As someone very much into the noir-cyberpunk-always-dark-and-rainy aesthetic I don't find the overly saturated and edited photos that appealing personally. Especially when lots of purple and teal is added and boosted. I find it only highlights the lack of real content in the photo (people shot mostly from behind holding umbrellas). No snide intended, the photographer is obviously talented, just a personal take on subject matter choice.
I strongly agree with you. But at least these are some of the best examples of this type of photography I’ve seen. Most just crank the pseudo-HDR effect and saturation, maybe add some split-toning, and look now it’s Bladerunner! But these are actually quite good if this is the aesthetic you’re going for.
> Can you obviously tell that the photos have been edited?
It's incredibly obvious to me. Reality just doesn't look like that to the naked eye. Although I'm experienced in photography, cinematography and digital imaging, I'm still always surprised so many regular viewers don't realize almost everything seen in films and TV shows is carefully planned, constructed, processed and manipulated to achieve the visual looks they see as 'normal'. To be clear, I'm not only talking about the more obvious special effects and 'beauty shots'. Just making a typical scene from daily life look realistic on camera often requires painstaking craftsmanship.
You might enjoy looking at some making-of documentaries focused on cinematography. In the area of this urban nighttime noir-cyberpunk look, I'd suggest watching the behind-the-scenes material included in the Blu-Ray boxed-set of Blade Runner. It goes into fascinating detail on how cinematographer Jordan Cronenwith pioneered this look. I remember seeing Blade Runner in a theater when it first came out (I was in high school). I found the visual style to be so stunning it inspired my lifelong interest in imaging. Today, so much of what we see in movies looks 'Blade-Runner-ish' that we hardly notice it but prior to BR nothing looked like that in cinema.
Japan looks nothing like this. The second pic in the article, the entrance to Kabukicho, is about as real as it gets in that article. And that area, just a couple blocks wide, is where 99% of all “cyberpunk” photos are taken since it’s the area with the most signs and sex shops.
Most parts of basically every part of Tokyo are quite grey and plain. Not even 1% as beautiful as pictures would lead you to believe.
Nature and temple photos are the opposite. Even if they’re edited to the absurd degree these are, they don’t capture the beauty of the places in real life.
As a former resident, I disagree. While they are edited, some of them remind of rainy nights in Ogikubo.
If you're interpreting photography as capturing the most accurate version of our vision system, then you're going to be very disappointed with any photograph.
I really enjoy this photographer's perspective. He captures photos as if you're viewing them from the "mind's eye." A+ work IMO.
Well, to each their own. I find Tokyo's greenery and street gardens to be the most attractive parts of the city ;-). You're right about the lights and it's kind of hard to believe people think Tokyo looks like these pictures.
First, the artist clearly states he's not a photojournalist. He's editing the photos to suit his aesthetic.
Second, I live in Japan and have spent hundreds of nights (many of them into the middle of the night) in Tokyo and other cities. It's certainly true the edits stand out in many photos but I can tell you the feeling of walking home on a rainy evening after visiting 居酒屋 (izakaya) or 立ち飲み is pretty well captured here.
Not to imply a link between Wong and Monet but no one would look at Monet's impressionist work and say that the poppy field or lily pond is incorrect. I think photographic art deserves the same approach. For me, Wong hits on some of the impressions I have in my mind from all those nights in Tokyo. Some photos are pushed too far and lose that feeling, others are 懐かしい.
> Most parts of basically every part of Tokyo are quite grey and plain.
I couldn't agree less. Every alley and sidewalk in Tokyo was marvelous. But I'm accustomed to simple backpacks, possibly indistinguishable from the homeless when I travel, finding joy in the most simple things.
They are indeed edited, it is mentioned in the article: “My approach to photography is similar to filmmaking, in how they take a shot and build off it with color grades and adding effects. It’s less photography in the traditional sense and more of a hybrid. I’m not a photojournalist.”
Anything that comes out of a camera is 'edited' in a sense... Camera lenses distort images versus what the human eye sees. Aperture and shutter settings change the image. Different films capture light differently. In-camera processing does the same. And that's before 'editing'.
Surpised others didn't catch your sarcasm. My contention isn't that they are edited, or really to the degree that they are, it's that they are both highly edited and empty of interesting subject matter combined. I think this makes the editing stand out more as a negative as opposed to if they were this edited and also had highly interesting scenes or subjects.
Obviously all extremely subjective but street photography already has a running meme of people photographing people's backs or from far away.
I get what you mean. Some of the photos are indeed very uninspired; the worst in my opinion is the SEGA photo, what does it have going for it except heavily retouched colors?
I like some of the others though. The saturation make them feel cartoony. Plus neon and umbrellas will always remind me of Blade Runner, one of my favorite movies ever.
I did a double take because I've been using pictures from unsplash found by searching "tokyo night"[0] and "night city"[1] for wallpapers and they're nearly identical in color, saturation, and mood. I just rechecked because I thought maybe someone was stealing his work. Nope, they're originals, but amazingly similar.
Not to be too snarky, but the location itself does a lot of the work ;)
To contribute something more positive, I've been following this photographer who does great POV videos of these very areas (and who also produces/obtains similar images)
While the style is very similar - and as the sibling comment said, the location does half of the work - there is no question the photos in the magazine are technically much better. Long focal lengths compress the scene for a more interesting look, the color grading is nicer, even if exaggerated, composition is more deliberate. Not to everyone's taste but very well executed.
I love the pictures. They invoke a sense of excitement and allure. Highlighting the way the light falls on the different architecture and objects around it.
For folks with nothing nice to say, try saying less.
Not hating on the artist in particular here, but at this point this style is so derivative and worn out it almost reminds me of the "sand filter" americans put on scenes meant to take place in mexico or the middle east. Obviously not all art needs to portray things as they are, but this doesnt seem to offer much of anything of meaning - and if you're just looking for the most simple "looks pretty" standard, I'd say this type of filter / style almost detracts from the photography.
I live in Tokyo and know like 10 different photographers pumping out this style.
But that's the whole point of the criticism. It only looks "pretty" to very naive eyes. If you are used to the genre, these photos are bland at best and downright bad/ugly for the most part.
Murakami used to own one apparently, I'm not sure why but I'm drawn to this location. Perhaps I'll go visit and a cat will follow me home or a weird tiny version of the kfc colonel will tempt me into a well something.
I will never understand why people make fake pictures of Japan like this but absolutely no other country. It seems like Taiwan’s or Hong Kong’s night markets would be a better foundation with all their gaudy lighting, but nope. Take a normal grey pic of a random side street in Tokyo and blast it with fake neon.
You can go on 500px and flickr and find plenty of examples of this style of photography for Taiwan, Hong Kong, as well as all sorts of western cities.
I'd guess there being more Western exposure to it in Japan is due to fairly famous bits of Japanese media embracing the cyberpunk/neo-noir aesthetic, a la Akira, Ghost in the Shell, etc., as well as Japanese photographers being fairly active on the previously mentioned photo sites.
I live in Tokyo and I promise you that none of the side streets near me look remotely like these, regardless of whatever filters or processing you applied.
Yeah. I imagine people who look at this sort of photography would probably recognize Golden Gai if they were dropped into the middle of it just because of how many shots like these are taken there, heh.
If you like the style the subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/neoncities/ while you find lots of photos of Japan , there are lot of photos from other places of the world and not only Asian cities. Most of them not as good as Liam Wong ones though.
To be pedantic, Kabukichou is quite a bit larger than a single street - it has something like 3000 bars in it. Golden Gai is part of Kabukichou, and is made up of a handful of small alleys that have the shantytown style bars and eateries that are cribbed from quite heavily in cyberpunk/neon noir media.
Well, yeah cause the first train's at 5 AM. You pretty much have to stay awake unless you're going to shell out at least 2000 yen for half a night's sleep in a bed for rent. I don't know about you, but my evil brain whispers "that's money for more beer and games with your friends".
His latest work, After Dark, has a more global focus:
"Following his début monograph, TO:KY:OO, which captured Tokyo’s beauty at night, Wong widens his lens from the city that became his spiritual and photographic muse to Osaka and Kyoto, London and Seoul, Paris and Rome. But he goes still further, seeking the rich tapestries of nightlife in the foggy historical streets of his hometown Edinburgh, penetrating the backstreets of the megacity Chongqing, and seizing the verticality of Hong Kong from its rooftops."
I have a print of one of Liam Wong's photos[1] hanging in my living room that was taken at a place called Kawasaki Warehouse. It was a giant multi-story video arcade in Kawasaki that was themed after Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong. Unfortunately it closed a couple of years ago, but it was by far the most surreal and cyberpunk place I've ever visited.
Thanks for sharing this, I like it a lot, and yes it does remind one of the Blade Runner atmosphere.
It seems a lot of commenters here are opposed to artistic photo manipulation, but maybe it’s a reflection on the expectations of photography vs. illustration. Or maybe it is a reaction to the given title, which maybe promises reality to some people.
But at any rate keep posting art to HN, some of us long time hackers appreciate it.
What does it for me is the rain and how the neon reflects off the puddles. Yes there's some colour manipulation at play here but you'll still get a similar vibe walking through Shinjuku on a wet night.
I would argue the style is kind of orthogonal to the style of Technicolour film. The light sources are all natural environmental lights with a deep dynamic range in dark nighttime environments.
Technicolour films (the more modern three-strip ones, because these are even farther removed from the original two-strip films, where you would only see shades of green and red) in the heyday of those films were marked by very bright open stage environments blasted by gigantic spot lights illuminating everything in front of the camera. The films were so slow (we're talking like 10 ISO during the 50s) that you needed to blast everything with light or it just would not show up.
Most of this will be post-processed. You can get a decent camera + lens which helps, as well as a good eye for photography. The rest is shooting in RAW and knowing how to use Lightroom to get the most out of your photo.
Shooting RAW gives you much more freedom to choose how a photo will be processed than letting the camera make some set of default choices about color rendering so it can spit out a JPG.
Yup - you can even use RAW processing from other sources and not just the camera manufacturer. If you only ever save JPEGs on camera then you are completely at the mercy of the camera manufacturer with no way to every change it if you don't care for the way it processed the raw image into the JPEG.
Yeah a RAW image is like a 'digital negative' so it preserves all the data that the sensor in the camera captures. A JPEG or similar is processed and compressed so the camera makes some decisions and 'bakes in' stylistic choices which are much harder to fix in post.
Another reason to shoot RAW - you can always reprocess the image later without loss. Newer algorithms pop up all the time and with RAW you can always start over from scratch. With storage being so cheap and computers as powerful as they are, theres little reason to not at least shoot RAW+JPEG. Having the option of the RAW file available for that magic shot is powerful. Even in the article the photographer mentions he didn't realize he captured one of his favorite photos when it happened - he only discovered it later.
You lose more than quality when not shooting RAW. You are going to want all the data captured by the image sensor of your camera if you are going to edit your photographs later on, it gives you more to work with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Benefits.
I saw this article pop up the other day which goes fairly deep on the importance of RAW: https://lux.camera/understanding-proraw/. This is focused on iPhone photography, but there's plenty of other detail in there, especially the first half or so.
So guy takes photos with a DLSR and pimps the colors so that everything becomes oversaturated blue and red and suddenly it's art? Color me unimpressed.
