumerable gimmicks in photography over the years. Too many to count. Really, all that's changed lately is that a lot of them are easier, and much more widely accessible. Photographers who liked bright, vivid color used to chase after specific film types and high-contrast lenses and so forth, and were still largely blocked from excess of the truly wretched sort. That's no longer the case. Digital means that not only can you indulge in whatever form of excess you want, you can positively wallow in it.

Dropping part of a historical photograph into a modern one of the same scene is one of those gimmicks. One of the latest ones. It seems to bonk people over the head with the startling insight that things happened here in the past that you can't see right this second. As in, a murder happened in this hallway, and a corpse once lay right here where you walk every morning on your way to the parking garage; or, soldiers once fought a pitched battle on this street. And so on.

I dunno. I'm always aware of things like this, so the insight doesn't strike me as particularly deep. And don't get me wrong, I love comparing two different photographs of the same subject separated by time. Still, I wonder about the device of putting the two shots together in one frame. My question would be, why?

It's with great effort, great self-restraint, that I have refrained from illustrating this post. I would like to; this particular gimmick, of dropping a bit of an old photograph into a new one, might be something some people haven't seen. But you see, then it would be in conflict with another of my values, which is that anybody can do anything they dang well please with their own photography as long as they aren't hurting anybody, and it isn't nice to condemn anybody specifically. If don't like infrared, but it would still be rude to put up one specific infrared picture by one specific photographer to illustrate that idea. I don't want to slag anybody specifically for work they obviously like and I don't. Well, actually I do want to, if I'm honest. It's just that I'm trying to be polite.

But back to that "why": I don't understand what's wrong with just putting the whole historical photograph next to a whole modern photograph. Wouldn't that serve exactly the same purpose, only better? I do love to look at such comparisons. Definitely.

I don't know. It isn't up to me; I'm not in charge of all photography. Other people can do what they want. Me, I don't like gimmicks.

Other people generally do. And always will, I guess.

Mike

*If you read (and buy into) The China Study, for instance, it seems clear that there already exists an easy way to minimize your risk of the First-World "diseases of affluence" such as heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes. But we'd rather not. We'd rather eat an excessively rich diet loaded with salt, sugar, and fat, animal protein, and processed foods. It's not that we want to get fat and die young; we don't. It's that a 12-ounce steak for dinner and a pint of ice cream every night before bed is delicious and we'd rather not give it up*. Thanks, though.

I honestly saw this on the news the other night: a teaser about how "a new study" shows that eating fruits and vegetables might not be very good for you after all, followed immediately by a teaser about how you could get to try Burger King's new reduced-calorie French fries for free. What an opportunity! Sure, that's news. Now I ask you, how could anyone possibly think that the news has gotten more influenced by commerce? Nonsense.

While I'm on the subject, I went to watch a pool tournament last night, and one of the contestants was an extremely obese man. Not quite to the level of Iz Kamakawiwo'ole, but almost. Every time he missed and lost the table, he would waddle over to the sidelines and pop into his mouth several large spherical breaded and fried objects about the size of ping-pong balls. I don't know what they were, but they smelled delicious.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Christian: "I think the reason to juxtapose the two images into a single frame is to force the viewer into fully picturing the event then into their perception of now. There's still a momentary disconnect when comparing two photos as you look away from one and then look at the other. That's my take on it, for whatever that's worth."

Steve J: "It's the trendiness of a particular gimmick that becomes quickly tiresome. The first time I saw the superimposed history shots, the series presented a different perspective (effectively playing on my interest in WWII history). But not long after this, online general news sites would announce yet another set, often praising the shots as incredible, amazing, or some other type of superlative.

"At this point, the novelty begins to corrode and the inescapable distaste for faddism (whether fair or not) begins to inform reaction. I should say, however, that the media, not just the photographer, who might have an unquestionably earnest interest in this style, becomes an accomplice. And of course, if these series didn't trigger page clicks, the media would move on. Fingers pointing everywhere.

"But yes, I sympathize with the desire to be open and nonjudgmental while still allowing honest opinion its turn, however conflicting this might be. Undoubtedly, there is a place for everything in photography, including selective color shots, but this does not require indifference, or really even acceptance, just begrudging tolerance I reckon."

Steve Jacob: "Since the advent of digital imaging and Photoshop we can manipulate images in far more extensive ways, which is fine as long as there is equal effort applied to the message itself. Often, when browsing the images on some premium photo website, I am left with the feeling that I have just unwrapped an extravagantly presented and bow-tied parcel to find another pair of socks from Auntie Meg. I'm not a purist, I am very open to new ideas and new styles as they become available, but art has to be more than just technically proficient. It should, at some level, change the way I see or think about the world."

hugh crawford: "Thirty years ago, holding a postcard in the scene was an art school assignment, and it was about 30 years old then. Duchamp or someone? It's hardly new, but some people are doing some interesting stuff with it. Some is quite good. The captions make a huge difference. Or are you thinking of something else?"

Mike replies: I was thinking of something else, but that's a fascinating connection.

Comments

[RP]

Didn't you say a few weeks ago that there's a lot of conflicting information out there about nutrition, and that it was basically impossible to take any single study or book as gospel?

[John Krumm]

Okay, as long as you are on a restrained rant allow me to mention of another gimmick (one of my personal peeves): selective saturation, like a red rose in a black and white photo. Surely this must be one of the long-time overused photography gimmicks. I don't even want to think about what the literary equivalent would be as it makes my head hurt.

[Speed]

Mike wrote, "We'd rather eat an excessively rich diet loaded with salt, sugar, and fat, animal protein, and processed foods."

What constitutes processed? Peeling an apple? Cooking an egg? Grinding wheat into flour? It's a mystery to me.

[Processed food is any food that's been altered or modified from its traditional, raw, or unadulterated form by the addition of chemicals or preservatives. For instance processed meats include bologna and bacon, and Velveeta is a good example of processed cheese. In many countries, processed cheese cannot legally be referred to for commercial purposes using the word "cheese" alone. --Mike]

[Jim Hart]

>> I went to watch a pool tournament last night, and one of the contestants was an extremely obese man.<<

He wasn't, perchance, from Minnesota?

[Hugh Smith]

One gimmick I loved at first and now is WAY overdone is HDR.
I know I am showing my age here, but I much prefer a photograph that simply says something rather than "LOOK AT ME!"

[Another Phil]

Addendum;
I wasn't going to link as you didn't, but I'd forgotten how good Sergey Larenkov's work was. He blurs old and new together and I find it very powerful (and tearful).
http://sergey-larenkov.livejournal.com/
WW2 images, but not too harrowing.

best wishes phil

[Robert Roaldi]

I'd like to coin a term: "Instant cliché".

[Rob]

[[One gimmick I loved at first and now is WAY overdone is HDR.]]

What's way overdone is way overdone HDR. I would bet good money that everyone who visits this website has seen HDR photographs and not known it.

[James Sinks]

If I can quote Dali: The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot.

Pretty much mirrors my own feelings on rephotography, though I did see one that I really liked not too long ago:

http://dustinsnipes.com/#imagegalleries/Portfolios/Projects/8

There's motion, there's context, there's a genuine merging of times, and Black Flag are opening for the Ramones.

If I'm honest, I suspect that last bit matters more to me than the others...

And on three somewhat related notes:

1) Didn't you praise a series of photoshopped multi-generational portraits not too long ago?

2) What do you think of Chris Rauschenbergs slavish recreations of Atget's photos?

3) Or Brian Rose's revisitations of his own photos? (At least, I think it's Brian Rose--his website is broken, so I can't check.)

[Bernie Kubiak]

I have a friend who very carefully dropped historic landscapes into current ones to show the changes that took place in a valley where folks were displaced for a reservoir, not in China now but Massachusetts in the 1930's. Some thoughtful images resulted.
Given what you described, I'm tempted to speculate that your overweight pool player was not very good at the game.

[Dop]

I agree with Rob about HDR. Most of it is done really badly with all the sliders turned up to eleven.
I have seen some pictures where it was done subtly and had the caption not said they'd used a HDR technique to make the picture I'd never have guessed.

I nominate we describe the technique of blurring together old and new pictures as HTR (High Temporal Range).

[Bill Tyler]

I tend to think of gimmicks a little differently. Any technique can be a gimmick. It's a gimmick when it's used for its trendiness, or because it's fashionable, or because some editor likes to see a stuffed mouse in every scene, or whatever. It's not a gimmick if it serves to enhance and strengthen the point of the photograph, whatever that may be. If the photograph doesn't have a point, then it's a gimmick in its entirety. In another domain, those of us old enough to remember the early days of computer typesetting for the masses also remember the tasteless profusion of fonts, colors, sizes, etc. used simply because they were available, not because they made for good readability, or elegant design, or any other sane purpose. Most of the time, good type choices don't call attention to themselves. The reader should be grasping the words, sentences, and paragraphs, not marveling at baroque letter forms. The same principle applies to photography. if my first thought is "HDR", then it's a bad photograph. If my first thought is about the subject, then likely HDR has been used in a non-gimmicky way to enhance, not overshadow, the photographer's vision of the subject.

[Neil Youngson]

I'm a Brit who's been living in North America for the last five years and I've been struck by how many of the Americans I meet suffer from some kind of chronic illness or food allergy, way more than in Europe. It got me interested in the subject of the relationship between industrial scale food production and poor health.

Two documentary films I discovered should be seen by everyone in this part of the world,

Forks over Knives - http://www.forksoverknives.com
Genetic Roulette - http://geneticroulettemovie.com

Having seen the evidence presented in these films I decided to alter my diet significantly, reducing meat consumption in favour of vegetables, and avoiding processed foods and GMOs.

I'm also now of the opinion that I'm as likely to get the truth from the FDA on food matters as I am an honest answer on surveillance from James Clapper.

The good news is that it's in your own hands to significantly improve your own health - even reversing chronic medical conditions - and to vastly lower the risk of contracting the diseases that kill most Americans.

[Farhiz]

Recently this month, The Invisible Photographer, posted an article on something similar—not exactly what you spoke about—but along the same past/present idea. According to the text, a few Japanese photographers collaborated on a project to photograph "scenes of incidents reported in newspaper articles". These are Japan centric news items.

[Farhiz]

An idea from my previous post, if The Invisible Photographer and The Online Photographer were to ever collaborate on a project, that would be tip-top.

[Another Phil]

Hi Mike,
Looks like the internet ate my first post, which makes my addendum a bit odd...

It's difficult to fight several hundred million years of evolution whereby animals have adapted by preference to choose high-calorific foods which are normally in short supply in the wild, ie. fats and sugars: ditto salts and minerals which is why elephants will go deep into caves in search of salt;
http://www.bornfree.org.uk/animals/african-elephants/projects/mt-elgon/elgon-elephants/

I like photos-within-photos if done well, as it is a good way of showing that history is ongoing, and people also dig out and republish old photos.
Streetmuseum is an app for smart-phones which allows you to be on a street in London, hold up your phone, and see an old picture of that location.

best wishes phil

[Rod Graham]

An interesting discussion. Michael Reichman has a companion piece of sorts over at Luminous Landscape today, " The Art of Fooling Around". I struggle with this all the time in my own photography and processing. I suspect that I also suffer from a lack of a proper education in the "Arts", and thus don't really know where my own feeble attempts lie in the art world, not from a quality standpoint, but in not knowing if I'm doing something that's already been beaten to death or actually is something fresh and perhaps new.

[Doug]

It could be worse, Mike, they could be colorizing the old picture and superimposing it on the new shot.

[Jim Bullard]

I did that too many years ago to want to go looking for the photos. I had collected a set of postcards (circa 1900) of the small town where I lived including one of our house (formerly the community school). I scanned the postcards and duplicated the viewpoints in new photos to blend the two in layers. The only one ever got around to was our house. Both my kids have a copy. It was fun, the postcards are out of copyright (and unharmed).

I have actually used the side-by-side comparison for a piece of artwork. Searching the bins of a used bookstore in Lake Placid NY I found a handcolored etching of an Adirondack view I had photographed from the same viewpoint some years before. I bought the etching, dug out the slide and made a print the same size as the etching and framed the two alike to be hung side-by-side.

[Andreas]

Glad that you didn't illustrate the post.