bifcake

Great photo's Bifcake!

I love the composition in 'number 1' ... perfect! I like the light in 'number 4' too, but for me, it would have been stronger if there had been a human element in the frame (just my opinion FWIW).

Overall, really strong. Did you use an ND filter or similar to lengthen the exposure (hence blurring the clouds)?

Hi Tangaroa,

Thanks for the compliments. I didn't use an ND filter. It was dark enough, that the building in the sky required a 1 minute exposure at ISO 400 and 2 minute exposures in number 2 and 3 shots.

Thanks for asking, bifcake.

Here's how I shot that one originally in RAW. In comparison I agree with you my cut looks rather "plastic" but I love it nevertheless. I'll explain:

Personally:

I am just starting to learn to combine PP with photography and I feel I'm in my extreme phase now where I am testing all the limits and possibilities.

My logic behind this is after I have tested and played with the extreme's, only then, I'll be capable to focus on achieving the natural look you mentioned.

Unnatural as it may seem to you, I'm very happy and excited with my results. But I suspect when I grow my taste will develop to be more refined like MJP for example.

Thanks again for raising the issue.

Yours, DAL

Hi Dal,

Thanks for posting the original and explaining the technical aspects, as well as the reasoning behind it. It may come as no surprise to you that I prefer the look of your original, unedited file. Then again, to each, his own.

When digicams first became popular, it seems that you would get that processed look right out of the box. I remember seeing the results and thinking to myself that digital has a long way to go before it acquires the feel of film and its palette. Now, it seems like the tables have turned and folks are turning to post processing to get the look of the first generation digicams.

No, I mean this over-sharpness, over vividness and that unnatural look of 3D almost.

I've noticed that many shots posted here have this peculiar look as though the image is composed of multiple acetate sheets: one for foreground, one for middle ground and one for background. This is especially noticeable in night shots. The first time I've seen this look was about 15 years ago when digital cameras first became popular. That look has kept me from getting into digital for a long time because it looks so unnatural. It's as if the image is almost too sharp.

I've shot with Nikon D3000, Canon 550D and Canon 5D MKII and none of my images have had that sort of a look (which is good as far as I'm concerned). So, I was wondering if this is the look that a lot of people strive for and it's a result of post processing or whether it's a function of the cameras these folks are using?

Recently, I re-read an interesting article by noted photographer Guy Tal (you can read here Words Matter ). Guy talks about the tendency for people to separate photography from the arts. Even in our own forum we see this occur as the title of the forum is "Photography and the Arts". Now I believe that the meaning of this forum was to include photography into the other arts but we often see the two being spoken of as separate.

So, what is your feeling about this? Is it art or something else? If it is art, is there freedom to use artistic license in the making of a photograph?

I am very interested to hear your views on this.

Many thanks in advance,

Stix

I think that in order to determine whether photography is art, we have to define art.

As I see it, Art is emotional communication. Art strives to make one feel. It does not necessarily strive to make you feel good, sometimes it tries to disturb you, uplift you, depress you, but in every case, art tries to emotionally touch you in some way or another. Music is art because it is auditory emotional communication, painting is art because it's visual emotional communication. Photography is a visual medium, therefore, it can be art if it touches the viewer emotionally.

Photography doesn't cease to be art simply because its medium is accessible. Art doesn't need to be exclusive, difficult to produce or expensive. It simply needs to make the viewer feel something.

IMG_0078 small.jpgIMG_0086 small.jpgronald is watching.jpg

I like the guy on the right...not Ronald! The one with the knife!

I like how the happy Ronald is watching the guy with the knife slice open a head on his plate.

This was a puke test. I wanted to see how many of my tog friends down here in the tog forum threw up on exposure to these hideous images.

Seems it was just me.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I agree. Looks like a badly pasteurized shot. I can't stand the effect. I get the same queasy feeling as you. Blech!

Everyone sees something different in every abstract shot, but a "Thai lady" is definitely something new and different.

Some more abstracts of mine:

No probem. I'll commission a custom box especially for you

Thank you. There are many talented folks here. It's a pleasure meeting all of you.

That issue has been resolved. It didn't last very long

Then it's a happy accident

Manfrotto 055 is a great suggestion. Manfrotto makes good quality products. You may also want to take a look at Slik 300DX, which is capable of supporting 5kg or Slik 700DX, which can handle 6.8kg. Both of those are well made and would be considerably cheaper than Manfrotto, although Manfrotto is the Cadillac of tripods.

Here are some of my abstracts. No Photoshop. Everything was done in camera

I like the one without flash better. The black foliage serves as a frame around the sunset. You distract the eye from the sunset by popping the flash in the foreground. You could get away with popping the flash and giving the foreground a bit of detail, but I think you'd need to do two things to accomplish that:

1. Pop an off camera flash to give the light a bit of depth

2. Bring the flash down about another stop, so that it doesn't overpower or distract from the sunset.