| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2010 03:13:19 PM · #26 |
wow! those black and white photos are amazing, thanks for sharing
Message edited by author 2010-04-20 15:16:49. |
|
|
|
04/20/2010 07:00:36 PM · #27 |
| Powerful stuff-breathtaking...thanks for sharing ! |
|
|
|
04/20/2010 08:03:58 PM · #28 |
Pretty remarkable stuff. And he says he gets within a few feet of the animals because he doesn't use telephoto lenses. So he's risking his life for his art too!
|
|
|
|
04/20/2010 08:43:00 PM · #29 |
| "Elephant With Exploding Dust" is one of my all time favourite photos |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 11:53:17 AM · #30 |
B&W photos are WOW!!!
Message edited by author 2010-04-23 11:53:44. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:12:12 PM · #31 |
| WOW.... just wow... those photos are so so seriously impressive. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:14:05 PM · #32 |
That is a stunning set of images for sure!
I notice that these are classified as Black & White, yet the majority of them are sepia toned. ??? |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:24:50 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
That is a stunning set of images for sure!
I notice that these are classified as Black & White, yet the majority of them are sepia toned. ??? |
Yes, that's normal. "Toning" has always been considered part of the realm of B/W photography.
R. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:27:05 PM · #34 |
absolutely fantasic!!! the two lions head to head are my fave.
is it really film? i see it's different but i can't understand what and why. it might have been very hot and too bright there, how did he get that sky and details and not too much contrast? i am sorry for silly questions:) i just want to understand. can the same be made on digital? why does he use film you think?
Message edited by author 2010-04-23 12:36:26. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:41:17 PM · #35 |
Some of those have an infrared feel. Do you think they just used a strong red filter to make the foilage go so white?
Good stuff. My one nitpick is the title for the ostrich egg. I'll be a monkey's uncle if that egg wasn't transported to the mud flat for the picture.
Giraffes and Dust Devil is awesome.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:44:54 PM · #36 |
film offers far superior resolution (especially on silver) and try as you might, you just cant quite match its look with digital, especially not with Bayer filters on our digital sensors.
The detail comes from having the ability to generate 80-120megapixels of scanned info in those films. Digital is a *long* way behind film.
Black and white is an artistic film, this guy has learnt to use it perfectly. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:46:48 PM · #37 |
| //www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/brandt/brandt.html is beautiful. Well they all are but I LOVE that one. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:47:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Issus:
film offers far superior resolution (especially on silver) and try as you might, you just cant quite match its look with digital, especially not with Bayer filters on our digital sensors.
The detail comes from having the ability to generate 80-120megapixels of scanned info in those films. Digital is a *long* way behind film.
Black and white is an artistic film, this guy has learnt to use it perfectly. |
I'd actually disagree. For resolution digital has surpassed 35mm film and is even approaching medium format. Scanning a negative at 80-120 megapixels does not increase the information available. On the other hand, film still has a quality in the grain that digital will never duplicate.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:50:31 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some of those have an infrared feel. Do you think they just used a strong red filter to make the foilage go so white?
Good stuff. My one nitpick is the title for the ostrich egg. I'll be a monkey's uncle if that egg wasn't transported to the mud flat for the picture.
Giraffes and Dust Devil is awesome. |
I think the last few ones are done with an IR filter personally... |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 12:52:39 PM · #40 |
| so my soviet zenit 35mm camera from 1950s is better then my 5d? |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 01:01:47 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Issus:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some of those have an infrared feel. Do you think they just used a strong red filter to make the foilage go so white?
Good stuff. My one nitpick is the title for the ostrich egg. I'll be a monkey's uncle if that egg wasn't transported to the mud flat for the picture.
Giraffes and Dust Devil is awesome. |
I think the last few ones are done with an IR filter personally... |
They'd have to be IR film, the filter's meaningless without the film... My only problem with that is typically shooting IR requires longish exposure times, and these are wild animals. But on the other hand, the light's REALLY bright down there so... Some of them certainly LOOK like IR images.
R. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 01:03:53 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
so my soviet zenit 35mm camera from 1950s is better then my 5d? |
Nah, the issue would be, "Does 35mm film have more or less resolving power than a Canon 5D's full frame sensor?" You can take that same film and stick it in a cheap plastic camera with a plastic lens and get really muddy pictures, or put it in a Leica with state-of-the art optics and get stunning clarity; so it's not the camera, it's the film/sensor, the medium.
R. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 01:05:23 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd actually disagree. For resolution digital has surpassed 35mm film and is even approaching medium format. Scanning a negative at 80-120 megapixels does not increase the information available. On the other hand, film still has a quality in the grain that digital will never duplicate. |
Not to go off topic too much, however if i scan Velvia 50 at around 40megapixels, i still get way more info out of it, for instance on a tree branch than i could get even if i borrowed a friends 5d mkII. If you put that same slide into a drum scanner, you could keep going to 60mp or so before you started scanning individual grains. Black and white can go even further.
//www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page164/page164.html
//www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html - great real world example.
silverfoxx - not really, if you were to compare apples to apples and compare something like a Nikon F6 to a D3s, the F6 *could* get you more dynamic range, more vibrant colours and far more resolution... but you have to work a bit harder, and spend a bunch of money (for development - at least in Aus) to get there. In the end, you just have to use what works best for you ;) I'm sure the photographer linked could produce stunning, award winning results on a $5 disposable camera. The workflow for digital is so quick and easy, and lets you make mistakes without much consequence, didn't like the preview image.. fix it and shoot again (most of the time). Each is superior in it's own field ;) |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 02:10:34 PM · #44 |
Stunningly rich photographs! So beautiful to view.
Thanks for sharing this.
(I'll never come close to that, but still do love my film camera.) :)edited for bad spelling!
Message edited by author 2010-04-23 14:11:02. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 02:20:14 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Issus:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some of those have an infrared feel. Do you think they just used a strong red filter to make the foilage go so white?
Good stuff. My one nitpick is the title for the ostrich egg. I'll be a monkey's uncle if that egg wasn't transported to the mud flat for the picture.
Giraffes and Dust Devil is awesome. |
I think the last few ones are done with an IR filter personally... |
They'd have to be IR film, the filter's meaningless without the film... My only problem with that is typically shooting IR requires longish exposure times, and these are wild animals. But on the other hand, the light's REALLY bright down there so... Some of them certainly LOOK like IR images.
R. |
Not necessarily. You can have an IR look without using IR film through filters. Although this was done in PS by emphasizing the green channel over red and blue, you could get the same thing with a physical filter I bet (I wasn't meaning they were using an actual IR filter with regular film). The IR issue would be the shutter speed while shooting animals.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2010 03:10:59 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Issus:
if i scan Velvia 50 at around 40megapixels, i still get way more info out of it, for instance on a tree branch than i could get even if i borrowed a friends 5d mkII. |
Not true. Jason is correct— modern DSLRs have surpassed film. The best 35mm film under ideal conditions will only yield about 20MP, but typical film resolution is more like 8-12MP. Scanning at a higher resolution does not help, just like scanning a newspaper photo at 3000dpi won't look better than even a modest point and shoot. The 5D mkII is comparable to 4x5 film. |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 04:34:58 PM · #47 |
| I think these images are absolutely amazing, and create a visceral excitement. I wonder about the use of PP, though (some people say his PP is minimal). It looks like he dodges/burns pretty extensively, but I'm guessing he does it in the darkroom (not photoshop). Anybody else think there's some pretty extrensive post work here too? |
|
|
|
04/23/2010 04:44:50 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by benee:
I think these images are absolutely amazing, and create a visceral excitement. I wonder about the use of PP, though (some people say his PP is minimal). It looks like he dodges/burns pretty extensively, but I'm guessing he does it in the darkroom (not photoshop). Anybody else think there's some pretty extrensive post work here too? |
Yes, I agree, I do think there is a fair amount of PP and I would go as far to think a fair amount of it is in PS not the darkroom.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2010 04:57:19 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by benee:
I think these images are absolutely amazing, and create a visceral excitement. I wonder about the use of PP, though (some people say his PP is minimal). It looks like he dodges/burns pretty extensively, but I'm guessing he does it in the darkroom (not photoshop). Anybody else think there's some pretty extrensive post work here too? |
Yes, I agree, I do think there is a fair amount of PP and I would go as far to think a fair amount of it is in PS not the darkroom. |
oh, but this is cool. because i've been walking around the whole day thinking how in the world that man can create such fantastic images with only an ir filter, a film camera and scanning. i mean technically. is there some secret i don't know? i have been trying to find info online now about the correct exposure and all the other technical stuff with film:D i thought maybe it's a completely different shooting process. this of course by any means doesn't make his images less valuable, but just comforts me a bit. now i know that ps is a must indeed. and i like it:D |
|
|
|
06/12/2010 04:55:14 PM · #50 |
|
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: 04/24/2024 12:23:44 PM EDT.
