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

[JustMeOregon]

'magination? We don't need no stinkin' 'magination! We got gear!

 

[petach]

The guy has the eye, period!
he has the talent, period!
he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
He understands what people (and editors of publications) like

He makes me sick.

I wish him well

 

[privatebydesign]

The guy has the eye, period!
he has the talent, period!
he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
He understands what people (and editors of publications) like

He makes me sick.

I wish him well

You should go and see art college photography student work more often. There are hundreds of people with every bit as much of an "eye", "talent", and "understanding of light". You can buy a video course by Brooke Shaden for $99 that shows you exactly how to make images like his from concept through photoshop to finished product. There is nothing special about the images, but then being 'special' is very difficult nowadays, and originality is close to impossible.

 

[Eldar]

Here´s a totally different photographer. In my view, this is guy is a photographer, because 99% of the work is done when the raw file is on his memory card. For anyone interested in nature, birds and wildlife, have a look. This guy goes to extreme lengths to get That image and, being an amateur, his number of awards are quite impressive.

http://www.audunrikardsen.com

Kyle Thomson is more of a post processing artist to me. Even though it does not create much interest with me, I have no problem understanding and accepting that all the capabilities offered by today´s post processing software represent great artistic opportunity and the really good ones can do spectacular things. But I seldom see something I would want to buy and hang on my wall (I have more than 100 paintings, drawings and graphical prints on them though).

Personally, the more I see of these kind of pictures, the more of a photography purist I become.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The guy has the eye, period!
he has the talent, period!
he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
He understands what people (and editors of publications) like

He makes me sick.

I wish him well

Isn't the whole point of using "period!" to represent "finality"? I suggest the use of "semi-periods"

The point of whether photography involves getting the finished product out of the camera is moot (and I sort of agree, heavy post processing isn't 'technically' photography but more fine/digital art). The guy has the talent to create images that will please people and sell well. He definitely has a pretty good understanding of light, at least to the point he can manipulate it as necessary.

I remember watching a Creative Live video by Brook Shaden. The OOC images were not just mediocre- I would have deleted them right off the camera when I saw them on the LCD. But her website has beautiful stuff I wouldn't mind hanging on my wall. So who cares what came out of the camera? She manages to make something out of it. But yeah, I wouldn't call it photography.

In principle, I disagree with the OP. This isn't an example of talent trumping gear. This is an example of using artistic talent to complement perfectly adequate gear. An example of talent trumping gear would be me shooting with a 5D Mark III and any pro on this forum (and many amateurs) shooting with a Rebel.

 

[Marsu42]

Here´s a totally different photographer. In my view, this is guy is a photographer, because 99% of the work is done when the raw file is on his memory card. For anyone interested in nature, birds and wildlife, have a look. This guy goes to extreme lengths to get That image and, being an amateur, his number of awards are quite impressive.

I wouldn't subscribe to that view - he's a good photog because his resulting shots are good and he makes it appear as if it's done in camera - which is good because it makes ppl look at the actual picture rather than wondering which PS version he was using. But you didn't see the raw files, did you :->

Personally, the more I see of these kind of pictures, the more of a photography purist I become.

I don't find heavy shot preparation (which is indeed a sign of a good photog) mutually exclusive with post-processing skill. Like good flash photography, it doesn't look it, but has a subtle improvement effect and is just a part of the digital process. But maybe I'm not old enough (no offense ) yet or doing photography long enough to become a purist myself.

You and me both. I entered a local art "contest" to display my work around town and after my work was passed over, they offered to send me samples of the types of photos judges had liked in the past. With one exception, all of them were over-processed, cliched crap. Tie dye filters, fake bokeh, sepia tone with fake burned corners, etc.

I did not enter, just looked at winners. Indeed, the judges at our local Fair pick some pretty common and rather poor quality images. I decided to avoid entering after seeing some wonderful work passed over.

Doh. Sounds like Catch 44 - either join 'em and start your tonemapping, or try to get out of it all by faking a snapshot look.

I recently tried to get some shots into a tv media channel ("daily picture") before the news. But whatdayaknow - they positively don't want pictures that are "pro", i.e. look "pro", whatever that is exactly. They should be taken by "normal people" on a nice walk with your dog 'round the block, no preparation or tech knowledge desired or required.

Obviously a lot of viewers are fed up with a gloss "pro" look and/or competent post-processing. Imho that's stupid, but there you are. Probably the first effect of every Joe Sixpack doing PS nowadays?

 

[Eldar]

Here´s a totally different photographer. In my view, this is guy is a photographer, because 99% of the work is done when the raw file is on his memory card. For anyone interested in nature, birds and wildlife, have a look. This guy goes to extreme lengths to get That image and, being an amateur, his number of awards are quite impressive.

I wouldn't subscribe to that view - he's a good photog because his resulting shots are good and he makes it appear as if it's done in camera - which is good because it makes ppl look at the actual picture rather than wondering which PS version he was using. But you didn't see the raw files, did you :->

No, I did not see the raw files. But the images he submitted to these competitions need to include the raw file. Because no manipulation is accepted. Several of his images are described in detail and I can assure you they are well prepared.

An example; The winning image of this year´s NNPC: A dark blue images of a trout just below the surface, with a mountain landscape in the background (you´ll find it as the last image in New uploads in his gallery). This images is shot in the middle of the night, in a shallow river. The camera is placed in a homemade aquarium, just above the water. The fish is attracted by using strong lights. Under water he placed two flashes. Initial focus on the fish, with f22 to get maximum dof on the fish. Then the focus is changed to infinity, through a home made focusing aid and the background is in focus for an additional 30 seconds, to capture the mountains and the sky. All in one take, using a 1DX, Samyang 14/2.8, flashes and lights and the homemade remote control for focus.

There are a couple of eagle images also worth checking out. One is shot from below the surface, just when the eagle catches the fish, Where he had the camera submerged in a home made sub. The other one is a close-up, wide angle shot, remotely controlled with the camera on a home made fleet, of the eagle just as it is about to hit the water. Fantastic images for a purist.

And, to repeat myself, I have no problem seeing the fun and challenge of mastering the various post processing options we now have. And I am not talking down people who invest their talent in using it. Many of them have skills I can only dream about. But manipulated images seldom have an appeal to me. There are many art forms I do not appreciate, but that does not mean that i talk them down. In many cases I just don´t have the ability to enjoy what they do.

But, I know I am one of the dinosaurs. I write with a fountain pen, I still read real books, I have a mechanical swiss watch and I prefer manual gear shift on my cars ... : (but I just got a Tesla P85D, so I am trying to learn )

 

[pwp]

The guy has the eye, period!
he has the talent, period!
he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
He understands what people (and editors of publications) like

He makes me sick.
I wish him well

You should go and see art college photography student work more often. There are hundreds of people with every bit as much of an "eye", "talent", and "understanding of light". You can buy a video course by Brooke Shaden for $99 that shows you exactly how to make images like his from concept through photoshop to finished product. There is nothing special about the images, but then being 'special' is very difficult nowadays, and originality is close to impossible.

The talent and sheer creativity at art colleges frequently blows my socks off. Not just in photography but across the different disciplines. It's inspiring.

In the first hour on the first day of my first year at art college (photography) there were around forty of us students bursting with optimism listening to a talk from the head man. He put things bluntly when he said that statistically two, maybe three of us would end up with any measure of success in our chosen field. It turns out he was right, two of us are in the business.

The photographer being discussed here has that important "something extra". Drive. Even a modest talent can break into the business if they have a ton of drive, ambition and communication skills. Talent alone is dead in the water. While the work could be seen as that of a beginner, he IS a beginner and making a phenomenal start. Good luck to him, he'll probably punch through.

-pw

 

[Ryan2tawfiq]

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 and a spray 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".

What are three functions of waxes?