And yet again...great talent trumps any amount of equipment

[Drizzt321]

And so, yet again, I am humbled and recognize that I don't have nearly the artistic talent that many have. And that my Gear Acquisition Syndrome should be toned back a bit. Just...wow.

http://www.viralnova.com/kyle-thompson-photography/
http://www.kylethompsonphotography.com/
https://www.facebook.com/KyleThompsonPhotography

 

[docholliday]

I'd say he has a few good ones, but most of his "portrait" work is kinda blah. Hipsterish and generic looking, much like what every other startup is doing. Lisa Loeb said it best in "The 90s": "So alternative just like everyone else in the mainstream". Not knocking the guy for trying, but at the same time, not all that exciting in today's Instagram/Hipstagram world.

 

[Drizzt321]

I'd say he has a few good ones, but most of his "portrait" work is kinda blah. Hipsterish and generic looking, much like what every other startup is doing. Lisa Loeb said it best in "The 90s": "So alternative just like everyone else in the mainstream". Not knocking the guy for trying, but at the same time, not all that exciting in today's Instagram/Hipstagram world.

Well, to me at least, this ideas are much more art than mine. Then again, I rarely have any good ideas on my own. I'm usually the one that helps implement and capture my friends ideas.

 

[candc]

That stuff is good but its not photography, it's photo manipulation and I do that too. This site is most focused on gear. Yes talent with crappy gear can produce fantastic artistic results but good gear will produce better photographs under equal conditions than crappy gear will so best to start with good gear

 

[unfocused]

And so, yet again, I am humbled and recognize that I don't have nearly the artistic talent that many have. And that my Gear Acquisition Syndrome should be toned back a bit. Just...wow.

Very talented and creative. Some of the comments here represent either jealously or incredible ignorance. For their sake, I hope it is jealousy because at least that can be overcome.

Well, to me at least, his ideas are much more art than mine. Then again, I rarely have any good ideas on my own. I'm usually the one that helps implement and capture my friends ideas.

Don't sell yourself short. You've got some very nice stuff on your website. And, at least you have the courage to show your stuff. Unlike so many of the critics here who never link to their websites and just criticize others.

That stuff is good but its not photography, it's photo manipulation

Huh? I guess Jerry Uelsmann is not a photographer then?

Yes talent with crappy gear can produce fantastic artistic results but good gear will produce better photographs under equal conditions than crappy gear will so best to start with good gear

Well it would be best to start with some talent. You can buy gear, but you can't buy talent.

 

[candc]

Its good stuff, I said that but to me photography and photo collages and manipulations are different subjects. This site is really dedicated to the craft of photography, its not an art site.

 

[candc]

p.s.
its not his site he is pointing to, its somebody else's. I am not ripping on anybody for what they do. I am just saying capturing good photos and what you do with them afterwards are two different things

 

[ShootingStars]

This crap isn't photography, it's I'm good with photoshop FFS. I wouldn't buy any of these. It's not talent, it's some kid who taught himself how to photoshop. Real talent is being able to pick up any camera, and getting "the shot" right on the spot. Like Chase Jarvis and Zack Arias.

 

[docholliday]

The whole thing about this from my perspective is that I don't care if it's "real" or not...it's just he's not that unique, as there are many more people who have done "surreal" images like these ages before. Yes, they've manipulated their's too. They've captured well conceived and planned images, captured them well, and then Photoshop'd out items.

It's not only that they did it a while ago, but their's look much more "surreal". People like Brooke Shaden, Natalie Dybis, etc. have been doing this stuff for a while.

Problem is that everybody seems like they want to do the whole low-contrast, misty/foggy, muted toned imagery (note that I didn't say photography). It's all very reminiscent of some "fine-art" filter applied via Instagram. Yeah, it's that whole Polaroid 66x silk look.

 

[Drizzt321]

Well, to me at least, his ideas are much more art than mine. Then again, I rarely have any good ideas on my own. I'm usually the one that helps implement and capture my friends ideas.

Don't sell yourself short. You've got some very nice stuff on your website. And, at least you have the courage to show your stuff. Unlike so many of the critics here who never link to their websites and just criticize others.

Thanks! Although I'd say I'm good at capturing what's around me, and working with people who have ideas.

 

[docholliday]

This crap isn't photography, it's I'm good with photoshop FFS. I wouldn't buy any of these. It's not talent, it's some kid who taught himself how to photoshop. Real talent is being able to pick up any camera, and getting "the shot" right on the spot. Like Chase Jarvis and Zack Arias.

I'd have to agree, but also disagree. Photoshopping is nothing more than a tool, just like sandwiching negs, making contrast masks, etc before printing a pin-registered set on an enlarger. In the commercial photography world, you'll be surprised how much PS'ing is going on. Not to change the image, but to remove items like wires, adhesives/waxes, etc before outputting. I wouldn't call that manipulation. But to collage up multiple images and cut & paste pieces from one to another, I would.

BUT, there is something to be said about photographers who'll Hollywood up a set and do it all "in the can". Yeah, it'd be impressive if somebody would do stuff like this on an 8x10 with a single sheet of film.

I'd say it's the difference between "fine-art" and "photograph".

 

[Aglet]

It always amazes me what kind of images are popular with the masses, even if it's just a fad.
I really gotta get more twisted and come up with some weird cr*p myself. Shooting technically precise versions of reality may appeal to me and a few others but won't get us on the cover of Rolling Stone.

 

[privatebydesign]

It always amazes me what kind of images are popular with the masses, even if it's just a fad.
I really gotta get more twisted and come up with some weird cr*p myself. Shooting technically precise versions of reality may appeal to me and a few others but won't get us on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Really!

http://www.a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm

 

[Aglet]

Really!

feel free to suggest those to their editor
if they run we'll cut you in for a finder's fee.

 

[Hillsilly]

It is easy to take a photo of something. Much, much harder to try and be creative and make art. And it is those people who can that have a much brighter photographic future.

In an overcrowded market, where everyone is capable of taking technically competent images, with rare exceptions, it will only be those who push the boundaries of processing techniques who will be remembered in 200 year's time.

 

[Pi]

It is not like the guy used an iphone, he used a very capable dSLR (60D). So gear must matter after all.

 

[Eldar]

Its good stuff, I said that but to me photography and photo collages and manipulations are different subjects. This site is really dedicated to the craft of photography, its not an art site.

To some extent, this is the essense of it, apart from the fact that I think of photography as an art, wheras post processing is a craft.

We have lots of threads here, where what-ever-happens-in-post-processing is discussed. To me, the art of photography is all the things that happen up until the point when you push the shutter release. In many cases that includes planning for what you are going to do in post (which this guy obviously did), but in general it means getting the light, timing, framing and all the camera settings right, to capture the "it" you were out to get.

 

[Ruined]

It is easy to take a photo of something. Much, much harder to try and be creative and make art. And it is those people who can that have a much brighter photographic future.

In an overcrowded market, where everyone is capable of taking technically competent images, with rare exceptions, it will only be those who push the boundaries of processing techniques who will be remembered in 200 year's time.

I don't think you need to make this type of art to be successful in the photo industry. In fact, I'd say having a solid business plan with networking is far more important. You need to do quality work of course, but if you can capture special moments then you don't need to do loads of artificial post processing and use props, etc. If you were having a wedding, would you rather have this fellow, his props, and his 60D and single nifty fifty capture it - or would you rather have a photographer with good referrals, solid history of wedding work, and the gear/team to back it up? Not saying you need a 1DX and 70-200 f/2.8/24-70 II to be successful, but these days you do need something halfway decent like a 70D w/ a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 or such. There is room for both, as I would say these type of photos are a niche rather than something you'd build a business taking.

After all, the term 'starving artist' was coined for a reason

Gear doesn't take the quality shots, it just might make those quality shots easier and more likely to attain - especially useful when under pressure... Which is another point - this individual may be great in setting up intricate sets and doing post, but may fail completely when put in a high-pressure, realtime situation such as a wedding shooter. They are not necessarily the same talent.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

In this respect, I am flabbergasted by the photomontages that were made with tools much more limited than those available today. See this montage of great artist from Brazil, Valério Vieira held in 1901. Valério appears himself thirty times in his work.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Just two comments

1. Art is in the eye of the beholder. No one can tell anyone else whether something is "good art" or "poor art". All a person can say is that he or she either likes something or does not like something.

2. The line between "photography" and "computer generated image" is already blurred and will only get more blurred. Since every digital image is, to some extent a "computer generated image, one person's "photograph" is another person's "CGI".

Who is right or wrong? Both are. ;D

This is really nothing new. Back in the film/dark room days we had the same arguments. People back then were expermenting with different "CGI" -- Chemically Generated Imagery. Did Ansel Adams produce "photographs" using his LV and Zone system in the darkroom?

One thing that is pretty clear in my opinion -- This is really not something worth arguing about.