-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Seen these?
- Thread starter Louis_Dobson
- Start date
TEBnewyork
Veteran Member
The best ones there are the more natural shots where it looks like something you would see in real life. The over done skies are something I just can't look at for more than a few seconds and then want to turn away.
Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean you should.
--
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com
Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean you should.
--
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com
Timewarp
Well-known member
CharlesB58
Veteran Member
Very nice.
Were any of them done with a phone? ;-)
--
Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.
http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/
http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
Were any of them done with a phone? ;-)
--
Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.
http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/
http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
Steven Wandy
Veteran Member
Thanks
Guy Parsons
Veteran Member
The camera does not matter for this sort of image, only needs wide to extremely wide lenses for many of them and sometimes neutral graduated filters, and then heaps of post processing. Maybe multiple RAWs/jpegs at different exposures and combining would also help get some of the effects.
Of course it matters a lot to be in the right place at the right time of day and with the right sky. Ansel Adams was a master of putting alternative skies in and that's easier now to achieve. Persistence and patience and the eye of the artist help enormously.
Regards.......... Guy
Just saw this. Thanks Louis for your kind comments. Quite a few M43 shots mixed in there. All single RAWS. Nothing computer generated 
I just processed to meet the vision I had for the shot at the time.
M43 has not hindered my style at all. love the system.
Thanks again, Brian
I just processed to meet the vision I had for the shot at the time.M43 has not hindered my style at all. love the system.
Thanks again, Brian
Peter Nelson
Veteran Member
They all looked good and I liked them. However, the look eventually becomes close to those inexpensive paintings that are hung in livingrooms everywhere. Not a bad thing as I always look and admire them. I really do. The play on light, the coloras and of course the subject of these types of paintings and that photographers images are wonderfull in their own right. But being a painter myself the admiration can only go so far. I prefere more ceative art to this kind, and finner touch with the brush.
But hey, hang one of these photographs in any home and you would be recieving compliments as long as it you keep it. How is that a bad thing. So you know what, forget my art attitude and let's all accept these photographs.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
But hey, hang one of these photographs in any home and you would be recieving compliments as long as it you keep it. How is that a bad thing. So you know what, forget my art attitude and let's all accept these photographs.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
jh404
Forum Enthusiast
Excellent follow up. Well said. These definitely shows your practice to following your eye to the compositions. Whether one finds your vision engaging is really up to the viewer, but I quite like most of these. Especially admire your patience & ability to use the lighting to your advantage.
http://jonathanho.smugmug.com
--Just saw this. Thanks Louis for your kind comments. Quite a few M43 shots mixed in there. All single RAWS. Nothing computer generated
M43 has not hindered my style at all. love the system.
Thanks again, Brian
http://jonathanho.smugmug.com
bgalb
Veteran Member
Well, I wish I could cook half as well.
Buchan-Grant
Veteran Member
There's some good compositions in there, somewhat let down by rather overt processing. Its difficult to say if the processing was an attempt to turn an average picture (i.e. not great light in the first place) into something more dramatic, or whether its was actually quite good to begin with. But composition wise, there's a lot of good stuff there.
I sometimes play around with some of the iphone apps for fun and post re-workings of my work on to Instagram but I wouldn't consider putting them on my website. I'm not suggesting he's been using those but the end result is similar, big drama!
Processing is a pretty subjective thing and a lot of people love this 'added drama look', I prefer a more natural look.
--
Neil
http://about.me/buchangrant
I sometimes play around with some of the iphone apps for fun and post re-workings of my work on to Instagram but I wouldn't consider putting them on my website. I'm not suggesting he's been using those but the end result is similar, big drama!
Processing is a pretty subjective thing and a lot of people love this 'added drama look', I prefer a more natural look.
--
Neil
http://about.me/buchangrant
http://1x.com/photos/landscape/latest-additions/1
Enjoy! Or not, as some of you seem incapable of doing.
fotophool
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7131002@N05/
Enjoy! Or not, as some of you seem incapable of doing.
fotophool
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7131002@N05/
Tim F 101
Veteran Member
Galen Rowell titled his site and his first book 'mountain light' and the pics capture Rowell's technique: the wide lens mountainscapes with split ND filters, the Velvia saturated look, fogscapes and the sublime vistas over a subtle image. There is a little more range in tone than in Rowell's work, but less creative use of camera perspective or pre-visualized light wizardry, and less of that Nat Geo human touch. Rowell loved mountain people. This guy is a credible student of the Rowell school of photography, something I hoped to reach myself (and fell well short) when I bought my first used FE2 in '97.
Some of these I really like, a couple of them a little over the top (for my taste), but all well composed, and some very, very nice. So much of what we like and what we don't is personal taste. These are well done, very involved processing skills. Some like literal capture, some like creative work. Some both.
Here's a link to a guy that does landscapes which I find incredible also. Not M43 but couldn't help myself. Some may enjoy, who like landscape photography.
http://www.pbase.com/cecilwhitt/ah-shi-sle-pah&page=1
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
Here's a link to a guy that does landscapes which I find incredible also. Not M43 but couldn't help myself. Some may enjoy, who like landscape photography.
http://www.pbase.com/cecilwhitt/ah-shi-sle-pah&page=1
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
R
Raist3d
Guest
--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
The camera matters enormously because unless you are going to waste your time stacking you need DR.
Some of these will presumably have been done with MFT, which is what he now uses, why he posts here, and why I linked to them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Some of these will presumably have been done with MFT, which is what he now uses, why he posts here, and why I linked to them.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
Single RAW and a bit of PP. 99.9% of the work is finding the shot and getting the light. I do get irritated with people asking me if I use multiple exposures or HDR programs...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
--Just saw this. Thanks Louis for your kind comments. Quite a few M43 shots mixed in there. All single RAWS. Nothing computer generated
M43 has not hindered my style at all. love the system.
Thanks again, Brian
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
And the reverse of what I feel of course. To me they are amazing captures of scene and light. Speaking as someone who does them myself, I know they are pretty close to reality, if you wish to see this stuff in the wild, all you need is time, patience, skill, and anticipation of the light. PP has very little to do with.
People shots are boring to me. People are only interesting when one can interact with them, so looking at them is dull. Landscapes, on the other hand, are visual in the first place.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
People shots are boring to me. People are only interesting when one can interact with them, so looking at them is dull. Landscapes, on the other hand, are visual in the first place.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
You were asking about this in another thread, and I never got a chance to reply...
99.9% of my shots are a single image, exposed to keep the sky from coming even close to blowing.
To get sky and ground exposed well I use graduated neutral density filters.
If that is not enough, I apply a virtual graduated ND in Lightroom (this is as easy as clicking a button these days).
Only if that is not enough do I get tricky....
Then I develop the shot twice, once for the sky, once for the ground, export both shots to Photoshop, place the lighter over the darker as a layer, switch on quick mask, highlight the parts I wish to keep light, switch off quick mask, click "reverse selection" and then the delete key.
Bosh, done.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
99.9% of my shots are a single image, exposed to keep the sky from coming even close to blowing.
To get sky and ground exposed well I use graduated neutral density filters.
If that is not enough, I apply a virtual graduated ND in Lightroom (this is as easy as clicking a button these days).
Only if that is not enough do I get tricky....
Then I develop the shot twice, once for the sky, once for the ground, export both shots to Photoshop, place the lighter over the darker as a layer, switch on quick mask, highlight the parts I wish to keep light, switch off quick mask, click "reverse selection" and then the delete key.
Bosh, done.
--Geoff, sorry mate, but care to elaborate? I didn't get your comment
Do you mean his images are overdone? As someone, who does little to no PPing, the grass always seems greener on the other side. I was imply impressed with the way both the sky and the foreground are properly exposed....
I find that my biggest challenge!
Alex
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum