Seen these?

I like that shot Louis. Talk about drama

I am learning something here with all the feedback Always useful to here from others when it comes to your use of these little cameras. I think I'm to old to change my style at this point though. I go by two quotes though. My old Photoshop instructor used to say "create your vision". And Ansel Adams used to say “Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter.”

Its all about both. And of course the gear

Brian

Sure, different things appeal to different people, and most people think we are nuts for wasting all this time on photography in the first place. I mean, they're just pictures right?

Marla2008 said:

I totally respect your opinion Louis and was only speaking for myself (although a lot seemed to share this view). And I understand that a pic that would move me to tears could equally bore you... To tears, and the other way around. Appreciation of art and general, and photography in particular, are totally personal things. Like the things that scare, amuse, or arouse us, for that matter. Again, those shots are masterfully done and of course the first reaction is jaw dropping. But to me, that turns into yawning right away. Which doesn't take anything from them, so congrats to Brian for making them.

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Marla2008 said:

In its glorious predictability. Could I do the same ? Heck no ! Do I wish I could ? Hmm.. Maybe, maybe not. Great PP skills but didn't give me the start of one emotion, it's all been done a thousand times before. For all we know those images could be entirely computer generated, we'd never know the difference...

That's flawless technic without a hint of poetry, like a perfect body with zero sex appeal.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Nothing short of awesome, I am not a good landscaper, but there is skill, technical ability and creativity in all these.

This guy has had to find the locations, work around weather/light, frame/compose/expose and then PP to his tasted and vision

Whether you like his style of PP is subjective, however the core elements are there that make a great image, you could process these more naturally, in Mono, and they would still look good

Credit where credits due

--
Phil
http://deckitout.smugmug.com/

1: It makes for a lousy time. I like to run around finding interesting things and places, not hang about behind a tripod or computer screen.

2: You miss shots. Good light lasts for seconds, a minute or two at most. You have to be there and shooting, not fiddling!

3: I'm a photographer, not a painter. I'm trying to shoot what is there, but sensitively, not just make it all up.

4: It's boring to see. Any fule can ram ten shots into Photomatix , and the results all look the same. Worse, people assume I am doing that!

Minimal HDR for me then. Shot some frames last night for an HDR, just out of curiosity.

You and I seem to do similar sort of things (and I love your stuff), so I'm surprised you thought I was HDRing

tinternaut said:

Were surprising..... I had assumed there was at least an element of HDR in your work. I see now why the sensor in the E-PM5 was such a big issue for you.

BTW, I think your photos are perfectly splendid.

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Your photos are very nice. Great work!

Some of the photos have characteristics often associated with HDR and other heavy processing, which is likely what's generating some comments. Typical processing markers include things like scenes in which different parts appear to be shot under different conditions, such black clouds in daytime.

Trey Ratcliff, of HDR and heavy processing fame, has a book called Top 10 Mistakes in HDR Processing. I don't do much HDR, but found it useful as a list of common ways photos can look unnatural.

Please understand that I'm not criticizing your work as unnatural, I think it's excellent. I'm just giving my take on why some others may be making the comments they're making.

Brianug said:

I like that shot Louis. Talk about drama

I am learning something here with all the feedback Always useful to here from others when it comes to your use of these little cameras. I think I'm to old to change my style at this point though. I go by two quotes though. My old Photoshop instructor used to say "create your vision". And Ansel Adams used to say “Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter.”

Its all about both. And of course the gear

Brian

Click to expand...

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the expose to the right theory of exposure? The idea is to have the brightest tones come very close to blowing in order to capture as much tonal information as possible. Among other things, it helps keep detail in shadows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Galen Rowell is one of the most famous landscape photographers since Ansel Adams. I'm always surprised at things I regard as well known (at least within a specific culture, such as photography) that others have never heard of. Rowell's Mountain Light is well worth reading.

yes, that's the thing. It involves a lot of dedication, time and unfortunately often money to travel to the places which have the right conditions for stunning landscape shots. And of course you have to wait for the light or need to pay careful attention to the weather forecast if you are not already in an area. In Scotland, for instance, weather which is lovely for a hillwalk is usually boring for photography and I unfortunately often prefer the lovely weather as it is anyway a rarity here. Perhaps one day I will have time for both!

That is not, by the way, to suggest that fine landscape shots cannot be taken in any locale as of course they can. But I was thinking more of the kind of grand vistas that have been primarily discussed on this post.

David

papillon_65 said:

is having the commitment and dedication to travel to the locations and chase the light IMHO. People can debate about whether the post processing is overdone or not but location and light are the key factors for getting shots such as these. This takes a dedication that I take my hat off to.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

by being pretentious and snooty at this point and say "I have enough trouble producing original work as it is, without reading all about other people's", but actually the truth is I wasn't doing much photography between 1995 and 2005.

I do prefer going out and shooting to reading about it though. It's not a spectator sport...

richarddd said:

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the expose to the right theory of exposure? The idea is to have the brightest tones come very close to blowing in order to capture as much tonal information as possible. Among other things, it helps keep detail in shadows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Galen Rowell is one of the most famous landscape photographers since Ansel Adams. I'm always surprised at things I regard as well known (at least within a specific culture, such as photography) that others have never heard of. Rowell's Mountain Light is well worth reading.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

richarddd said:

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the expose to the right theory of exposure? The idea is to have the brightest tones come very close to blowing in order to capture as much tonal information as possible. Among other things, it helps keep detail in shadows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Galen Rowell is one of the most famous landscape photographers since Ansel Adams. I'm always surprised at things I regard as well known (at least within a specific culture, such as photography) that others have never heard of. Rowell's Mountain Light is well worth reading.

Click to expand...

Galen Rowell has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I know who he is, but I'm really not familiar with his work. I certainly expose for the highlights though which with my M43 cameras seems to work best for what I'm after. I think my "Drama" influence comes more from the painter Albert Bierstadt. He's my true idol.

Brian

Actually Louis I think you'd approve very much of Rowell's approach. His basic philospophy was to travel light to get to areas of beauty that few would travel to. His work was quite different to medium and large format photography of his peers. Personally I think the best book he did was "Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography". It is a series of essays that give insights into how he worked and why. It's a great book as you just dip into it and read an essay whenever you want as they are not long, but they certainly get the old creative juices flowing and make you think about what you do and why.

Annother photographer I really find inspiring is Joe Cornish. His use of colour, exposure and composition is really rather fine. I particularly like the book he wrote with Charlie Waite, David Ward and Eddie Ephraums called "Working The Light". Although mainly film and large format orientated the principles are the same. Exposure and composition don't alter. In fact digital gives an advantage because they are working with Velvia 50, a film witha dynamic range of just 5 1/2 stops. Life is good when you have 10.

Cornish has also started working with a Panasonic Lumix LX5, and it is interesting how he uses the small format.

Louis_Dobson said:

by being pretentious and snooty at this point and say "I have enough trouble producing original work as it is, without reading all about other people's", but actually the truth is I wasn't doing much photography between 1995 and 2005.

I do prefer going out and shooting to reading about it though. It's not a spectator sport...

richarddd said:

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the expose to the right theory of exposure? The idea is to have the brightest tones come very close to blowing in order to capture as much tonal information as possible. Among other things, it helps keep detail in shadows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Galen Rowell is one of the most famous landscape photographers since Ansel Adams. I'm always surprised at things I regard as well known (at least within a specific culture, such as photography) that others have never heard of. Rowell's Mountain Light is well worth reading.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

There are landscapes and landscapes. Those I don't like are those looking like a postcard or like those calendars' landscapes with pictures illustrating the seasons with one different picture for each month.

But even on calendars there are good ones and there are those which like these are just too much, too spectacular to be interesting.

Also, I won't say that I dislike all landscapes. Some are well made although nothing special. Not all are overdone like these. However I find " the New Landscapists" to be more interesting and more compelling, like Misrasch's "Canto al deserto", or like Koudelka's "Chaos". Or the abstract landscapes of Mario Giacomelli.

Louis_Dobson said:

rrr_hhh said:

Well, they are just too much for my taste, too saturated, too well too much of everything.
They are kitsch in the end.

I prefer more natural renderings and subjects showing our world as it is, not like the page of a monthly calendar, nor like a postcard.

Louis_Dobson said:

Wow.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=588940
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--
rrr_hhh

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--
rrr_hhh

Hi Louis!

Isn't that more of a sign that photographer is being or not being capable of capturing the person in a photo in a way that the photo feels "alive" likevise the person in it.

For me that is the obvios difference between for example good and bad wedding photographer. The first one produces the pictures that tell the tale and the other one can make a technically good shors but they give you no feelng of the venue. If the photographer is good, the person on the portrait or a group of people captured will "interact" with you.

Louis_Dobson said:

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.

Click to expand...

And I was pleased that I was able to post a nice shot of him at least, while announcing the fact. I can do people shots, but I prefer people to shots.

Odd sort of friend, many bricks short of a load, but carved out a niche for himself with somewhere to live, doing odd jobs, and drinking in the local bar, where we had a choice of coping with him and being friends with him, or being horrid.

So well all looked out for him. I remember taking him to a bike rally on the back of the Harley a few years ago, with some trepidation because I reckoned he'd annoy people and get his head kicked in, but in fact once everyone had grasped he was "not right" they all took good care of him, and he came to love bike rallies and went to every one he could get to.

Seems like he went to a bar on Saturday night, got completely out of it, and walked in front of a car at 6AM on his way home. This is not surprising. On the other hand, the local police are apparently calling it murder rather than hit and run, so I hope he didn't upset someone and pay for it (he was very big, and mentally about 13, drank way too much, and could get very aggressive with the wrong people).

Anyway, here he is, shot re-downloaded from Facebook, so lousy quality, but I hope the personality comes through. RIP Neil. You caused us all endless trouble, digging you out of scrapes, but we'll miss you anyway. And I hope to God you did walk into a car, and not do something really daft.

Haris said:

Isn't that more of a sign that photographer is being or not being capable of capturing the person in a photo in a way that the photo feels "alive" likevise the person in it.

For me that is the obvios difference between for example good and bad wedding photographer. The first one produces the pictures that tell the tale and the other one can make a technically good shors but they give you no feelng of the venue. If the photographer is good, the person on the portrait or a group of people captured will "interact" with you.

Haris said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

My condolences at the loss of your friend. Thank you for sharing this small window into his too-short life.