srt101fan

As much as I'm turned off by over-processed (by my standards of course! ) photos, I do like Richard's photo posted here. Don't really know why....need to "sits and thinks" on that one some more.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Questions to Consider:

1. What do you think of this image? What about the composition? The color? The angle of shooting? The treatment of the flowing water? Would you want this on your wall? Why or why not?

It's a beautiful image with good colour and composition. The perspective is nice. I'm not fond of smoothing flowing water, but would rather see it look more real. I'd probably put this on my wall if my walls weren't so full of my own pictures!

2. Do you feel your own landscape photography has been influenced by this type of work? If so, please post an image and tell us about that.

Actually, yes and no. Sometimes I see a photograph of a place that encourages me to visit that place to take my own photos. Sometimes I'm disappointed when I realize that they've changed things and the place doesn't really look like that at all. I'd like my work to be that dramatic, but on the other hand I am not willing to change reality to make it so - only if it is so in actuality. (Does that make sense?)

3. What is your feeling about editing in landscape photography? How much is too much? Does Adamus cross that line for you? Is this an ethical issue or simply a matter of taste? Please explain.

I know this is a touchy issue. My personal opinions are just that: personal. I think the limits are defined based on one's mission in doing the photography. My mission is to show people who cannot get to that place what it ACTUALLY looks like. So for my mission, enhancements are quite limited. For someone who uses a scene as a basis for a painting, for example, they can be free to add, change and enhance all they want. Painters, for example, can make a scene be what they WANT it to be. I, on the other hand, have to take the scene as is. I was "raised" on the idea that a photograph is REAL but paintings are not. I'm always disappointed when I see what appears to be a beautiful scene, only to find out that it's a composite or overly manipulated.

4. How do you feel about copying another photographer’s techniques? Is that a form of intellectual property theft? What if you take an image at the same location and also copy the photographer’s technique? Share your thoughts.

I did that once. I was at Yosemite and saw a beautiful photograph of a pine branch and tried for days to capture a similar one. I failed. Sometimes I like know how someone shot a scene to use those settings as a starting point. Rarely do I do it exactly the same way. Is it property theft? I'm not sure. Perhaps.

5. Adamus travels the world looking for dramatic landscapes. Is that something that appeals to you? Do you find more inspiration when traveling to iconic locations, or when shooting in your own "backyard", the area you live in?

I basically do travel photography. Most of my images are from places that I went to to visit, to see, to experience. My camera frequently stays in the closet for weeks on end waiting for the next trip. Sometimes the trips are short, so I guess I'd have to ask you to define "your own backyard." Does that include your own state? Places you go frequently? Or your own personal yard?

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thank you! These are personal and detailed notes that explain the joys of travel very well. I get most excited about my adventures to see places I've never seen and capture images I've never had a chance to experiment with before. By "personal yard" I meant mainly our usual haunts, the places nearby enough to get to easily and repeatedly.

I drift between both. My travels are what I look forward to most. But my success has come from the little areas I've visited daily or weekly, and grown to know - the dam and the swamps near here.

User ID

1. What do you think of this image? What about the
composition? The color? The angle of shooting? The
treatment of the flowing water? Would you want this
on your wall? Why or why not?

Very conventional image. Composition very static.
Color is possibly the raison d'etre, good on that.
Flowing water is OK. Low angle foreshortens water
... not liking that. For my wall ? NO WAY. Boring.
BTW, two images posted below include water in
their foregrounds. I'm not one to hide out while
criticizing someone else.


2. Do you feel your own landscape photography
has been influenced by this type of work? If so,
please post an image and tell us about that.

Influenced only in defiance of this trend. Image
posted below is example. If the image doesn't
speak for itself, I will add no text to supplement
for that shortcoming.



3. What is your feeling about editing in landscape
photography? How much is too much? Does Adamus
cross that line for you? Is this an ethical issue or
simply a matter of taste? Please explain.

This "number 3" is a tempest in a tea pot. Therefor
comment upon a non-issue is pointless.


4. How do you feel about copying another photographer’s
techniques? Is that a form of intellectual property theft?
What if you take an image at the same location and also
copy the photographer’s technique? Share your thoughts.

How many photographers improved their own results by
learning from others's ways ? Zone system for example ?
Attempting to "recreate a shoot" [location, tech, etc etc]
is a valid student exercise. I can neither recommend nor
condemn it. No big deal there.


5. Adamus travels the world looking for dramatic landscapes.
Is that something that appeals to you? Do you find more
inspiration when traveling to iconic locations, or when shooting
in your own "backyard", the area you live in? I asked a similar
question last month, and will post a thread on that topic soon.

Living in the iconic location of Troy NY USA, I must recuse
myself from this one. See image below for a piece of Troy.

-

Image relating to questions 2 and 5

(Download)

Honest water, normal perspective, find the duck :-)

(Download)

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thank you for your contribution! If Adamus was a novelty when he first started this trend, he is no longer alone. Even those of us who don't particularly care for his ultra technicolor 'scapes may be forced to admit he has had an influence - this style tends to dominate on sites like 500px. What was once rather startling and different (whether we liked it or not) has become common.

Living in the "iconic" location of the central Mississippi flatlands, I don't even have the prospect of snow to provide interest. I do have the occasional duck. I like your bridge shot BTW. Seems very exotic to me.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Look at it in passing and it is an "OK" picture. Not particularly amazing, but not bad either. If i'd scale it from 1-9 it would be a 6.

Look at it with a critical eye and some questionable elements pops out of the image. The direction of lighting on the sky and on the mountain are different indicating two separate images but also that it was taken at least 30 minutes apart. It even seem to be taken with dissimilar lenses or different perspective.
We can see the color cast of the sky reflecting in the waters highlight but the same cast is missing in the snow, indicating this too was worked. Probably taken in broad daylight as the snows highlights are pure white.

Technically it is not easy to accomplish as the perspective suggest the he had the camera/tripod was set in the water in a harsh environmental condition.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Diving deeper into the subject...


Lying & cheating, what is there to love?
Even the like minded would hate that amongst themselves.


As previously stated, for me, its a 6 out of 10.
Composition is aesthetic but technically flawed.
The treatment of the water and the whole image itself is a formula shot. The formula might be his so called "look".

Nope, i take no influence from any photographer. If there is any influence at all, it would be from painters. I just take pictures to capture moments, by their natural pleasing look/possibilities or if it is a requirement.

The ethics of photography is always on the intent of the shot. Was it meant to show the reality? Was it meant to be an expression? et cetera...
In his case, he is doing it mainly to please an audience and to earn. His photography is a product so he does not have to toe any editing line. If he was lying, that would be the ethical issue.


Many photographer teaches. To use what they teach is to copy another's technique and intellectual property.
To copy same location? As long as the location do not belong to them and has trademarks and liabilities bound to them, why not? It's just proving the technique works. But dont make money out of the copy.


Travel is the next best thing to free air. It will always give more & varied opportunities.
But if the backyard is all someone has, go for it. The smallest imagination in the backyard can also take one far.