Mumsnet Talk

Usually accompanying either colour popping or unnatural coloured eyes that stand out from the photo.

You know the ones, where the photographer has clearly spent too much time on photoshop and not enough honing their craft of taking decent pictures.

Aibu?

YANBU. I know which ones you mean and I can't stand them either. They look so tacky.

They are fashionable at the moment. In 10 years time you will question what you were thinking.

Ah yes, the "Venture Effect". Increasingly passé and increasingly unpopular.

YANBU they are bloody awful.

well don't buy them then!
Clearly they are doing well so lots of people disagree with you

Is colour popping the same as selective colour? When I see a wedding photo in B&W with the bride's bouquet picked out in colour, it actually makes me feel a bit ill for some reason.

YANBU

20 years ago 'Cover Girl' photos were all the rage...stupid 'seductive' poses in soft lens that was so foggy you could barely tell who was sprawling across the fake fur throw....

Totally naff.

Yanbu - they make everyone look the same.

Yanbu!!!!

I'm a photographer and I cringe when I see people paying actual money for such crap images...especially the selective colouring ones. They really are something else...ugh!

Though its subjective I suppose. I prefer a more timeless photo...

Yuck, yes. The ones where the faces of the subjects are so bleached out they are featureless. Usually taken in white studios and often doing dumb ass poses. Also hate it when people get them blown up on wall-size canvasses. Much prefer natural and creative photography.

YANBU. I really don't like them either. I just think they look cheap and tacky.

YANBU. They make me want to heave, particularly when they're on canvas. Really naff and tacky and yuk.

I want to agree...but must admit I find them fun. Not what I'd choose to put on the wall most times, no. But it's kind of fun to see the family cat with popping blue eyes and all its whiskers as you never got close enough to see them before.

As long as Venture et al don't think they're creating serious stuff, why worry?

I don't think they look at all nice; the gimmicky special effects rather spoil the photo imo.

How about the yellow tinged 'vintage' look

gag.

*How about the yellow tinged 'vintage' look

gag. *

Yy, just like an old man's Y fronts.

Selective colouring, yuck! I get a little bit of sick in my mouth when I see them.

I used to love the Venture type photos, but I've gone right off them now. Much prefer photos taken in natural light.

Do they still do that sepia effect now? when I got married back in the stone age, that was all you could get by way of special effects. That, and that the one where your two faces gazing lovingly at one another were superimposed into a giant brandy glass. Or the one where a centre oval of the photo was in sharp focus and everything else in the surroundings was in a soft blur.

I think all special effects are nice for a while then they become hackneyed and ubiquitous, and they will all date you eventually. However, I am a BIG fan of the new, much less formal style of wedding photography, where people are photographed chatting and laughing, in non-posed shots that really tell the story of the day. So much nicer than the regimental rows of in-laws and ancient relatives that we used to have.

Every era has it's fashion, of course you can date the "venture" photo's and no doubt many are still bloody paying for them from 2002

YANBU. Colour popping screams Athena poster to me.