Erez Marom

DPReview Contributor
Lives in Israel Israel
Has a website at www.erezmarom.com
Joined on Sep 5, 2010

Comments

Total: 282, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: This article seems very contrived to me. It may sometimes make sense that the artist has a concept in mind when he creates a work but to expect the viewer to appreciate or even look out for it is ridiculous.

For example, that picture of the sun, reflected on the walls of this ice cave above. This image does not tell the story of the glacial melting, and if the inclusion of the cause and its effect influences the picture's visual appeal, it does so because of the visual effect, no more no less.

What arrant nonsense. There is no story, it is just a picture of ice melting.

@Cerebral Knievel how do you know I took hundreds of shots of the same subject? Do you know me or my methods? Did you shoot with me there? I struggle to understand why you'd assume so much (and wrongly so) without any knowledge.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: His compositions are interesting but the photos have more processing than supermarket cheese.

@quietrich: since when is combining several exposures for higher dynamic range and realism considered over-processing? Do you think the image looks unnatural? Is it over saturated? too contrasty? unrealistic in any way?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 13:40 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: His compositions are interesting but the photos have more processing than supermarket cheese.

@snapperista yes it is. You can see how I took and processed the shot here:
https://www.erezmarom.com/index.php/blog/view/article-behind-the-shot-nautilus

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:30 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): You see "imagined causality" used in street photography a lot.

Indeed. Same ideas can be implemented in many fields - and that's a beautiful thing.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:08 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom K.: "The quiver trees are thereby humanized, and the anthropomorphism makes the viewer identify and feel a deeper emotional connection to the trees...."

You shouldn't anthropomorphize inanimate objects - they don't like it.

:)))

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:02 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: His compositions are interesting but the photos have more processing than supermarket cheese.

@Iloveaircraftnoise do you honestly think my images are over processed? I don't process that much at all, and the processing I do is usually in order to make the image look more natural. Have you had a chance to look at other landscape photographers today and their post processing? I think you'll suffer a stroke if you think my images are over processed.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:01 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

SigmaChrome: I have so much trouble reading the explanatory text in this article because the pictures tell their own story, using their own language. Providing a deconstruction for each photo is like trying to explain language itself - kinda futile. But, hey, thanks for trying.

"The quiver trees are thereby humanized, and the anthropomorphism makes the viewer identify and feel a deeper emotional connection to the trees and to the image as a whole, which is turn achieves our goal as photographers: having the viewer look at the image a bit more carefully, and take meaning from it."

The quiver trees will NEVER be "humanized" for me. My brain simply doesn't work that way. I already see myself as a part of nature. Imposing your rules for interpreting an image on me just makes me want to fight back.

No one is trying to impose their rules on you. I only explained my way of interpreting my own images. If you want to see them in another way, be my guest. I hope you enjoy them none the less.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

Lan: I absolutely love that lava shot Erez!

If I might make a suggestion? Try experimenting with the cropping a bit more - I'd be tempted to remove the sky and perhaps a little off the left hand side?

Thanks Lan.
I do think the sky is an important part of the composition here. Whenever possible, I like revealing as much connection to the environment as possible. The sky also contributes to the feeling of depth.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

717: Something to keep in mind: Some cameras/lenses react much differently to wind blast than others. My old Sony 717 took fine photos when held out of the airplane in the full wind blast. My Nikon with the 55-200mm lens does NOT - if you don't keep it sheltered the wind vibrates the camera more than the VR can overcome. It is worth finding this out before a big $$$ shoot.
Another thing is reaction to cold. I was doing air-to-air with an HD movie camera held outside at about -20 F and it would freeze up within 10 minutes and need to be warmed up to work again. Something else to know before the $$$ shoot.

Thanks 717, I certainly agree and I'll be discussing this on the next article, devoted to technique.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Anyone in Marom's league certain has the talent, need, and wallet to consider a high grade drone. He could tote a compact Mavic Pro anywhere. An old dog need not loathe new tricks. A few crashes won't ruin the reputation. GPS offsets any weak directional sense. The convenience and flexibility are addictive.

Hi John, thanks for your reply.
I think aerial photography still has its place, even in the age of drones. First of all, until very recently, common drones' (not the DSLR-carriers') sensors were absolutely horrible. The Mavic's sensor quality is still appalling compared to a DSLR. Secondly, drones can't go where planes or helis can. Their range, speed and maximum flying height are quite limited. Thirdly, there's the subject of reliability which, from personal experience, is still very far from satisfactory.
In any case, this series is about aerial photography in the sense of shooting from an aircraft you're on, not about drones, so that's what I write about. Perhaps a series about drone photography should also be written.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: With an aps-c, you cant take the 16-80mm and it will cover alot.
I would say the ideal telephoto for aerial woul be 80-400 or in canon the 100-400.
Those lenses would give you interesting detail shots.

As I explain in the article, it highly depends on the subject you're shooting and its distance.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: I'm curious why you would restrict yourself to a lens with such a small zoom range? Even in the Canon camp you can get a 24-105 and there are other options that are even more flexible.

Sure, you can use the 24-105. I don't fly enough to justify another mid range zoom just for that, and 24-70 is good for 95% of the images.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 21:01 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Thank you for sharing your images and explaining your techniques Erez. If I might be permitted a couple of comments:-

The vertical composition works far better in my opinion, reflecting the vertical lines of the towers, and conveying a greater feeling of grandeur.

In both compositions, I feel that unfortunately the sense of night-time has largely been lost. They look much more like underexposed daylight shots. I think that in order to have a real night-time feel, a clear sky with stars visible would have worked better. The turquoise tint of the lake also contributes to the "underexposed sunlight" feel of the images.

@primeshooter
It's Erez.
The RAW files are more contrasty, but they are much too bright and don't reflect reality. The end result looks like the scene as I saw it, which is what I usually shoot for, even if some might prefer it otherwise.
Cheers

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 13:05 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: Hi Erez. Thanks. A place well and truly on my bucket list. For me I think the vertical composition works the best. It hasn't quite got the foreground interest of the horizontal one, but what it may lack there is more than made up (for me) by the rendition of the towers.

Thank you Rod,
As I've mentioned before, I try to write articles about shots I have enough to say about, and that was the main motivation behind the choice of image.
I too sometimes prefer the vertical.
Cheers

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 15:07 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Thank you for sharing your images and explaining your techniques Erez. If I might be permitted a couple of comments:-

The vertical composition works far better in my opinion, reflecting the vertical lines of the towers, and conveying a greater feeling of grandeur.

In both compositions, I feel that unfortunately the sense of night-time has largely been lost. They look much more like underexposed daylight shots. I think that in order to have a real night-time feel, a clear sky with stars visible would have worked better. The turquoise tint of the lake also contributes to the "underexposed sunlight" feel of the images.

I also have to say I really disagree that the shots don't look like night shots. They look extremely similar to what I saw with my own eyes that night. Remember that my eyes were used to the dark and that the moon was blazing - it actually hurt my eyes when I looked straight at it.
I think what deceives the eye here is also the unusual contrast for a night shot - this was due to the special conditions described in the article, and it was very real.
Remember also that moonlight is actually much warmer than the eyes usually see at night, due to the fact that the cells responsible for night vision are much less sensitive to color. I try to reflect that in my night shots, and perhaps it makes them look less like night shots, but it's truer in a sense.
Anyway, thanks again for the feedback, I welcome any respectful criticism. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Thank you for sharing your images and explaining your techniques Erez. If I might be permitted a couple of comments:-

The vertical composition works far better in my opinion, reflecting the vertical lines of the towers, and conveying a greater feeling of grandeur.

In both compositions, I feel that unfortunately the sense of night-time has largely been lost. They look much more like underexposed daylight shots. I think that in order to have a real night-time feel, a clear sky with stars visible would have worked better. The turquoise tint of the lake also contributes to the "underexposed sunlight" feel of the images.

Thanks for your reply entoman.
I end up saying it again and again, but I do understand the confusion: these articles aren't an exhibition of my best shots. I'll write about a shot only if I have enough to write about it, and lots of my best, award- winning shots don't qualify, in the sense that the process of getting them isn't a compelling enough story. I'll only write if there's something to say, even if the shot isn't my very best. In this article, the story of getting there and spending the night supplies the interest which justifies the article, in my opinion of course. I myself sometimes prefer the vertical too. But I had much less to say about it and thus the choice of the shots to write about was very easy.
Continued below.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rajeshb: I liked most of Erez's shots before, but the towers remaining in shadows is not working for me here. But good effort anyway.

I liked the second shot much more. may be a little less luminosity to give it a feel of night time would be better.

Fair enough, to each his own. Thanks for the feedback.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

Johnny420: The main advantage for me shooting in helo's is not the improved field of view having the doors off lends, it's getting the bloody Plexiglas out of the way. It kills contrast and has reflections that mar the shot.

@jdc562, in all light planes I've shot from either there wasn't an option to shoot open door or the pilot wouldn't agree to do it. I've heard similar things from friends.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

scottfc: It would have been fair to specify how much more a helicopter is than a plane.
I my area, southern Oregon, a helicopter costs $900/hour, but a Cessna 172 is "only" $120 to rent. I'm a private pilot and thus can't make a profit, but if you buy me lunch (don't tell the FAA) I might take you up just for fun and we would split the rental cost, so it would only cost you $60. I doubt that'll happen with a copter. But even if you don't have a pilot friend, maybe the Cessna pilot will charge $150/hour.
The point is, helicopter rental may be ideal, but it's too expensive for most people unless they're a commercial photographer. So I suppose the helicopter is for the Leica crowd, and the Cessna is for Canon/Nikon?

You write as if all aircraft are possible in every location. This is definitely not the situation. Prices are also VERY different to what you've specified in some of the locations I've visited, and only quite different in others.
Regarding the monetary cost - to each his own. For me it's been very worth it. To others it would've been ridiculously expensive. That's not really the point here.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2016 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

ales82: There is one kind of aerial photography which is actually free and easy to do!!! Simply finding a high elevation point with a steep slope towards the area you want to capture and then using maybe a short telephoto...

That's nice too but isn't aerial photography.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
Total: 282, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »