How does one get images like these.....?

[aldoc]

My wife and our dog can testify, that the scene looked like this and the image is absolutely unmanipulated ;-) (Nikon D70 + 18-70 @this time)

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/475643/display/4245106

 

[CamasJC]

...
And sorry again, it was nothing Nikon but just an old 2MP Olympus camera:

Very nice. Actually, for this kind of subject low rez is probably better, as it enhances the soft feel of a foggy scene. You don't want to blast through that with 24MPs

--
John
http://www.JChristopherGalleries.com

 

[René Schuster]

Very nice. Actually, for this kind of subject low rez is probably better, as it enhances the soft feel of a foggy scene. You don't want to blast through that with 24MPs

and you´re probably right.

But 24MP sounds tempting, lol, never touched anything like that! Foggy shots with that thing would probably take 24 doses of heavy Neat Image treatment, too!

René

 

[René Schuster]

My wife and our dog can testify, that the scene looked like this and the image is absolutely unmanipulated ;-) (Nikon D70 + 18-70 @this time)

Toxische Vergiftung, hihi! ;-)
Douglasie is Douglas fir, I think.

René

 

[aldoc]

Of course you're right, thanks for your comment.

 

[alabaster]

Althuogh PS has been used to enhance the image, there was no ray work done at all. I didn't even have to get up at 4 am - this was shot at 4:30 in the afternoon.
--
Geoff B
http://www.gbphoto.com.au/

 

[alabaster]

Very nice!
--
Geoff B
http://www.gbphoto.com.au/

 

[tmascolo]

--
Later,

Tony

 

[Ednaz]

Images shot on film, and wet printed, command many times the price of images shot digitally or printed digitally.

Why do you suppose that is? I am serious... no sarcasm.

Because the art world distinguishes between mechanical image captures that take your breath away, and manipulation of those captures. It's a reasonable belief, that wet capture and wet printing keeps photography "pure" in some way.

I love photography and old school prints... but seriously... these advanced digital cameras are amazing. But most images in digital, just like film, need tweaking.

And for example... Ansel Adams wouldn't have been SQUAT if not for post-processing

The degree of "post" increased as he aged, and as humans age our eyes start to reduce contrast and ability to see the dark end of dynamic range. He never created light where it wasn't, but he did aggressively manipulate ratios. Different human eyes see different ratios, even different white balances (my eyes don't white balance to neutral like most peoples' do, so I see all images like if you were shooting daylight balance only). Ansel didn't add beams where there weren't beams. Good artists can do that. It takes a spectacular photographer to find that.

 

[Ednaz]

There's a reason to shoot in the rain, or in the first sunlight when it stops - real water looks different than sprayed glycerin.

While your arguments support the mission of the dedicated, you are talking about extraordinary efforts to pursue the extraordinary. I wouldn't discount an effective Photoshop technique when it comes to producting a compelling picture. Why have we always accepted film manipulation but not digital image manipulation?

Jerry Uelsman is radically different than the notion of taking a pole out of your subject's head because you didn't do it properly when composing the image. Also radically different than creating crepuscular light when it wasn't there.

Photographic art and skill begins with getting it right at capture. Jerry Uelsman's a great example - any one of the components to his images would take your breath away as a standalone image.

A photoshop technique - burning, dodging, local contrast or local sharpening - is not different from what many of us did in film. What we did NOT do was create light that wasn't there. We may have added emphasis or lowered emphasis, but we didn't create in post processing what wasn't there.

Ansel Adams manipulated contrast and tonal range, but he didn't add moons that weren't there, nor did he change dawn to mid-day, or mid-day to dawn. If the essence of capture isn't relevant, it's called painting or drawing, not photography.

 

[WalterH]

So we know the answer some of us guessed anyway

Not to say that a good camera and software and to know what you are doing in PP does not help. Like a good brush did wonders in the hands of Rembrandt.

 

[mikeoregon]

To follow up on Knute's comment--

Sunrays are frequent in the coast redwoods, as they occur whenever the sun is out and there's fog in the trees. Late afternoons are especially strong. And of course the redwoods are magnificent. So if you can travel to Northern California or Oregon your chances are excellent.
--
MikeOregon

 

[RomanJohnston]

It's not hard to shoot once you see them and get your camera set up.



Roman
--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

 

[Greg Primmer]

You have got to be kidding me, how sad..........=(
--
Please do not ask as refusal often offends...NO WEDDINGS!
Location, Aerial,
Industrial, Product.