Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Chris,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....
Nice stuff.
Interestingly, bad weather seems to be the chief common denominator.
It's not a newspaper!Chris,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....
So its your favorite newspaper?;-)
Den
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:
![]()
But could you have guessed how it was made? I wouldn't have guessed this:
![]()
I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused."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.
That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
Hi Chris,That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
Agree with many of your statements, other than your view of what is and isn't photography in the 21st century.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.
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.Hi Chris,That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
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
We just have a different interpretation of the situation. No problem here, always enjoy your images and prose.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.Hi Chris,That's rather a defensive reply to a neutral observation.I prefer to view them as well taken photography with excellent editing. No confusion here. Perhaps its your view that is confused.
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
Anyway, I am a neutral observer! so perhaps I should butt out.