A good deal of "interest" is always lost transposing a 3 dimensional scene to 2-D (a photo). I think this is especially true of low contrast scenes where much of the perception of depth is lost. The Orton technique seems to restore visual interest (and perhaps even the perception of depth) in such photos.
I think novelty plays a big part of it, but also our tendency to associate the soft blurry effect with an ethereal/dreamy mood (maybe it's all those flashback scenes in old movies).
I agree with David that it gives a dream-like mood; I tend to also think that it lends an "artsy" dimension to the photo as well. Like a sound recording with no post-processing, a vocalist will sound very dry and uninteresting. Add some compression, at touch of reverb... voila, you're sounding like a pro!
Same with photography: if we're only documenting a scene as a photojournalist would do, the raw, unprocessed image is more desireable. But we're creating art. Besides doing the usual work with curves, shadow/highlight, saturation, etc. to compensate for the drawbacks of digital and film media, judicious use of the Orton effect adds an almost 3rd dimension as Jim mentioned; an impressionistic interpretation of the scene.
Going further with the sound production analogy, new owners of reverb effects units tend to over-do it, creating an over-processed sound. I saw the same in some ESS postings, where the application of the Orton effect was too much. A little goes a long way, and a good image only requires a touch of Orton to bring out that "3rd dimension".
Darwin has an image of a young blonde girl that always bugged me. When I asked what lighting he used, he said it was just natural sunlight on a partly cloudy day. But there was more to it... the photo is gorgeous (http://www.darwinwiggett.com/KidsFull/NMP316.jpg). THEN he fesses up and tells me there's a touch of Orton that he's added! To me, that's the essence of using any of these techniques... use just enough that one's eye isn't distracted by it's over-use, yet just enough to create that wow-factor.
Discussion
4 repliesCertain photographs look great with an Orton treatment - digital or film. Why is that? How is this effect changing the 'impact' of an image?
Pete D.
Guy
Same with photography: if we're only documenting a scene as a photojournalist would do, the raw, unprocessed image is more desireable. But we're creating art. Besides doing the usual work with curves, shadow/highlight, saturation, etc. to compensate for the drawbacks of digital and film media, judicious use of the Orton effect adds an almost 3rd dimension as Jim mentioned; an impressionistic interpretation of the scene.
Going further with the sound production analogy, new owners of reverb effects units tend to over-do it, creating an over-processed sound. I saw the same in some ESS postings, where the application of the Orton effect was too much. A little goes a long way, and a good image only requires a touch of Orton to bring out that "3rd dimension".
Darwin has an image of a young blonde girl that always bugged me. When I asked what lighting he used, he said it was just natural sunlight on a partly cloudy day. But there was more to it... the photo is gorgeous (http://www.darwinwiggett.com/KidsFull/NMP316.jpg). THEN he fesses up and tells me there's a touch of Orton that he's added! To me, that's the essence of using any of these techniques... use just enough that one's eye isn't distracted by it's over-use, yet just enough to create that wow-factor.
My $0.02.