Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day (March 2008)
- Thread starter Grimace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Three handheld RAWs // HDR // Shutter: varied // Aperture: f/4.0 // Focal Length: 17 mm // ISO 100
One handheld RAW // HDR // Shutter: 1/160 // Aperture: f/22.6 // Focal Length: 17 mm // ISO 100
Something a bit different this time - a rural landscape instead of a cityscape. I took this today (Sunday afternoon) while driving across rural Kansas heading home.
Hey valdore, I am a huge fan of your work and these 2 photos look different than most your others. Did you use a polarizing filter or ND grad to accompany the multiple exposures in these photos?
PkennethV, I love that pic! Nice concept
Here's a little jumping spider (Family Salticidae) from today's shoot:
Detail and coloring are magnificent. Scary, nonetheless.
Thanks! Nope, didn't use any filters on the lens for those shots. Although for the black and white shot with the church, I used the Infrared photoshop filter. And this one was just from a single RAW, whereas the trading post shot in color was from three handheld RAWs, with the camera in burst mode with bracketing, and a wide aperture to help minimize camera shake for handholding the camera for three shots.
One handheld RAW // HDR // Shutter: 1/250 // Aperture: f/18.2 // Focal Length: 15mm // ISO 100
From my blog post about this:
One handheld RAW // HDR // Shutter: 1/250 // Aperture: f/18.2 // Focal Length: 15mm // ISO 100
From my blog post about this: Doctrinairism would dictate that it is verboten to use a fisheye lens for a rural landscape photo, but whatever. This is one of my shots from Sunday afternoon in rural Kansas. Since the sky and clouds are an integral part of the composition, I felt the use of the fisheye lens was an enhancement.
Well, it's been while since I upset anyone, so here goes...
You make it sound like there's a set of photographic rules - "doctrinairism", "dictate", '"verboten", etc - but I've never read them.
There are a few conventions, which mostly belong to an earlier photographic era. Stuff like "don't shoot into the sun"... which would certainly invalidate a lot of the shots I take.
There are no 'rules' of composition, though, if we gather up some of the photographs that satisfy us in graphic terms, they generally conform to some of the geometric insights that were being codified during the Renaissance (golden section, golden mean, rule of thirds, Fibonacci sequences, etc).
So... I've no problem with anyone trying to break the (non-existant) rules, or attempting something new. I'm happy to judge a pic on its own merits, not as part of some imaginary tradition.
I used red filters on b&w pix, when I shot film. It was intriguing to make the clouds go white and the sky go dark. Very dramatic... a big "Wow!" factor. I could make the pix more dramatic still, by cranking up the contrast when printing, and using a 'harder' grade of printing paper.
The problem was knowing when to stop, and trying to decide when enough was enough. The techniques may be a bit different today, in the digital era, but that problem remains. When does drama descend into melodrama? When we can change the appearance of our pictures so easily, what merit - if any - can be found in discretion and restraint?
Just my personal observations, not meant to start an argument...
Well, it's been while since I upset anyone, so here goes...
..The problem was knowing when to stop, and trying to decide when enough was enough. The techniques may be a bit different today, in the digital era, but that problem remains. When does drama descend into melodrama? When we can change the appearance of our pictures so easily, what merit - if any - can be found in discretion and restraint?...
Your a bit too cynical, Doylem. Doesn't this statement contradict your entire argument that there are no rules, but one is to know when enough is enough?
I didn't see the cynicism in that post
I actually agree with Doylem's statements.
It's by trying to quantify and define the nature of art's qualities that we end up containing it. The best works after all are usually those that aren't afraid to break "the rules"..
I actually agree with Doylem's statements.
It's by trying to quantify and define the nature of art's qualities that we end up containing it. The best works after all are usually those that aren't afraid to break "the rules"..
Well, I'm happy to be right or wrong, but I'm certainly not being cynical...
I understand what is possible with post-production in the digital age. For my own pix I have the opportunity to increase, say, contrast and colour saturation by moving a 'slider' or dialling in a number. If 60% saturation gives the pic more drama, more 'pop', then the temptation is to go to 70%, or 80% or further. But, mostly, we don't, because the pic loses in 'reality' which it may gain in the "wow!' stakes.
I flagged up Valdore's b&w pic as an example of going too far in this direction. It doesn't break the 'rules'; for me it breaks the link with reality. Simply, it's 'too much'...
We all have our own definition of how much post-production is enough... and how much is too much. There's no hard-and-fast rule. I'm merely suggesting that, given the choice, less is generally more. Otherwise we'll be expecting every pic to be more eye-popping than the last, and, in the process, lose the subtleties.
Just my opinions... worth about as much as you paid for them...
There are all kinds of rules, some rigid and others more like general unwritten rules (natural laws, another interesting discussion for a philosophical forum...)
It might be creative and interesting to add a little cardomom to your bread, or when cooking rice, or in whatever else you're cooking. It might make it better by treating the senses to the unusual and slightly exotic flavors of the unfamiliar, but... big "but," here... it's easy to go overboard. What's the rule? Who knows exactly what that amount is, but the limit definitely exists. Too much ruins the effect, maybe the entire dish. Everyone has their own limits, but eventually we all do reach ours. That's a fact. (feel free to substitute the use of cardomom in my example to hot, fresh chili peppers... mmmm! My limit's pretty high there...)
I believe in exploring limits and breaking accepted "rules" or "norms." That's why I enjoy Valdore's work, Carlos' work and that of many others, whether they're doing macro work with bugs or black and white abstractions, and on and on...
Having said that, my first reaction to the fisheye black and white landscape was.."NO!" It made me think of a rollercoaster ride, only with a boxcar. Very striking photo, with conflicting initial reactions. Yet, as I continued to look at it I really liked the tonal character, the sky, and the fact that it made me stop and look at it for a while. I liked having my sensibilities challenged, getting some of my cranky, old rough edges knocked off. So, the shot becomes memorable, and actually quite acceptable, even good in a way. I'd have preferred the shot non-fisheye, but I like limes more than lemons, too.
Be creative! Break rules! But know why they exist.
)It might be creative and interesting to add a little cardomom to your bread, or when cooking rice, or in whatever else you're cooking. It might make it better by treating the senses to the unusual and slightly exotic flavors of the unfamiliar, but... big "but," here... it's easy to go overboard. What's the rule? Who knows exactly what that amount is, but the limit definitely exists. Too much ruins the effect, maybe the entire dish. Everyone has their own limits, but eventually we all do reach ours. That's a fact. (feel free to substitute the use of cardomom in my example to hot, fresh chili peppers... mmmm! My limit's pretty high there...
)I believe in exploring limits and breaking accepted "rules" or "norms." That's why I enjoy Valdore's work, Carlos' work and that of many others, whether they're doing macro work with bugs or black and white abstractions, and on and on...
Having said that, my first reaction to the fisheye black and white landscape was.."NO!" It made me think of a rollercoaster ride, only with a boxcar. Very striking photo, with conflicting initial reactions. Yet, as I continued to look at it I really liked the tonal character, the sky, and the fact that it made me stop and look at it for a while. I liked having my sensibilities challenged, getting some of my cranky, old rough edges knocked off. So, the shot becomes memorable, and actually quite acceptable, even good in a way. I'd have preferred the shot non-fisheye, but I like limes more than lemons, too.
Be creative! Break rules! But know why they exist.
I didn't see the cynicism in that post
I actually agree with Doylem's statements.
It's by trying to quantify and define the nature of art's qualities that we end up containing it. The best works after all are usually those that aren't afraid to break "the rules"..
"The absence of limitations is the enemy of art." -- Orson Welles (and he should know!)