Some mind-bendingly good travel photography...

Interesting, I much prefer the photos in my original link to Peter's also excellent work. I guess it comes down to what you like. Peter's is more realistic and a great depiction of the situation he's looking at. But in terms of light and processing and compositions they basically strike me as just incredibly incredibly good snap-shots. I don't find the photographs particularly interesting beyond the subject matter. Don't get me wrong - I LIKE them a lot. But my initial reaction to these is that they're another collection of very very good photographs from yet another very good photographer who's work is on the web. I guess I don't get any "art" from his stuff - I dont feel moved by it except as by the people in it. Whereas the stuff in my initial link does a lot more for me in terms of light, mood, composition, even variety of subject matter (although that's not fair because that set of Peter's is specifically just "PEOPLE" of Cambodia).

-Ray
I get what you're saying, Ray, and I find myself preferring either one of those styles based purely on my mood of the moment. When I was in Africa I sought to make "arty" compositions, but after a while I saw my photos and thought they were too sterile and missed that human touch, so I started making snapshots of the daily mundane things around me, which had me missing the grandeur and beauty of the arty shots... ofcourse some the really, really great photographers manage to combine the two and find incredible beauty in the mundane and daily human life (HCB and Saul Leiter for instance).

I do wonder if my inability to really choose one genre over the other (since I don't quite posess the skills to combine them) leaves me a jack of all trades and a master of none... to the extent that I could ever be a master at either of them, ofcourse ;)
 
As long as there's no downside (sometimes they behead Kings once they decide they're not kings anymore!), I'd certainly be willing to go... I make no guarantees though!

As to Bill's comment, I merely repeated the name at the top of the guy's blog to avoid any confusion - not to take a position. The politics of the situation I'm not gonna get into based on forum policy...

-Ray
 
lest we get too carried away, the body he has that "subpar" lens attached to costs $3,000. More than my first 3 cars COMBINED. The gear doesn't make him a great photographer, but it definitely makes his photos more enjoyable.
 
What is good is really up to how each of us sees. An exotic location can add a lot to how one sees or inspire you too shoot far more and with more passion than the familiar for many. I for one have many more images of street art "graffiti" from around the wold than I do from my home town of LA. We also grow and change in what we see over time, I started shooting with few people in my personal work and then went for years without having any people in my work to now where more often than not my personal stuff is filled with people. Teach or take a workshop and you will be blown away how different everybody's will be. Also like most anything would like to to do well one usually needs to immerse one's self in the event, it is a lot easier to shoot some amazing photos of a place if you spend the time, shooting for 2 days on vacation is a lot different than 3 months walking the streets.

When it comes to lens debates any giant range zoom is going to be weaker optically than a short range zoom and especially a prime, but all of that does not matter if one can get the lens to do what you want it to do. Sitting around arguing about camera or lens performance is a huge waste of time and energy. Time would be much better spent shooting, editing processing and sharing than discussing the edge sharpness of this or that lens. If it works for you who cares what others think, just use it until it does not. Absolute optical performance is not a requirement for great images.
 
You haven't given up playing guitar even though you're no Albert King :tongue:

Seriously, I don't think we shoot to be the best. We shoot because we enjoy it. And who knows, he may very well say the same thing about you. I can't say anything bad about his shots, and they're miles better than mine would be. But I dare say that there are some places you can go on this planet with little talent and the wrong gear and still get some great looking shots. Myanmar is definitely one of those places. Every time I see the word Myanmar in a photography forum, I prepare to be amazed. The light ALWAYS looks amazing (does the Golden Hour last all day there?!) and the colors are always gorgeous (unless someone is shooting Canon :tomato2:.)

The shots are definitely worth checking out, but I think a lot of the attraction is that the place seems so foreign to us. Show the people over there your shots of Philly and they'll crown you the king of photographers.

similarly
i remember thinking "ill never get b&w shots like these guys!" when first finding photo forums, as mine always looked so BLAND and uninteresting

then i found nik silver efex pro 2. and suddenly with one click, i was a master!(ok in my head, lol)

i thought id never take a good landscape photo. a tree was special to me when i could touch it, but when i captured it on a memory card, it seemed to vanish in the background.

then i got the heck out of ugly texas for a work trip(sorry native texans, but yer state isnt pretty, yer just USED to it lol *runs and hides*) snapped a slightly blurry photo of some colorado mountain scapes, and was AMAZED that i was suddenly ansel adams...

im not discounting skill, but im saying, a lot of good photographs in a studio look good because the model is just gorgeous and is nearly incapable of having a bad photo taken of them all done up. i also dont think ive seen an UGLY eiffel tower shot. or an uninteresting shot of a color festival in india. sometimes yer just in a place where its easier to take a good shot. now, with the right photographer, the shot can be even BETTER... but...

i also agree with the "seems foreign to us"
a picture of a kid in central asia sitting on a curb looks so powerful to us, but if you saw a photo of an american kid sitting on a curb.. you might just think "ok, so... its a kid on a curb...? am i missing something?" but in the hands of a GOOD photographer, even that boring kid on a curb looks interesting!

so... skill > gear
skill + gear => skill
the right subject + gear is > or < than any of the above, depending
and the right subject + gear + skill = 99+ likes on flickr apparently
*flippant gesture of dismissal*

no real pt, i suppose, just thoughts in a list on a screen!
 
Sitting around arguing about camera or lens performance is a huge waste of time and energy. Time would be much better spent shooting, editing processing and sharing than discussing the edge sharpness of this or that lens. If it works for you who cares what others think, just use it until it does not. Absolute optical performance is not a requirement for great images.

Agreed and I think that:026: My only point was that I was not at all impressed by the clarity and sharpness of the photos but by the content, I wish I was as talented, just my 2 cents :)
 
I think we should have a little forum for the non-compacts. There are plenty here who use big cameras in addition to their little ones.

Don't tell anyone, but once in a while I'll sneak in a photo from a non-compact in here…


And regarding the photos, while very good–I'd be proud to have shot them myself–my mind is not bent by them. Much of their appeal lies in the "exoticness" of their settings and subjects, which, to me at least, gets tired after a while.
 
whereas i always wish all these amazing people and photographers would just all go to the same forum to share and not care about WHICH gear they are using, just celebrate its use

There are tonnes of "big dslr" forums out there. This is one of the few places where one comes to when researching how good compact cameras have gotten. I completely agree with your sentiment, but I worry that this forum not lose it's niche. Having said that, a small sub forum where I can occasionally sneak in a "big dslr" image or two would be very welcome, without misleading any visitors into thinking it was shot with a compact camera.
 
Thanks for sharing this link.

They are absolutely stunning and have been shot with soul.

It is enough to tempt me back to full frame...................phew, moment passed, will stick with my EM1 and other gear after all it also has a lot to do with the operator as well as the equipment!
 
There is/was a topic somewhere on what constitutes a compact for SC. The general idea was that if it's compact to you, it's welcome. We've had some images from Paul's (it was Paul, right?) 8*10 camera here as well, so your DSLR shots are more than welcome - so long as SC as a whole remains a place where compact cameras (also) get the attention they deserve but don't find elsewhere.
 
I think its our duty to shoot what we find around us - it helps if the places & people are exotic, but the bigger challenge is in our everyday lives & surroundings. We often dismiss what we term uninteresting or ugly when we should be looking more closely. I do get incredibly jealous when I see the opportunities afforded by locations like New York, Prague, Tuscan Hill towns and the like, but truthfully a lot more is on my doorstep if I could just get off my butt. I remember Patrick Lichfield on TV saying some of his best shots were taken at Blackpool - this from a guy who was paid to photo shoot around the globe.
 
Interesting, I much prefer the photos in my original link to Peter's also excellent work. I guess it comes down to what you like. Peter's is more realistic and a great depiction of the situation he's looking at. But in terms of light and processing and compositions they basically strike me as just incredibly incredibly good snap-shots. I don't find the photographs particularly interesting beyond the subject matter. Don't get me wrong - I LIKE them a lot. But my initial reaction to these is that they're another collection of very very good photographs from yet another very good photographer who's work is on the web. I guess I don't get any "art" from his stuff - I dont feel moved by it except as by the people in it. Whereas the stuff in my initial link does a lot more for me in terms of light, mood, composition, even variety of subject matter (although that's not fair because that set of Peter's is specifically just "PEOPLE" of Cambodia).

Peter's stuff I enjoy immensely, but I don't see anything there, I'd really try to emulate or incorporate into my own work. Whereas the initial shots I posted will have me coming back to them a lot and I'll probably start looking for similar types of compositions in some cases. Just down to personal taste and preference I think.

I think I am getting where your preferences lie, Ray. Much of the first set has been done with a fairly long tele lens, which has a certain perspective. It is also about the play of light and shape, as well as colour. More 'artistic', if that's the right word. Peter's work is often done with wide or normal lenses and has a very 'in the moment' documentary feel. It's a style that I really enjoy, although my own work doesn't bear much resemblance. I do know what you mean about 'incredibly good snapshots', though.

Ray, I'm not sure if I'm reading your tastes correctly, but I highly recommend watching a movie called Samsara. It's a nonverbal, non-narrative movie by the people who produced Baraka, along the lines of the Qatsi trilogy. I was fortunate to see it in a big digital projection theatre and it is just stunning.

 
You haven't given up playing guitar even though you're no Albert King :tongue:

Seriously, I don't think we shoot to be the best. We shoot because we enjoy it. And who knows, he may very well say the same thing about you. I can't say anything bad about his shots, and they're miles better than mine would be. But I dare say that there are some places you can go on this planet with little talent and the wrong gear and still get some great looking shots. Myanmar is definitely one of those places. Every time I see the word Myanmar in a photography forum, I prepare to be amazed. The light ALWAYS looks amazing (does the Golden Hour last all day there?!) and the colors are always gorgeous (unless someone is shooting Canon :tomato2:.)

The shots are definitely worth checking out, but I think a lot of the attraction is that the place seems so foreign to us. Show the people over there your shots of Philly and they'll crown you the king of photographers.

Thanks for this very comforting post... So there is hope!
 
Back
Top