Absolutely incredible images

You're right - superb images.

Mind you, when I saw it was The Daily Mail I had to wear a necklace of garlic, say the rosary 27 times, summon an exorcist, recruit James Bond to deal with them, evacuate neighbouring properties, disinfect my house, and then go to bed and rest for 3 days....
 
You're right - superb images.

Mind you, when I saw it was The Daily Mail I had to wear a necklace of garlic, say the rosary 27 times, summon an exorcist, recruit James Bond to deal with them, evacuate neighbouring properties, disinfect my house, and then go to bed and rest for 3 days....
Chris,

So its your favorite newspaper?;-)

Den
 
Nice stuff.

Interestingly, bad weather seems to be the chief common denominator.



Erik,

Perhaps we should have been out shooting the last few days.

Best,

Den
 
You're right - superb images.

Mind you, when I saw it was The Daily Mail I had to wear a necklace of garlic, say the rosary 27 times, summon an exorcist, recruit James Bond to deal with them, evacuate neighbouring properties, disinfect my house, and then go to bed and rest for 3 days....
Chris,

So its your favorite newspaper?;-)

Den
It's not a newspaper!
 
Yes, some amazing images. It's always very humbling to see photos like that.

I'm curious how they took merged multi-frame images of instantaneous things like lightning. Or did they just use single shots with wide angle lenses?

It would be nice if they provided technical info on how the shots were taken, as happens in some photographic competitions. For example, I saw this image in an exhibition:



31401666992_85a15cedd8_o_d.jpg


But could you have guessed how it was made? I wouldn't have guessed this:



30738928673_927a395e42_o_d.jpg
 
Yes, some amazing images. It's always very humbling to see photos like that.

I'm curious how they took merged multi-frame images of instantaneous things like lightning. Or did they just use single shots with wide angle lenses?

It would be nice if they provided technical info on how the shots were taken, as happens in some photographic competitions. For example, I saw this image in an exhibition:

31401666992_85a15cedd8_o_d.jpg


But could you have guessed how it was made? I wouldn't have guessed this:

30738928673_927a395e42_o_d.jpg


Wow, 111 manually blended raw files. Sounds like a large amount of effort. But it is an incredible image. And I certainly agree with you that information on how each image was produced would be quite helpful to other photographers.

Best,

Den
 
"The winner of the Epson 'digital art' prize was Colin Sillerud from the U.S, with this shot of lightning sparking over the Grand Canyon. The digital art award is aimed at 'rewarding excellence in modern digital post-processing"

Some excellent images to put on your wall, but let's not confuse good photography with good editing.
 
Last edited:
"The winner of the Epson 'digital art' prize was Colin Sillerud from the U.S, with this shot of lightning sparking over the Grand Canyon. The digital art award is aimed at 'rewarding excellence in modern digital post-processing"

Some excellent images to put on your wall, but let's not confuse good photography with good editing.
I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.

Den
 
I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.
Hi Chris,

Sorry to disagree, I don't view "but let's not confuse good photography with good editing" as a neutral observation. My definition of photography (and many others, I am certain) in 2018 include both the acquisition of the image and its manipulation.

What is 21st century photography?, an essay:


Regards,

Den
 
Last edited:
As I said in my post, some excellent images to hang on your wall. I think it all depends on whether you want your landscape images to look 'real' or not. Not that there's anything wrong with the featured images, there isn't, as long as it's realised that landscapes don't look like that in the real world, But if you like them, that's good, I certainly wouldn't criticise you for that.

Unfortunately images and techniques like this are the flavour of the month. Take HDR for example. When it first appeared some years ago with that 'Grunge & Painterly' never seen before look, it was wonderful. So different. Then soon the novelty started to die off and the thought's turned to how awful grungy painterly HDR was.

I think these types of highly manipulated landscape views will soon head the same way. Once more and more people copy them they'll become common.

None of us are right or wrong in what we like, just different.
 
As I said in my post, some excellent images to hang on your wall. I think it all depends on whether you want your landscape images to look 'real' or not. Not that there's anything wrong with the featured images, there isn't, as long as it's realised that landscapes don't look like that in the real world, But if you like them, that's good, I certainly wouldn't criticise you for that.

Unfortunately images and techniques like this are the flavour of the month. Take HDR for example. When it first appeared some years ago with that 'Grunge & Painterly' never seen before look, it was wonderful. So different. Then soon the novelty started to die off and the thought's turned to how awful grungy painterly HDR was.

I think these types of highly manipulated landscape views will soon head the same way. Once more and more people copy them they'll become common.

None of us are right or wrong in what we like, just different.
Agree with many of your statements, other than your view of what is and isn't photography in the 21st century.

Enjoy your photography,

Den
 
Last edited:
These are incredible...thanks for sharing

Ray
 
I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.
Hi Chris,

Sorry to disagree, I don't view "but let's not confuse good photography with good editing" as a neutral observation. My definition of photography (and many others, I am certain) in 2018 include both the acquisition of the image and its manipulation.

What is 21st century photography?, an essay:

http://www.academia.edu/13589216/What_is_21st_Century_Photography

Regards,

Den
I think you misunderstood. The remark about not confusing good photography with good editing, was not directed at you personally. Your reply of "Perhaps...your view...is confused", was personal.

Anyway, I am a neutral observer! so perhaps I should butt out.
 
I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.
Hi Chris,

Sorry to disagree, I don't view "but let's not confuse good photography with good editing" as a neutral observation. My definition of photography (and many others, I am certain) in 2018 include both the acquisition of the image and its manipulation.

What is 21st century photography?, an essay:

http://www.academia.edu/13589216/What_is_21st_Century_Photography

Regards,

Den
I think you misunderstood. The remark about not confusing good photography with good editing, was not directed at you personally. Your reply of "Perhaps...your view...is confused", was personal.

Anyway, I am a neutral observer! so perhaps I should butt out.
We just have a different interpretation of the situation. No problem here, always enjoy your images and prose.

Den
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top