Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Landscape article - Peter Eastway  (Read 6715 times)

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1836
  • The Earth without Art is just Eh
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #100 on: November 24, 2018, 07:01:21 am »

His only apology i will accept is a post with more of his images. ;-)

OK, but only because you asked  ;)

I will also put these images up in the 'Landscape' section as well at some point.

Feeling much better now, after spending a rather amazing afternoon in the swirling Scottish mist and fog, next to a calm and reflective loch. That after 5 solid hours of shooting in the exact same location in sub zero temperatures (which I never noticed, I was oblivious to it by that point), and where every shot seemed to be even better than the shot before it, and which finally came to an end with a really nice sunset, with candy colours clouds, reflections and flowing mist - well what more can I say, it was just one of those days, that would lift the spirits of any photographer who still had a pulse :D

Dave
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1340
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #101 on: November 24, 2018, 12:02:18 pm »

Dave, well-done images.  Wish I was there.
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12511
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #102 on: November 24, 2018, 01:00:18 pm »

Agreed - beautiful work.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17553
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #103 on: November 25, 2018, 12:00:39 am »

Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14926
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #104 on: November 25, 2018, 01:30:30 pm »

If you had read "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" ...

Mark, do you also have a penchant for colorful Hawaiian shirts?  ;)

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1836
  • The Earth without Art is just Eh
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #105 on: November 25, 2018, 04:07:22 pm »

Dave, well-done images.  Wish I was there.

Thanks Kevin and everyone else who has commented - thanks :)

Yes it was just one of those days, where every time I thought to look down at my watch, yet another hour had passed by in what seemed like the blink of an eye.

You know it is bit like Michael once said in one of the LLVJ's if I remember correctly, or at least something similar to it: 'That a day like that and images like this, can put a smile on your face that will last for the rest of your life.'

Dave
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12511
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #106 on: November 25, 2018, 06:21:36 pm »

Mark, do you also have a penchant for colorful Hawaiian shirts?  ;)

No :-)
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Hassyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #107 on: December 11, 2018, 12:56:57 pm »

I think the line is simple. When you can see that an image is fabricated then you have gone too far. That goes for the majority of the winning images in the competion "LPOTHY". THe images look like they are picked out from a fairy tail. The overall winners images are just fantasy. I rather watch The Lion King or Happy Feet.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1202
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #108 on: December 16, 2018, 02:56:07 am »

It works the same as with an enlarger, except for the position of the negative!

You interpose you hand or another tool between the light source and the negative/paper sandwich. When I was doing it, I actually used a light bulb mounted in a coffee can on an extension cord, rather like a work light, but more symmetrical. I could hold it steady at a good height for even illumination, but I also used it a bit as a sort of light-painting apparatus, "hosing down" this bit with a little more light, while my hand shaded that other bit.

To be honest, I may have made all this up myself based on a misunderstanding of Edward Weston's apparatus? I'm not *certain* that I've heard of anyone else doing it this way, but my impression is that I stole it all from  some notes on Weston.

It works fine, although precision is a bit tougher to accomplish, and a bit more hit and miss when you do.

You are quite correct in the broad strokes of the system. I used it myself with 4X5 but with difficulty. Itís easier on large negatives.

In the very early days with printing out paper when the exposure might be made on the roof of a building under full sun the printer would use lamp black on the glass holder to hold back some areas, usually shadows of course. That had the advantage of repeatability when making multiple copies.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

greyshark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #109 on: December 18, 2018, 02:43:56 pm »

I confess I've found this dscussion fascinating, as it's evoked a strong feeling of deja vu. I recall reading similar debates on the line between "real" and "fake" photographs as far back as the mid sixties, and I'm sure the topic had been thoroughly debated many decades earlier than that. In fact not long ago some were still debating whether a photography could be a work of art.  As recently as the fifties there were those who still insisted that photography was a science and could never be an art.

The mere fact that digital techniques have become dominant tools really matters little (IMHO). In the early seventies I spent the better part of a summer producing high contrast b&w prints using a photostat camera to create 11x14 paper negatives that I then re-copied to positive prints.  At each of the four stages of the process I used a variety of dodge and burn techniques, a variety of techniques to alter the chemical reactions, and even immersion in ferrocyanide bleach to alter the images. I can't recall a single occession when I was accused of producing prints that were somehow invalid.
My point is the introduction of digital techniques shouldn't make any image any more or less "real".  I would propose that the issue should never be expressed in terms of validity.  Rather we should recognize that differences in style are just that, nothing more.  After all, is a Van Gogh painting any more or less a painting than one by an Old Master?  We should never hesitate to classify a photograph by style, but we should never consider any one style any more "photgraphic" than another.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 02:47:01 pm by greyshark »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4963
    • Flicker photos
Re: Landscape article - Peter Eastway
« Reply #110 on: December 18, 2018, 08:55:33 pm »

I confess I've found this dscussion fascinating, as it's evoked a strong feeling of deja vu. I recall reading similar debates on the line between "real" and "fake" photographs as far back as the mid sixties, and I'm sure the topic had been thoroughly debated many decades earlier than that. In fact not long ago some were still debating whether a photography could be a work of art.  As recently as the fifties there were those who still insisted that photography was a science and could never be an art.

The mere fact that digital techniques have become dominant tools really matters little (IMHO). In the early seventies I spent the better part of a summer producing high contrast b&w prints using a photostat camera to create 11x14 paper negatives that I then re-copied to positive prints.  At each of the four stages of the process I used a variety of dodge and burn techniques, a variety of techniques to alter the chemical reactions, and even immersion in ferrocyanide bleach to alter the images. I can't recall a single occession when I was accused of producing prints that were somehow invalid.
My point is the introduction of digital techniques shouldn't make any image any more or less "real".  I would propose that the issue should never be expressed in terms of validity.  Rather we should recognize that differences in style are just that, nothing more.  After all, is a Van Gogh painting any more or less a painting than one by an Old Master?  We should never hesitate to classify a photograph by style, but we should never consider any one style any more "photgraphic" than another.

So this is your first post here.  So welcome to the site.  You'll fit in just right.  :)
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up