| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2007 03:08:29 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by Davenit:
Ummm.... hmmmm.... what the.......... oooof....
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maybe it's just because it's small but it just looks so fake. I've never seen a daylight moon look that bright or defined or a sky at night that blue. If he flashed the birds at night the sky would be way too dark. The birds look totally PS'd.
Maybe it's just a size thing and it looks more natural at 72"? I know, all guys think everything is a size thing. Anyone have $6000 to buy one of these mongo size prints so we can find out??
I have no idea how he'd do something like this without PS but I'm not the worlds most knowledgeable out door photographer. Maybe he can... |
Of all those photos, this looks perhaps the most natural to me; shoot with a mid-range telephoto and get that size moon, shoot at near sunset with sun at your back as full moon rising and get that kind of look...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 02:54:11 PM · #2 |
Ummm.... hmmmm.... what the.......... oooof....
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maybe it's just because it's small but it just looks so fake. I've never seen a daylight moon look that bright or defined or a sky at night that blue. If he flashed the birds at night the sky would be way too dark. The birds look totally PS'd.
Maybe it's just a size thing and it looks more natural at 72"? I know, all guys think everything is a size thing. Anyone have $6000 to buy one of these mongo size prints so we can find out??
I have no idea how he'd do something like this without PS but I'm not the worlds most knowledgeable out door photographer. Maybe he can...
Message edited by author 2007-10-12 14:55:00. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 02:10:24 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
You using flash and creating completely shadowless birds. He has a distinct shadow that shows that light source is to the right. |
You don't have to have the flash on the camera... |
So, are you saying that despitehis little spiel about a sudden pull over, a rush to put on his rubber boots, loosing the boots in the mud and continuing on barefoot to capture the scene, he had time to set up some really powerful studio strobes that gave him light from several different directions??? I'm guessing not. Rather, he just added the sunrise/set behind the birds of another image.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 11:41:21 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
The birds in FLA my be tamer than those in CA. The gulls here are pretty easy to walk up to. If you throw out some food, you may even be attacked.
Here are two shots I took with my point and shoot in Anna Maria, FL. Focal length was 23 mm. I could have gotten closer, but it's a rookery, and the birds are not to be harassed.
Straight from the camera:
 |
Pretty different in my opinion. Yes, I agree you can get closer by feeding them, around here that usually results in 300 of them around you and bird turd on some part of your body! We wouldn't get 1 bird close and 3 or 4 more 20+ feet away.
Ok, so assume his setup to shoot the landscape was using a tripod or handheld, but either way he had to be standing still.
So the bird had to come from behind and to the right, flying low and very close. It doesn't appear to be turning, but flying straight. So when it came from behind and passed him, pretty much the wings would have hit him or his camera - I think.
EDIT - actually, the wings are past center of the shot and the bird is not in a turn, so it either had to fly through him or it is in a very steep angled descent - nearly straight down. Neither seems possible.
Message edited by author 2007-10-12 11:45:32. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 11:37:53 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
Not that its a great shot ( Not that its too bad either :) but it does help illustrate that it is possible to get this type of shot.
 |
Notice that you don't have a bird below you and flying away while looking like it is 5 inches from the camera and the entire rest of the shot is still in perfect focus?
That's what I'm talking about.
I'm sticking w/ either it's a composite/heavily PS'ed shot or he sold his soul to the devil to get shots the rest of us can't.
And as several others mentioned, I find his shots (at least on a monitor) to be striking, but not particularly attractive or something I'd buy even at a much lower price. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 09:53:51 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
You using flash and creating completely shadowless birds. He has a distinct shadow that shows that lighsource is to the right. |
You don't have to have the flash on the camera...
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 09:40:23 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Shadowi6:
Not that its a great shot ( Not that its too bad either :) but it does help illustrate that it is possible to get this type of shot.
|
You using flash and creating completely shadowless birds. He has a distinct shadow that shows that lighsource is to the right. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:57:15 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere. |
So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented? |
No. A piece of music and a photograph are two different things. Music is not and never can be a physical object. A photograph most certainly is. Notes can be written down on paper, but in order to exist, music needs only to be heard. A photograph can not only be seen, it can exist in tangible form. |
Ah.. You're saying that most photographs exist on a hard disk somewhere and never get printed? (i.e. this isn't a 'film versus digital' thing!) |
That and the fact that the whole debate over what comprises a so-called "real" photograph is senseless. All photographs are just varying degrees of unreality. The only sense in which a photograph can be real is as a physical object. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:44:56 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere. |
So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented? |
No. A piece of music and a photograph are two different things. Music is not and never can be a physical object. A photograph most certainly is. Notes can be written down on paper, but in order to exist, music needs only to be heard. A photograph can not only be seen, it can exist in tangible form. |
Ah.. You're saying that most photographs exist on a hard disk somewhere and never get printed? (i.e. this isn't a 'film versus digital' thing!) |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:38:13 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere. |
So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented? |
No. A piece of music and a photograph are two different things. Music is not and never can be a physical object. A photograph most certainly is. Notes can be written down on paper, but in order to exist, music needs only to be heard. A photograph can not only be seen, it can exist in tangible form.
Message edited by author 2007-10-12 08:40:19. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:34:15 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by cycleboy:
Uhhh, yeah, I grew up and still live in SoCal, majored in marine bio, pretty much grew up sailing, surfing, diving, spearfishing etc, etc.
I'VE BEEN ON A BEACH!
I've yet to see gulls that will let you get closer than about 20-30 yards away before they fly.
What I find unrealistic is the combination of him being above and behind the gull and focused that closely on it. How could he get above and so close? As you say, maybe a zoom was used, but I don't see how he could get the bird that zoomed and clear and in motion, but still have the DOF to have a clear background to the shot too.
To me, it looks like he maybe got a shot of a gull flying away - standing on a pier for example. Then he added that to the rest of the image. I just don't see how the whole thing could have "happened".
|
The birds in FLA my be tamer than those in CA. The gulls here are pretty easy to walk up to. If you throw out some food, you may even be attacked.
Here are two shots I took with my point and shoot in Anna Maria, FL. Focal length was 23 mm. I could have gotten closer, but it's a rookery, and the birds are not to be harassed.
Straight from the camera:
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:09:43 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere. |
So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented? |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:01:35 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The images are as real as any other photograph. Maybe more so. |
What? |
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 05:20:53 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The images are as real as any other photograph. Maybe more so. |
What?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 04:30:26 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Trumpeteer4:
Why do you think the second one is PSed? |
The sky color doesn't feel coherent with the overall lightning. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 12:50:28 AM · #16 |
| The images are as real as any other photograph. Maybe more so. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 11:14:52 PM · #17 |
Not that its a great shot ( Not that its too bad either :) but it does help illustrate that it is possible to get this type of shot.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:54:16 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by cycleboy:
What I find unrealistic is the combination of him being above and behind the gull and focused that closely on it. How could he get above and so close? As you say, maybe a zoom was used, but I don't see how he could get the bird that zoomed and clear and in motion, but still have the DOF to have a clear background to the shot too. |
I think the title of that particular shot is quite telling too.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:29:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by cycleboy:
They have to be altered. How about the one w/ the gull flying away. I'd like to see someone get close enough up behind a gull to get that clear of a shot. |
Do you mean this one?
//www.alanmaltz.com/gallery/Airport/detail.aspx?page=31
I don't really understand your point - are you suggesting he drew the bird because he couldn't have captured it? Color me confused. With zoom lenses, too, you don't have to get very close to get a stellar shot of a bird. Besides, have you been on a beach? You can easily get within a few feet of a gull. Anyway,
|
Uhhh, yeah, I grew up and still live in SoCal, majored in marine bio, pretty much grew up sailing, surfing, diving, spearfishing etc, etc.
I'VE BEEN ON A BEACH!
I've yet to see gulls that will let you get closer than about 20-30 yards away before they fly.
What I find unrealistic is the combination of him being above and behind the gull and focused that closely on it. How could he get above and so close? As you say, maybe a zoom was used, but I don't see how he could get the bird that zoomed and clear and in motion, but still have the DOF to have a clear background to the shot too.
To me, it looks like he maybe got a shot of a gull flying away - standing on a pier for example. Then he added that to the rest of the image. I just don't see how the whole thing could have "happened".
Hell, maybe the guy sold his soul to Beelzebub in exchange for getting great photos nobody else can get?
My overall issue with it is presenting shots as a single original image when it does not appear they can possibly be. If he said something about them being artistic composite images, I got no problem. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 08:46:25 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?
|
Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest. |
So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ? |
Well, the discussion was about photoshopping to alter the shot, not about the choice of subject, and in answer to Doc, my tourism shots realistically represent their subject. |
Actually no, this branch is about tourism photos realistically representing their subject (the subject being the the destination location, I'd assume) |
agreed, this is what I also understood from the discussion so far. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 08:44:43 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?
|
Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest. |
So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ? |
Well, the discussion was about photoshopping to alter the shot, not about the choice of subject, and in answer to Doc, my tourism shots realistically represent their subject. |
Actually no, this branch is about tourism photos realistically representing their subject (the subject being the the destination location, I'd assume)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 08:40:05 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?
|
Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest. |
So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ? |
Well, the discussion was about photoshopping to alter the shot, not about the choice of subject, and in answer to Doc, my tourism shots realistically represent their subject. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 06:25:51 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?
|
Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest. |
So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ?
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 06:25:09 PM · #24 |
Ah, truth in photography. You'd think us people with cameras would know that they always lie (if only by omission, rather than anything else)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 06:11:07 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?
|
Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 11:24:48 PM EDT.
