Rafting in late evening light, Lofoten, Arctic Norway - Picture by Rich the Hiker
just got to have a picture of a pontoon sticking out into a lake. It's the law.
I thought most of these were very nice. Granted, I LOVE HDR ;)
I want to know how #2 was shot without getting ghosting from the moving horse ? .... even though something looks a little strange with the horse.... I'm not sure I could have even done this well ?
Some superb captures here, well done to all. Everyone of them deserves top marks. I particularly liked pic No 13. Silver Plume Colarado by Daryl Kottwitz.
Thanks for saying so. It was snowing pretty hard at the time which provided a soft white effect to the whole scene. Certainly something you don't see everyday. I envision some Christmas cards made with this photo later this year.
Shocked to see my lowly Panasonic LX5 photo No.4 made the top 15 : ) Wow, up against some serious equipment and serious landscapers. This gives me hope that I can improve with a better camera setup. To be fair though, some of the others in the top 15 are in a premier league and required a lot of preparation. Mine was a quick snapshot from a canoe in the arctic before stuffing it away quickly in its dry bag. Rich
My landscapes turn out bad. Always there are power lines, billboards, frumpy cattle (or human) hindsides, blown out skies, waste heaps, busy roads, haze or dust. McMansions and shanties. The sun is always in the wrong direction. The darned lightning strikes too soon or too late. Then the guard dog or angry assailant charges towards me and it's time to run.
Nice effort by all involved.
#6 is my fave.
I found something to like in each of the photos. Congratulations to all of you who were selected.I was wondering if anyone else noticed the peculiar artifacts in the strip of bright reflection that divides the mountain from its reflection in the water in photo #14. The part I'm referring to can be seen between the posts holding up the dock, and it's only easily noticed in the enlargement. There seems to be a discontinuity in that strip of bright reflection that doesn't look quite real. I like the image very much, but I'd like to know what's going on in that part of the water. Since it's DannH's photo maybe he can tell me what's up.
Yep, it not just where you mention, its everywhere else as well. Looks like some very heavy-handed cloning. Look around the rightmost post meets the mountains. Heavy cloning. Not sure how that got past the judges. Anyway, all others are pretty good
True, it's definitely a little less than elegant modification, but I'm more interested in the could phenomenon just to the left of the 2nd post on the right. It looks like a tornado on the side of the mountain. Obviously it's not, but what the heck is it??
Step back and it looks good. The photographer did some work to eliminate distractions I'm guessing. Up close, it's looking pretty chopped.
@ SMPhoto The 'tornado' is the gap between where two adjustment brush strokes were made. If you look at the hilltops between the two right hand posts, you'll see more examples.
I like most of these and I really like the idea of the Readers Showcase. Congrats to those who made it to the top 15.
10,7, 1 and 3
Tbh, I dont mind the processing that has been done to any of these images, getting a/the shot is always better than no shot at all...
As already mentioned, this is a great idea for a regular feature to give some exposure to the great work being posted in the forums, and it makes a change from seeing the usual articles which get regurgitated around all the photog websites.
PS- I cant see any credits to the shots? so I have no idea who they belong to...
Seems like you need an ultra wide angle lens to win awards these days. I guess people just love those distorted-reality images. Soooo... off to the store I go to buy me a 3 mm lens and start snapping away. By next week I should be super famous.
No you won't. Super wide lenses are harder to use than wide or normal walk around. But by all means, everyone should dabble with lenses that interest them and give the look that they enjoy. Then maybe in a couple of decades dedicated to landscape--getting up earlier than 99.5% of other humans you'll be super famous.
Some very nice photos even if you don't like HDR! And I don't even mind people joining 2 different photos together, but the perspective problem in No 14 is making my eyes hurt!
Thanks to most of you for the nice comments about the selected pics.
I'm proud to have the only b/w pic of the 15, and didn't see any others even submitted, so I didn't think it would have a chance. It was not HDR or wide angle, but rather a composite of 4 landscape shots stitched with Adobe CS6. It was raining where I was at the Tunnel View, and snowing at the higher altitude of the rim which is why the mountains are looking a bit more gray than usual. The snow was just starting to take hold. If you would like to see a larger version, copy and paste this address into your browser address bar. http://davesphotography9173.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v166/p585409759-6.jpg
Considering the lack of new equipment news of late, I think DPR is doing a great job with other topics and this one's no exception. I imagine it was a big job going through all the submissions and the results are just extraordinary. Congratulations to all of you whose images were chosen.
I don't know what it is but the current trend seems to be that a landscape can't be any good unless it's completely unrealistic and over processed, with too much saturation, too much vibrancy, HDR thrown in for good measure.
These shots are all better than anything I ever produce, and they are certainly "impressive", but I am not sure I'd want any of them on my wall. What's wrong with a nice picture of how the world *actually* looks? Is the world not beautiful enough without jazzing it up with a purple sky?
Very inspirational images! Makes me want to go out with my camera.
Some people are just Jealous I can see that by some of the snide commentsTom G
Top marks all round. Looking at these makes me want go out and try to "up my game" which must be a good thing!
Wow, all these haters, you'd imagine they could do such a better job.
Yet, you click on 99% of their names:
Gallery Stats : Photos Uploaded - 0
Challenge Stats : Entries - 0
Website : none listed
I propose DPR give many of them a new profile stat:
Credibility - 0
Elitist Snob = 1. (plus more)
Since when are your criteria conditions for commenting?Should we not allow the unwashed masses to see and judge for themselves?
Isn't this the point? To see and react to these photos?
Photography is bigger than the vision you advance here.
From the welled heeled and accomplished photographer, to the far back row heckler in the peanut gallery, the forum is what is it. The most time consuming part is sorting through the comments to find an occasional gem of insight.
...best of luck to all!
Great observation jl_smith, and one I completely agree with. +1
I see it as the complete opposite jl_smith.DPreview, whether it likes it or not has the responsibility of setting some sort of standard when it posts a showcase like this. It's representative of not only the readers talents but the acuity of the people who run the site.I would much rather see no images compared to the uninspiring stuff chosen here. So if you can't see the photos taken by the naysayers, count your blessings. It's probably a good thing.
As the saying goes, haters gonna hate. Nothings perfect - I'll bet if I looked at your site I'd see images there that I feel could have been better, same goes for my site.
Instead of hating, why not give praise for the images posted here. Oh wait... that would mean giving praise to someone else's work... something jealous people don't do. While we might agree there may be better images out there, that doesn’t mean the ones chosen here are unworthy. My two cents.
I gave praise to image number 6 in my comments below.It really stands apart from the others and is an awesome shot.And I'm not 'hating' because I'm jealous or can't give praise.I'm just not the type of person to blindly jump on to a bandwagon and follow everyone elses suit if I don't agree with things. I'm not afraid to say what's on my mind and many people seem to find that kind of frank critiquing refreshing.Don't like my comments or opinion? That's fine. I really don't mind. :)
And I'm also the kind that says what's on my mind :-)
2,3,8,11,12 - what is attractive about the over processed over contrasy over vignetted over saturated look? It's repulsive to me.
cliche x 15
Show us yours then.
#6 should have been the first one; it truly stands out from the rest;a really lucky and very peaceful, calm shot; love it; it grabs you right away#2 with the horse I simply do not find very special#12 with the island doesn't do anything for me, as the skies should have been more dramatized; it's just a postcard right now#13 is a washout; that big white triangle top right is redundant empty washed-out space
Overall, a little disappointed in the choices. I was a photo editor for 10 years, and I would have extended the upload time to two weeks; not one, and then would had more choices to make an outstanding gallery. Why stop at 15 images? Posting 24 is a better number.
yeah, number 6 is the best.
Thanks for your kind words Adegroot and Dazer8888 about image #6. That was my one entry that was selected. I actually expected that it might not get chosen because it is quite different than the more usual beach or waterfall scene, but I was very happy that it was. It was shot at sunset from Steptoe Butte in the Palouse region of eastern Washington State, using a 5-year-old Olympus E-30. I guess you don't really need latest and greatest gear to take good photographs. :)
Most ofthe pictures are nice (point of view, subject, etc.) but HDR and saturation is far over the top. There are no blacks.....there is no dynamic....nothing exciting anymore. They look like pictures in a cartoon. A pity.
This are quite nice - great examples to get ideas from.
The wide angle fetish continues. It's like someone who puts ketchup on everything.
It's about the right mix for landscape - only about 10 of 15 were wide angle and of those, about 6 were beyond 28mm. If you're looking at landscape, wide is the most common choice.
The problem with it is, it's used to provide a distorted view (relative to a human view) of a scene, and how much of the scene it takes in is almost irrelevant. In other words, the lens isn't being used as a wide angle, it's being used to induce distortion to add dynamics to the scene.
Looks to me like photos 6, 9 and 10 are definitely not WA. Photo 11 was shot at 24mm (36mm equiv) and photo 13 was at 31mm (46mm equiv), ranging from a little wide to standard length, respectively. Photo 12 was shot at 18mm (27mm equiv), so admittedly fairly wide on that one but not what I'd call super wide.
Bit hard to step back with a normal lens when you're standing on a canoe...
@RichRMA - One of the accepted ways to use a wide angle is to get in close to your subject. Providing exaggerated perspective is exactly what it's about. Otherwise, it's just a huge swath of scenery. But getting in close and still providing a significant amount of background and context is what people use them for most and what makes the useful. That you don't like it is indication that you're missing your calling.
I wish HDR was never invented.
Poorly done HDR can be an eyesore, but HDR used to overcome the disadvantage sensors have compared to the eye is a necessity in some scenes. With all tools, you must fight the tendency to misuse it.
http://youtu.be/TmRFpM_j8RY Watch this video and you'll see how HDR can be handled very nice, without that greasy effect.
#4 and #9 are pretty great.
Cheers for your comment Beat. Rich
Quite disappointed to see such bland choices. Number 6 being the one exception.Most of them leave me with a 'Nothing much to look at here' feeling and a lot of technical nit picks.I'd really like to be able to say otherwise.
Wish I could vote down your comment.
@fmian - What would you do differently?
All great images - and some more to my liking than others but then its down to taste. They were chosen for their colour, content and feeling - but I would'nt dismiss all of them as "MISTRO' fmian.
stevo23: For which image?RunStrom: I respect your opinion, however I don't see much that is done well here in regards to colour, tone, content, bloom/highlight control.Of course, just my opinion.
I can find some area of each one of these images that is really good - and gives me a buzz. In contrast - I can stare all day long at Rhein II, by Andreas Gursky (1999). (Sold for $4.3 million) and find "NOTHING" worth $1 in it. I have yet to see Rhein I but then it probably found its way into the bin.
RunStromHave you seen Rhein II as it was intended to be seen? ie. printed 1.9 x 3.6 meters?Or just on a tiny low DPI LCD screen?It's difficult to appreciate something when you are seeing it without the correct context. And it's kind of sad that these days almost everyone expects an image to be normalised to be viewed on a computer screen as the final product.
Ok - but an image should hold its own in any context. It's just that if you place it besides any of these images - it will come last on colour, tone, context etc.
"but an image should hold its own in any context."I hope you realize this is an impossibility.Could you fully appreciate the Sistine Chapel if you only saw miniature plastic recreation of it? Scale is an important thing to consider when outputting an image. As is how the light is meant to be cast on the final print. And how it is framed. And it's viewing height/distance.Not to forget whether the image is part of a series or not. As some images don't have impact on their own, and only make sense when seen together.
Any time I see someone being really critical of others photo work, I always want to go see theirs. So I went to your site... and I saw only 1 or 2 nice shots... granted, you show very few examples on your site ??? Maybe if you showed more, I'd like more of it ?In any case, you sound like a "pro" who has lost touch with what the general public really enjoys.
I don't think one has to be a professional photographer to criticize other people's photos, but I do think one has to at least show some semblance of talent and taste.
After looking through your gallery, I can safely say that you have absolutely nothing to back up your hubris.
^^ If you were directing those comments to me then thank's for your feedback :)
Really, really nice works here-- and I mean all of them. My congratulations to the photographers. I was especially taken by #2, and #3 as they could have been taken in my "back yard"-- the Oregon coast. We even have a beach called "Horsfall Beach" with European beach grass and horse/rider access-- beautiful lighting. Yes Horsfall is spelled correctly. I also liked the shot of the Palouse Region in north Idaho/eastern Washington-- could be from Steptoe Butte?
I also like the whole concept here too, and agree with the comment to make it a periodic event. Thanks DPR.
Thanks Dp review for picking one of my shots. For those interested its no.5, No HDR (its the light, a little under exposure and a CPL). Also for those concerned about having the best gear its shot on a 4 year old panasonic LX3.
These ARE beauties. But it also seems that the photos reflect a relatively narrow range of landscape photography (here: very wide open view, slight HDR feeling).
I know that this comment isn't welcome.
I like #1 & #2 the best of the bunch!
So many excellent landscapes were posted in response to the photo solicitation, including a number graciously provided after the announcement that the feature photos were selected. I'm very honored to have 3 in this collection, including the one shown as a thumbnail with the announcement on the DPR homepage. Thanks DPR.
I think this "Readers' Showcase:" concept works well. Any chance it could become a monthly feature?
All beautiful, breathtaking shots!
DP, it's nice you have a "full screen" mode, even though it's not that much bigger for some of these shots. But for most photo web sites I know, you can scroll through the pics while in that display mode. Making users go back to the tiny display between each shot is bad usability.
I don't mean to complain, but these shots deserve to be displayed properly.
Very nice pics - on #1 and #2, though, the darker portion of the frame at the top is sorta distracting - I'm not sure if this is evidence of a polarizer "dark spot", but I think they could be slightly improved with a bump in exposure to even out the frame. It doesn't look to be vignetting (either natural or purposely) because it's uneven.
Otherwise, love all the shots - nice work to everyone!
They look to me to be actual darker areas in situ. These are with the sun in the frame. The sky gets darker further away from the sun in the hemisphere centred around the sun.
Wow cool sometimes I forget that people on this site are actually photographers. I thought they were just negative, nasty critics of everything who love the sound of the shitty words they can string together. I'm sure the anti HDR guys will come out of the woodwork and the "post processing is rubbish I could do so much better" guys will be there, so will the 'meh' people and the pseudo elitist snobs. Well done to all whose photos were featured whether you're a very talented photographer or an average one who loves having a passion that immerses you in the world and keeps you passionate and active. For that reason this is one of the best posts DPR has done in a while. Hope to see more and hear less from those other useless wankers that are hiding behind their made up identities.
Exactly, sometimes it seems we don´t see the forrest because of the trees. Too much talk about what autofocus speed, EVF dot number and number of lenses available and not a single picture in gallery.Oh, nad not to forget: awesome pictures, every single one is worth printing and hanging on the wall.
Very proud to see two of my pictures (#1 and #2) in this Readers Showcase. The Crown on my work. Thanks you DPReview staff.
And that with Nikon D700....the oldy. Hopefully this shows that in the race for a better picture you don't really need that MP beast to take good photo's.
Congratulations! Your selection was well-deserved.
Very nice work, Rutger... and interesting that you feel this was your best. I loved both photos, but some of your other work on your website was equal and even better in my mind.
Thank-you for sharing your fine efforts.
Congratulations! I love to see people making great photographies and you certainly know "a few things" on this!
These pictures are nice, but utterly formula.
Great photos really enjoyed them!
Beautiful shots - all of them!
These landscape photos are amazing.To naysayers: show your own stuff. Otherwise your comments are void and null.
Still for the majority of the gearheads on this forum including me , the most important question here is the camera and the lens which was used to take the image :)....
Just get the biggest and best gear and you'll never need to wonder about it again!
At the low resolution showed most of those images don't look that impressive, landscape images really need to be larger.
Get a bigger screen and take a step back ;)
"it's easy to overlook the end result of our shared passion" - the overphotoshopped lifeless pic worthy of Microsoft Windows default wallpaper.
I totally agree but just for the record - Windows XP famous wallpaper was never photoshopped or post-processed in any way :) Another article on DPR mentions it.
...says a negative queen with no photos of his own.
Your photo gallery isn't exactly Gugenheim, either.
@Lenscraft, I never understood arguments such as "you can't judge until you prove you can do better". There are lots of art criticts out there (good ones) and lots of them don't even create the art themselves.Are the World Press Photo jury better photographers than competitors they judge? Are the Oscar Academy jury better actors/directors/etc than the winners they pick? I don't say they're not artists, because they are mostly great ones. But there's a great difference between making art and understanding it. I think one can do the latter much easier than the former.
Besides, although one don't have any photos in their DPR gallery it doesn't mean they don't have any at all.
You are replying to a Photographer (capitalized in his mind) who has mastered the minimal focus distance of his professional grade point-and-shoot! Lens craft, man! He's arrived! You are wasting your time trying to talk sense to him. :-))
Matewka, I didn't mean to imply that and I'm sorry if it came across that way. In fact, what I entered above was very negative, responding to what I saw as a non-constructive attack on someone's art, and I apologize for that. It's very easy to tear down someone's work with something like "overphotoshopped lifeless pic", and I believe many on these forums do so regularly. I think that these attacks are driven by envy, but that's just my interpretation.
Actually, my gallery on this site doesn't really show my work. Feel free to visit http://lenscraft.com/ to see some of my work. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
@Lenscraft, I reviewed your gallery. Some of the subjects didn't draw my attention because I'm not fond of them but I think your portraiture work is very good. Maybe not outstanding but I liked it. For me, the best ones are the two photos of this caucasian boy in the boys gallery. The rest of the portraits are also well done but I'd love to see them in B&W. In most photo-cases, color is a distracting factor, I think.
This one draw my attention:
It's WAY overstaged and the boots shouldn't be there but it's something fresh that I haven't seen before. Nice allegory, too.
Interesting. I took that shot of my son about 20 years ago. In fact, I think it was on a film camera! :)
@BlackBox - I totally agree!
20 years ago I mostly followed photographers who used models of a slightly different gender and with a bit less clothes on them.
Nooooooooooooooooooo, Matewka!!! Color is not a distracting factor. Lack of color is the asylum for untalented and lazy. Once you remove the color, the job becomes MUCH easier. But if you get it right, the color gives the photo the saturation with life. Achieving that is UBER difficult, but so was sending the man into space.
You can also look at it the other way around - once you ADD color, the job becomes MUCH easier. Let's take all kinds of landscape photography - there are some great BW landscapes out there but the very most are in color and would have no value in BW.
Color is only one ingredient of a photograph. It's our eyes and brain which makes it such a big deal. If one removes color, our brain thinks as more than 50% of the value of the photograph was taken away. But photograph consists of many other even more important parts - subject, emotion, action, story it tells, composition etc.I think that is yet another key to understand the art - to not let ourselves be deceived by our brains ;)
I hope I clearly explained my point of view. Cheers!
Agreed, BB. Color is yet another aspect of a photo that must be controlled and used to make the photo successful, and like all aspects of photographer, equally has the power to make the photo fail. I've always felt that color photography is *harder* than B & W.
@Lenscraft, I think it depends. As I said before, there are certain situations where B&W is more difficult (like landscapes).
#1 is really spectacular, such captures stamp themselves in our visual memory.