Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 52   Go Down

Author Topic: Recent Works  (Read 369409 times)

Gordon Buck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
    • LightDescription
Recent Works
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2008, 10:53:55 pm »

Quote
I live in Queensland and I'm a proud Queenslander. Bigger than Texas   .

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alaska is also bigger than Texas.  (Louisiana is smaller but originally the Louisiana Purchase was much, much larger.)
Logged
Gordon
 [url=http://lightdescription.blog

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Recent Works
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2008, 10:53:57 pm »

Earlier this morning, a view out of my window
Logged

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html
Recent Works
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2008, 11:03:02 pm »

My favorites from a recent trip to Patagonia:









Lisa
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Richowens

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Recent Works
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2008, 11:55:55 pm »

Better Days




 Rich
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 12:18:38 am by Richowens »
Logged

Johnny_Johnson

  • Guest
Recent Works
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2008, 12:14:36 am »

And a snapshot of mine from Easter - my brother-in-law's grandson - taken with a Canon G9.



Later,
Johnny
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Recent Works
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2008, 01:08:26 am »

Quote
The point here, in relation to Ken's article, is that Guillermo has been able to take these fine shots with a very modest camera (the Canon 350D, I think, but I could be wrong). Would these shots have been more artistic if he had used a 1Ds3 or a DB? That's the question?

Perhaps, perhaps not. A much more pertinent question is "would having a better camera have detracted from the artistic merit of the image", and the answer to that is most likely no. There is no evidence to suggest that switching to a technically superior camera will negatively affect the artistic merit of the resulting images. The fact that a fancier camera doesn't automatically improve a photographer's work does not prove that it will degrade it. And face it, there are times when improving the technical quality of an image improves its artistic merits to some degree as well. If the camera doesn't matter, then focus shouldn't, either:





Which of these images do you prefer? Why?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 01:09:18 am by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

dabreeze

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
Recent Works
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2008, 01:56:28 am »

Well this came out this month from National Geographic Books with an image of mine from Antelope Canyon on the cover:



The book is an excellent natural history of the various physical forces that have forged our planet. Watch for the serial documentary of the same name in the next couple of months on NG cable. I haven't seen the documentary but it's BBC-produced and considered their follow-up to Planet Earth seen last year on Discovery. If it's as high quality as the book, it will be a good one.

And here's a few more from a fruitful trip to California over a wet week in February:









Derek von Briesen
www.dvbphotography.com
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 01:57:16 am by dabreeze »
Logged

D White

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Don White
    • iStock
Recent Works
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2008, 02:16:52 am »

Death Valley
Logged
Dr D White DDS BSc

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Recent Works
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2008, 06:27:53 am »

Some very nice work in here.

Here are two images from the winter in Austria.

1DsMk2 each around 100Mp.

[attachment=5948:attachment]


[attachment=5949:attachment]
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

sojournerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
Recent Works
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2008, 07:05:30 am »

Quote
Perhaps, perhaps not. A much more pertinent question is "would having a better camera have detracted from the artistic merit of the image", and the answer to that is most likely no. There is no evidence to suggest that switching to a technically superior camera will negatively affect the artistic merit of the resulting images. The fact that a fancier camera doesn't automatically improve a photographer's work does not prove that it will degrade it. And face it, there are times when improving the technical quality of an image improves its artistic merits to some degree as well. If the camera doesn't matter, then focus shouldn't, either:





Which of these images do you prefer? Why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually, the first could be seen through tears?

I am not going to get involved any deeper in this separate debate...

Mike
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Recent Works
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2008, 09:26:50 am »

Quote
My favorites from a recent trip to Patagonia:

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I love the third (this one), especially.

Jeremy
Logged

larkvi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://www.larkvi.com
Recent Works
« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2008, 12:43:55 pm »

Both taken last year, but only processed recently:


Dawn Fog in the Hayden Valley on the Yellowstone River


Portrait of a Priest in Lalibela, Ethiopia
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 12:49:48 pm by larkvi »
Logged
-Sean [ we

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Recent Works
« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2008, 05:30:51 pm »

Quote
Actually, the first could be seen through tears?

I am not going to get involved any deeper in this separate debate...

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point. There's another thread, "Abstraction in Landscape Photography". Jonathan's blurred image would not be out of place there.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Recent Works
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2008, 07:05:51 pm »

Quote
Perhaps, perhaps not. A much more pertinent question is "would having a better camera have detracted from the artistic merit of the image", and the answer to that is most likely no. There is no evidence to suggest that switching to a technically superior camera will negatively affect the artistic merit of the resulting images. The fact that a fancier camera doesn't automatically improve a photographer's work does not prove that it will degrade it. And face it, there are times when improving the technical quality of an image improves its artistic merits to some degree as well. If the camera doesn't matter, then focus shouldn't, either:

 

If you could buy cameras that took photos that much out of focus, I'm sure Ken would never have written that article. The fact is, you can't buy cameras that bad. They don't exist. The only way you can get a result like that is to blur it in Photoshop, deliberately misfocus or be a complete incompetent behing the camera; hence another fine example of the Straw Man argument. You're getting good at this   .

I've got a postcard size print somewhere of one of the first shots I took with my first camera, the Kodak Brownie 127, around 1955. It's a close-up of a gladiolus and was entered by my father in the local camera club for criticism.

It's much, much sharper than your top image. Would you like to see it? I could dig out the negative and scan it, just so we can see what a sharp result the old Brownie was capable of   .
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Recent Works
« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2008, 09:24:55 pm »

Quote
Jonathan,
Thanks for providing another fine example of the 'straw man' argument. But this time, you've been a bit creative and have extended the conept to "straw image' argument. 

On the contrary, I have just proved that sharpness does to some degree affect the artistic merits of an image. Sharpness may enhance or detract from the artistic merits of a given image, and it is not the most significant factor involved, but in no case is it irrelevant. You have to have some sharpness to have a meaningful image, even one as blurred as my example. If there is no sharpness at all, the image can only be a single solid colored shape.
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Recent Works
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2008, 05:28:04 am »

Can we go back to showing our work ?

Thanks.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Recent Works
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2008, 05:41:57 am »

Quote
On the contrary, I have just proved that sharpness does to some degree affect the artistic merits of an image. Sharpness may enhance or detract from the artistic merits of a given image, and it is not the most significant factor involved, but in no case is it irrelevant. You have to have some sharpness to have a meaningful image, even one as blurred as my example. If there is no sharpness at all, the image can only be a single solid colored shape.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I've already mentioned, nobody has ever marketed a camera that takes photos as blurred as your example. At least not in my lifetime, and I doubt even in the 19th century when the technology was in its infancy. Even an impressionistic painter would produce a sharper image than that.

I don't generally find images that are totally blurred interesting, although blurring to indicate movement can be interesting and blurring of distracting elements in the composition is a good technique.

All cameras are capable of producing sufficient sharpness to create a meaningful image.

I've found the B&W negative of one of my first photographic attempts with my Brownie box camera taken around the age of 12-14. I'm away from my Nikon 8000ED MF scanner at the moment (the film is larger than 35mm) so I'm unable to scan it, but the flower looks quite sharp and the background is suitably out of focus.
Logged

203

  • Guest
Recent Works
« Reply #57 on: April 06, 2008, 09:11:45 am »

Please give it a rest Jonathan!!!
There are plenty of threads here full of techno-nonsense. You can continue your sharpness sermon in one of those.
Let's pay heed to the original purpose of this thread.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Recent Works
« Reply #58 on: April 06, 2008, 09:30:38 am »

Quote
Please give it a rest Jonathan!!!

Quote
The point here, in relation to Ken's article, is that Guillermo has been able to take these fine shots with a very modest camera (the Canon 350D, I think, but I could be wrong). Would these shots have been more artistic if he had used a 1Ds3 or a DB? That's the question?

I think it's fair to point out that Ray is the one who went off-topic and brought a debate going on in another thread here. Now back to the original topic:

« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 09:32:45 am by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

DiaAzul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 777
    • http://photo.tanzo.org/
Recent Works
« Reply #59 on: April 06, 2008, 01:41:42 pm »

Canary Wharf, London



O2 Arena, London


Rouen Cathedral, France


I remember when...
Logged
David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 52   Go Up