yas

[jjj]

I'd agree it doesn't mean they were better, Jeremy. But they did define photography's genres. If you're a portrait and wedding photographer you have a single, well defined genre to deal with, so the masters don't matter, but if you're interested in photography as an art form they do matter. Studying people like Gene Smith doesn't mean you're going to copy Gene Smith, but you might learn that Gene did a kind of photography that strikes you as worthwhile.

Artists can define themselves without reference to others. Not to mention, they will also do work that is deliberately different from what has gone before.

Another thing to consider is..... Does seeing other's work you like influence your output or do you like their work because it is similar to what you are going to produce yourself anyway?

[RSL]

To do work that is deliberately different from what has gone before you first have to know what has gone before.

Bottom line, Jeremy, I think the most important thing about studying others' work is that it helps you understand what's possible.

[jjj]

I was simply mentioning two options,[there are more]. One was working without looking at possible influences, one was looking at predecessors and in essence rejecting them.
Both valid. Don't forget someone had to be be the first at something as there were no 'masters' before them.

[RSL]

Exactly, and in most cases they're masters because they established a new way of seeing things.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Bottom line, Jeremy, I think the most important thing about studying others' work is that it helps you understand what's possible.

Of course it is. Understand what's possible; be given new ideas; think about them; modify them a bit, so they match your vision and not the originators; probably (since they're masters and you're not) harm them, but in any event come up with something new.

Jeremy

[RobbieV]

Russ, your earlier comments outline exactly why I post and comment less than I had before. I challenge myself by posting what I think is my best work on here with the hope that I receive more than a "nice shot" photo (if I even get that).

I used to get frustrated when I would come back from a 3 hour hike/photoshoot without a single photo I liked. Now I see it as an opportunity to reflect on why that was the case.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Jeremy, that's a nice, fiery sunset! So, do not be afraid to make that very point. Sunset haters may burn in there (hehe, not sure if my metaphors are too mixed or working at all). I tried my version, to the right of your OP:

[RSL]

Welcome back Slobodan.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy, that's a nice, fiery sunset! So, do not be afraid to make that very point. Sunset haters may burn in there (hehe, not sure if my metaphors are too mixed or working at all). I tried my version, to the right of your OP:

I like it, Slobodan, but I'm not sure I like it more than mine: it's different, certainly. The purplish tint of the cloud in the centre top of your version looks a bit odd.

I think one thing which pleases me about responses to this and to a couple of others I've posted recently (mesa arch and fire pit) is that nobody has commented on their "hdr-ness". All are three-shot HDRs, blended to 32-bit TIFFs using the Photomatix LR plugin and tonemapped in LR. I find this is a really good way of getting HDR images which look natural to me. Interesting.

I wonder what you'd do to this if you had a 32-bit TIFF to play with. Shall I make it available?

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The purplish tint of the cloud in the centre top of your version looks a bit odd...

My attempt was indeed rather crude, given the small jpeg available (and my time). I think I tried to get rid of the cyan cast in the upper sky and used a purple gradient. It could certainly be done with more precision. Given that you like your version best , I do not think there is much point in playing with it further.

There is one technical remark I still want to make: there is a halo along ridge lines. That would typically be a result of too much global Clarity (or perhaps Photomatix artifact - I am not familiar with it though). The solution is to apply a narrow brush with negative Clarity along ridge lines.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Given that you like your version best , I do not think there is much point in playing with it further.

There is one technical remark I still want to make: there is a halo along ridge lines. That would typically be a result of too much global Clarity (or perhaps Photomatix artifact - I am not familiar with it though). The solution is to apply a narrow brush with negative Clarity along ridge lines.

My wife preferred yours! She particularly liked the increased yellows in the sky. De gustibus...

Thanks for the technical tip.

Jeremy