| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2007 06:56:10 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, maybe we're on the same page then. So you are saying it's even less likely the image could be pulled off because it's on slide film? |
Slide film has about 3 stops of linear dynamic range (I _really_ don't want to get in to a discussion/ debate about this though)
Digital - roughly 5.
So it could all be photoshop. It could be extraordinary light. Maybe he just waited until the right time. I know nobody does that around here though :) Looks suspicious, but it doesn't have to be faked.
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 18:57:24.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:57:39 PM · #27 |
heres my example of this, i put it together a while back, i dislike the outcome of the picture alot but to someone who dosnt know, it might look good, This photo is the actual picture i took, This is one of a heron i was about 10 feet from so it was a crisp picture of one so i put him into This photo as a final result you can tell the shadow is way off in the final photo, i never liked it so i dicontinued working on it
looks like a diecent photo, but it came from 2 slides
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 18:59:37. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 07:53:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
This photo as a final result you can tell the shadow is way off in the final photo, i never liked it so i dicontinued working on it |
Looks pretty convincing to me. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 08:43:30 PM · #29 |
| its close but the shadows are all messed up, the background is shadowless and then the bird has shadows. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 08:55:45 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I think that it's BS myself... |
Ditto!
and edit to add:
I just realized what they remind of. Those paintings that you see in Holiday Inns!! Yeah, that's it!
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 20:59:46. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 09:12:05 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bosborne:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I think that it's BS myself... |
Ditto!
and edit to add:
I just realized what they remind of. Those paintings that you see in Holiday Inns!! Yeah, that's it! |
I third that.
Those are about the cheesiest 'photos' I've seen
Maybe they could adorne Yianni's new cd |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 10:37:13 PM · #32 |
| and so why is this guy being called out at DPC, and torn apart for his use of photoshop? It isn't like no one here uses PS or does composites. I just think this comes off as a a harsh attack. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 10:50:16 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
and so why is this guy being called out at DPC, and torn apart for his use of photoshop? It isn't like no one here uses PS or does composites. I just think this comes off as a a harsh attack. |
Yes, this is what I was thinking. Compared to many people here he has done wonderful work. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 10:34:40 PM · #34 |
Perhaps because they are talking about a brick and mortar gallery, big $ prices for his prints, and the images are being sold as though they are single original images?
Sort of cheats everyone else, don't it?
Most around here will say openly how they used digital editing to alter a shot, that's entirely different from selling an ethereal looking image you created on a computer as though it actually happened in nature.
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. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 10:48:13 PM · #35 |
hahahah. this cracks me up, what a gag, read his paragraph under vision, style and technique. it satates "this self-taught artist seldom uses filters to achieve virtuosity. Instead, he follows the light." now it is possible to use light as an advantage, but then why so many missing pieces in his photos, where something is missing that should be there? like in the upper sunset it is, but the reflection its not. some filters gotta be used in his work
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 00:32:28. |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:07:01 PM · #36 |
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,
Jimbo_for_life, I find your ... certainty ... amusing, but your snide attitude is just annoying. At the ripe age of 19, you've decided what's crap and what's valuable? Maybe you should call everyone who's ever bought a print of this guy's and tell them they're idiots.
Why do you feel it's appropriate to shred this guy just because he and his clients like a style you deride?
Message edited by author 2007-10-10 23:10:28.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:07:13 PM · #37 |
From a recent interview.
He's currently the Official Wildlife Photographer for the State of Florida” by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission too
TS: Many of your images are so breathtaking,
as to appear unreal. Are any of
your images composites of more than one
photograph? Are they cut out from the
backgrounds?
ASM: This is not the norm, 99 percent
of my work reflects the original as I captured
it. There may be one or two images
that were achieved as a result of sandwiching
two slides together. These images
are not in my main body of work. They
were created more or less for experimentation.
For some of my images with black
backgrounds, I may blacken a green leaf
here and there to create a solid black
background. Most of the black backgrounds
are created using specific techniques
in the field.
TS: In your literature, you say that you
“direct a painstaking and time-consuming
proofing process,” to create a master
image from the “raw digital file.” Please
describe this process. Does it involve
Photoshop or some similar photoretouching
program?
ASM: The process starts with an
original 35 millimeter slide that has been
selected from editing a shoot. The image
is then scanned by a very high resolution
scanner. The raw scan is now in a digital
format. In order to capture the color
and feeling of the original slide, the raw
file is worked on in Photoshop. You can’t
just scan the image and achieve greatness.
The raw scan looks nothing like the
original. It is very dark and muddy looking
, although all the elements are there
to mirror the original. That is where the
proofing process comes in. It may take a
day or two or a week or two to get it back
to reflect the original. One thing is certain.
I will never settle for
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:38:40 PM · #38 |
My question is why do so many of you agree on what is "real" and why does it matter to your judgment of a photograph? My guess is that it has partly to do with being on DPC. On DPC we impose editing constraints in order to help keep our learning focused on a certain area of photography, and we judge others on the site based on how well they execute the in-camera techniques and limited editing techniques. But that is for our own fun and edification, we have to remember that out in the world, an image is an image. Aren't they all subjective interpretations of reality? Judging a photo based on it's "reality" to puts too much faith in the little black box that we carry around our necks. But so much of a photograph comes from us, and our work, not just clicking the button. so who cares ( and why?) whether the work is done before or after the shutter is clicked?
The only time it matters to me is when somebody is claiming it to be an accurate reflection of reality and that reality has an impact on my life or the society I live in. So as far as his position as a photog for the wildlife commission I would want to ask, "how accurately do the photos on this webste reflect the visual experience i'll have if i throw down a load of cash to visit florida?" But as far as a fine art prints go, the print is the final product that i would be interested in, so I care what kind of visual experience i am getting everyday as i look at it in my house, and i don't care how it was made as long as the visual experience is a pleasurable one.
jeff |
|
|
|
10/10/2007 11:59:04 PM · #39 |
not to argue with you levy, i just have my own views about this guy, take a look at the photographs, Gullible the gull flying away appears to be taken at a noon time, he has no shadows on him except a small one going down this back between his wings, the sun is comming for the upper left side of the shot, yet the gull has no shadow where his lower right downfeathers would have a shadow from the body, look at the oterh gulls they all have a dark side, yet the one flying away dosnt. unless he has some crazy flash equiptment* thats gunna light that thing up like a christmas tree, i highly doubt the picture came from one photo.
inWings accross the water we have a sunset or sunrise, eather way the sun is comming almost from directly infront of you, yet the gulls have shadows dipicting the sun is comming from the upper right of the photo. unless he has an amaizing flash or reflectors to light them up, again i dont see how this photo could from one shot.
Guiding Light how do you explain the single dark bird when all the other are lit up with such emense light, i see this image with one bird, that dark bird, being the origional bird, and the others were takin at the same sunset, but placed into this photo, you can see the sun is not shining from behind where the shot is being taken, they are they are all lit up.
look at In Light of the Journey, this is an awsome shot, the sunlight is casting shadows that are 100% correct, you can see Silhouettes of the waves, where it would be dark, it is, im not saying he is a bogus photographer, he dose have some amaizing shots, but some are a little questionable to if they are real or hamburgerd.
just because im 19 dosnt mean i dont know whats what, ive been taking photographs of nature for two years now and i know a thing or two, if you dont believe me ill show you them, i have some diecent shots. ive sat in the woods for five days stright in camo, waiting and learning on how an animal lives and responds. stalking birds, sitting not 6 feet from them, taking shots. i know all about shadows and what type of photo you well get at what time of day. so im sorry if i offended you by giving my opinion to what this thread was about. im not saying he has bad shots, or clients that are "idiots", just stating that some of the shots are questionable. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:26:50 AM · #40 |
Jimbo, of course you're entitled to your opinion. And I'm not even really arguing whether the shots were photoshopped. But some of your earlier comments were very strongly negative and phrased in such a way that you seemed to think you were making universal statements as opposed to expressing just what you thought.
Also, and not just responding to you, but everyone: have you ever used layers or Photoshop to adjust the lighting? I certainly do, all the time. That doesn't mean something isn't from a single frame, though. Maybe they're composites, but maybe he deliberately makes the lighting look wrong because he likes how it looks.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 01:50:29 AM · #41 |
The guy is being torn apart on DPC because a group of us stopped by his studio this past weekend at the Key West part of the GTG. His sales lady insisted that the shot was not a composite, but that he did do "some work" on the clouds. He claims to edit no more that 20%, whatever the hell that means, and he plans to use this shot as the cover to his new book. The sales lady printed off a story of this shot that talked about him driving, looking over to see this scene, throwing on his rubber boots, the loosing one in the mud, but continuing on barefoot to capture this amazing shot. The story said that he knew immediately that he had the cover of his new book. That's why. If the lady had just said that it was a composite, no one would have thought anymore about it.
And for the "real" part...a composite is not a photograph. It's just art. While I am no photography purist, I do believe that a photo should be just that...A photo. Add your adjstment layers, dodge and burn your clouds, take out your dust spots, but leave it alone as the photo that you ended up with when you set out to get it. Just shooting various shots to put the together and developing something different cheapens photography when you try to sell is off as a "photograph."
And...he hasn't bothered to respond to the email yet.
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 01:50:58.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 01:54:00 AM · #42 |
| Eric, that was beautifuly worded. thats exactaly what i was trying to say the past idk how many posts i made:) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 04:54:10 AM · #43 |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 08:01:19 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
Guiding Light how do you explain the single dark bird when all the other are lit up with such emense light, i see this image with one bird, that dark bird, being the origional bird, and the others were takin at the same sunset, but placed into this photo, you can see the sun is not shining from behind where the shot is being taken, they are they are all lit up.
|
Which single dark bird you are talking about in this scene. Because I think the single dark bird that you are talking about has its color that way , and it is not the shadow as you think. Or may be I am mistaken.
As far as lighting is concerned, I think the whole scene is possible from one capture. Provided it is photoshoped heavily. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 08:52:35 AM · #45 |
whoa I'm a genius
"The Challenge Results
Excellent, a superior performance--ten out of ten answers were correct.
If you got a perfect score on the first try then you're a REAL genius. "
;) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 09:36:38 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
And...he hasn't bothered to respond to the email yet. |
Maybe he's busy taking photographs ?
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 09:49:05 AM · #47 |
Why do you think the second one is PSed?
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 09:49:15. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:27:59 AM · #48 |
why does it matter if he claims its one image and people disagree? The great thing about people like this who are not really lying but not telling the whole truth is that people who know photography know its BS and he knows that other photogs know its BS. He knows he is going to have to answer questions and get ridiculed over his half answers. Personally I wouldn't want to be known as the photog who is popular w/ the general public but ridiculed by other pros.
if people are mad because he has a brick and mortar gallery w/ expensive prices and not "real" photos, thats your own problem. Don't buy anything is the easy solution. If the public likes his stuff and they don't mind the hefty price tags, more power to him. I wish I could sell a large print for $4K.
I think its the same in all areas of photography. Who has seen a wedding photogs website that was complete garbage but they charge $3500 and seem to be booked for the entire season? |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:02:32 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by dknourek:
a little OT but maybe not ;) heres a little Fake or Photo quiz for ya...
The OP's photo, definaltly heavy use of photoshop in it...
-dave |
7 out of 10 1st time
edit: i told it to give me the answers so i could see qhat the bonus round was and i go the bonuse round 4 out of 4 1st time kinda easy on those 4
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 12:11:32. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 01:13:31 PM · #50 |
This reminds me of the time we called out the author of the book who had a PS Salmon in the water too.
And I had to laugh so hard reading his 'technique' description of his "painstaking work taking sometimes weeks to complete." I have been in a gallery before with kind of the same thing, describing the process in which the photographer created panoramas. There was a huge, long, over eloquent description of the 'painstaking process' of getting the light right, giving absolute detail to lining up the images, and then the intricate process of combining the images with 'the latest, most cutting edge technology available.' READ: I put them in photoshop, file, automate, photo stitch. haha. |
|
