wildbild: The usual amateur competition pictures. Nothing outstanding in my view.
Well I agree with you somewhat but it is a difficult stand to take without being a hypocrite and I'm not talking about you, but others that come to mind.
I have been looking at the rules and I cannot find any reference to photo manipulation being disallowed. Can we assume this is an "anything goes" contest?
Also Rule #4.1.3 says not to put any identifying information in the photos. Does that mean in the visual content or does it mean not to put anything in the metadata either?
Thanks for any replies!
You need to explain your narrow views on wildlife photography a bit more.
nawknai: For me, the standouts are:
4: Glacier5: Arty b&w staircase6: Deer7: Backlit monk (borderline...)11: Orangutan (or "monkey")
10: Planes. I love it, but I'm simple-minded.
#9 is mirrored in photoshop, and so I feel should be considered "digital art" rather than photography.
I find it interesting that these days we want to have an even narrower classification of photography than we did in the past.
Should Jerry Uelsmann's work not have been considered photography?
Rage Joe: I think this Lik-guy is like a pretty average 'tourist photographer' (though a little more boring with his choice of subjects) who then later put his images on steroids in Photoshop. Just like the low-end cameras do out of the box, with a very vibrant color profile to please the ones who think that more color is better color. No, I am not saying it. No. The very beginners, normally.
Just google this Lick's images, if you don't get sick of overly saturated images. Jesus is coming soon, so it seems, and so on, you get the picture.
Hey Rage Joe, you sound like an Ektachrome guy who refused to jump on the Velvia bandwagon.
photo_rb: This is a little off topic, but how many think that black and white photography is only valid when it is done with b/w film, or perhaps a monochrome sensor?
Honestly, I don't know. I'm just running on gut feeling and it may have been something I ate. Maybe I'm thinking back to the film days when this wasn't an option....well it was an option but either adding a generation or printing on panchromatic papers left a lot to be desired.Anyway I appreciate all the thoughtful responses.
Well I posed the question and I'm still thinking about the answer. Somehow I can't help feeling that if the photo we are talking about was taken in B/W and not taken in colour and converted to B/W it would be more 'honest'. But I'm willing to admit I might be wrong.
This is a little off topic, but how many think that black and white photography is only valid when it is done with b/w film, or perhaps a monochrome sensor?
He may not be the greatest photographer but he is very very good. I've been to his gallery in LV and the presentation is amazing. The lighting makes the photos come alive. No question this is a man who works extremely hard at his craft.
And with fame and money, it is a bit easier to come up with unique photos. I am sure he was able to rent the Antelope Canyon area for exclusive use for a period of time.
Whatever the motives or the methods, actual photographers should be giddy to see pricing at this level.
Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?
Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.
For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.
I think resolution (image quality) could well be one answer. Retouching ease might be another.
I guess twenty years ago you could ask "why shoot with an 8x10 camera when 4x5 delivers all the resolution you need." Or "why shoot with a 4x5 camera when medium format has all the resolution you need." ...and so on...
Lassoni: uhh.. some painting is suddenly landscape photography?
I think it is a great photo and very rich in tones. If it looks a bit like a painting to some, big deal. Now if it was manipulated to look like a painting it would still be a nice photo but maybe not deserving as much respect.
ThatCamFan: That first picture does not even look like a photograph but a painting or crayon coloring. Who could ever tell it was a photograph? I can't & I still wont acknowledge it as a photo as it looks nothing like a photo.
Oversharpened? Maybe he just used a sharp lens. Please don't take this personally but I wonder if some folks who complain of oversharpening may not have great distance vision and nature itself is a little blurry.Mind you, I don't like white halos either.
I think the problem is that some people think of photography as art and others think of it as photography.
photo_rb: Crowdsourcing at its finest.
Yeah, I missed the pay part initially.
Crowdsourcing at its finest.
The only Canon software I am interested in is Map Utility and it is a shame there is no way of knowing if it has even been updated (from 184.108.40.206) without having to download the whole package.
riskinhos: 100$ for 2 pieces of metal??!???????? wtf?????
I'm sure many on DPReview would be interested in your product line..myself included.
yslee1: Ok people, add HDMI out and a remote jack and we're in business for a drone camera.
And maybe a simple av out as well.