Have you ever heard of the Pep Ventosa technique?

Thanks for sharing this, I know the first two effects mentioned, but not this one yet...

To me, this falls into the category of: "not because it has to be done, but because it can be done" and in my opinion has little to do with photography.

I agree with Ben that in my view as well, it has little to do with photography anymore. Then pick up a brush and canvas and start painting. Of course, everyone is free to apply this.

Had never heard of any of the three. And in a way I have to agree with Bernard a little, it's a trick, which can sometimes add something extra, but it's not really photography, more visual art, adding your own idea to an image.
When I think of photography, it's more about capturing existing things in a beautiful way, so that Orton effect definitely, the others belong to 'free expression', sometimes definitely worth it, so I will certainly give it a try.

Is something that really doesn't interest me at all. All the quality of your expensive lenses simply thrown overboard... Details gone, sharpness gone. Painting isn't my thing.

Hi Nando, I’m an old school photographer and, with increasingly better equipment, I’m able to capture reality in a single shot. As for the modern possibilities, I pass on them because they don’t appeal to me.

I do like adding an unexpected/strange element to a photo. That can sometimes make an ordinary photo more exciting.

The three techniques mentioned were unknown to me. Nevertheless, I classify them under the heading of being creative with a camera, (electronic) tools and software. You can subsequently call that an artistic expression. It is photography, because the creator uses a camera!\n\nFor decades, there have been photographers who want to distinguish themselves within photography in a certain way. You do not have to have an opinion about that. Of course, you can let yourself be inspired by it. But, by trying to imitate that, you shortchange yourself and your own creativity.\n\nStay close to yourself by developing a certain way of photographing. Whether that should be called an individual style? You can fill that in yourself. It is about what you think and not what others think! If your work is considered beautiful, then that is a bonus. Do not let it become a goal in itself!\n\nThe naming of different techniques by photographers is nothing more than thinking in "boxes", which I personally have no use for. It is not my way of doing photography. Mine consists as much as possible of depicting reality. That applies to the subject, composition, colour rendition and exposure. For me, that means a much more exciting part of my photography hobby.

Abstract photography = photography too. That says it all

Nice and I will definitely do this sometime, it has everything to do with photography because you use the camera,
I love it

Liesbeth Verkade wrote on Tuesday 21 February 2023 at 22:22  | reply

Thank you for the explanation! Nice to learn about different photographic effects. I searched the internet for examples again to get a better idea for myself of what is meant by those effects. Your explanation of the Pep Ventosa technique is very clear. I clearly don't find everything beautiful. I think the first photo and the b&w tree you used for the article about perspective are beautiful! Now let's see what possibilities my camera, a Canon 90D, has in that area. I have never worked with multiple exposures. Something else to learn.

I do notice quite a big difference in the reactions between people who, like me, were very creative in the analog era and those who started in the digital age. I don't see people really learning photography anymore. Even at the vocational schools they no longer learn what we used to have to do. I notice that from the many questions I still frequently get about how I manage to get my photos looking so good without Photoshop. Of course I also work digitally nowadays, but still very often combined with old techniques.

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Wednesday 22 February 2023 at 11:56  | reply

GREAT, I will undoubtedly try it out.
And contrary to what some claim, photography is not exclusively about capturing reality.
Photographing is writing with light. One person writes in the Latin alphabet, another in Arabic script, with Chinese characters, or calligraphically, or exclusively in capitals, or with a computer program (like I am doing here), yet another uses printing, … countless forms.
And the same applies to photography. The camera and the editing program are the tools, like the canvas, the paints and the paintbrush. The result is the personal vision of the creator.
Or is Guernica not a painting?

In product photography I think it’s a good application, there it’s not only about what is depicted, but about showing something very specific. I know how difficult that could be 'in the old days', but for macro and landscape I find it falls outside the photographic aspect, as I said, visual, but a construction, a manipulation, but to each their own.
Today I went out to photograph a few trees, they looked nice with a low sun.