Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Agreed. Also, another case for a tech cam..I find even the most photographed scenes gain a new perspective and framing with a tech cam.i'm with you Torger. how many big bend, antelope canyon shots do we need to see, or need to be made?
That's well said. Profound actually.Someone said that photography is the easiest art form to learn, and the hardest to make a personal expression with, I agree with that and I'd add that in photography landscape is the easiest genre to get into, but the hardest to make personal.
Quite interesting. I have thought similarly. In fact I have a few project ideas, that I want to pursue.I prefer "project" style of works rather than just isolated images, I think you can make more powerful art that way and indeed it makes it easier to make something that stands out as new and unique. That is when you present a set of images in some sort of lose context that gets the thoughts going. That's art to me.
Of those three I like Rodney's image the best by far.This might be a bit controversial view, but anyway here it goes; I think Rodney Lough Jr shoots pretty images and has one of the most technically skilled post-processing techniques I've seen (light and contrasty with pure colors without looking garish), but I don't find his work to be particularly deep. I'm fascinated by his excellent technique, but where's the artistic concept? If you want to make landscape art today I think you need to take it a step further than just travel to the most spectacular scenes and shoot the same pictures that has been done many times before (and after) him.
On the other hand, I've heard him speak and the idea he has is to enrich peoples homes with pretty nature images, and he's obviously more successful than most in that regard.
I find this interesting:
Rodney Lough Jr:
Peter Lik:
Willian Carr
All these photographers have galleries in Las Vegas. I assume this tree sells well. But if the reason you press the shutter is that this is going to be a selling picture, my humble opinion is that you're not doing art, but you're making a product.
When on post-processing I see two kinds -- the mindless "reality-improvement" type, and the atmosphere-creating grading type. The former is about pushing and purifying colors to make it look more impressive by pressing the well-known buttons, it's a bit like adding strings to a romantic scene in a movie. The other is not necessarily about impressing but to create a unifying atmosphere to strengthen the message and personalizing your style.
I don't see anything wrong in making products that sell well though, the world probably has enough of struggling artists that can't finance their work. I guess I'm a bit provoked by mr Lough Jr's ego though, when I've heard him speak he doesn't exactly hide that he thinks he's better than everyone else. And indeed, he is better than most when it comes to selling products (I think Peter Lik is even more successful though), but when it comes to artistry? Then I'm not equally impressed. Some humbleness would suit him.
I also noticed the same thing. He even has some shots at f22 with the IQ180/40HR.His camera setting is so simple and constant, RL3D/Rodenstock 40mm/f/16.3.
He didn't care about diffraction, just one simple setup. He didn't waste time for technical jargon.
Pramote
This might be a bit controversial view, but anyway here it goes; I think Rodney Lough Jr shoots pretty images and has one of the most technically skilled post-processing techniques I've seen (light and contrasty with pure colors without looking garish), but I don't find his work to be particularly deep. I'm fascinated by his excellent technique, but where's the artistic concept? If you want to make landscape art today I think you need to take it a step further than just travel to the most spectacular scenes and shoot the same pictures that has been done many times before (and after) him.
On the other hand, I've heard him speak and the idea he has is to enrich peoples homes with pretty nature images, and he's obviously more successful than most in that regard.
I find this interesting:
Rodney Lough Jr:
Peter Lik:
Willian Carr
All these photographers have galleries in Las Vegas. I assume this tree sells well. But if the reason you press the shutter is that this is going to be a selling picture, my humble opinion is that you're not doing art, but you're making a product.
Nope. At f/16 and beyond, diffraction would cause irreversible loss of resolution for the IQ180. It is not possible to bring it back by post-processing. Frankly speaking too few people would care about pixel peeping. Such technical grounds would only differentiate an epic shot and a legendary shot in the eyes of tech geeks.I also noticed the same thing. He even has some shots at f22 with the IQ180/40HR.
What happned to all the diffraction? Is it that easy to handle in post processing ... ?
So what are the points of "irreversible loss of resolution" for IQ180, IQ160, IQ150 ?Nope. At f/16 and beyond, diffraction would cause irreversible loss of resolution for the IQ180. It is not possible to bring it back by post-processing. Frankly speaking too few people would care about pixel peeping. Such technical grounds would only differentiate an epic shot and a legendary shot in the eyes of tech geeks.
Agrred - great thread and I'm totally in sync with Jamgolf on the joy of tech.Great info on this thread. Thanks to the OP for starting it.
Here is someone who does exquisite landscape photography. No gallery in Vegas. Just masterful images. His work inspires me to "see" in my own way.
Julian Calverley
My experience with the IQ160 and the 40mm HR-W is that f11 is my max on that combo, after that there is a noticeable loss of resolution, f14 is still good though since one is starting with a LOT of resolution and I have used it but at f16 the resolution loss is quite a bit and at f22 its huge. That is IMHO.Nope. At f/16 and beyond, diffraction would cause irreversible loss of resolution for the IQ180. It is not possible to bring it back by post-processing. Frankly speaking too few people would care about pixel peeping. Such technical grounds would only differentiate an epic shot and a legendary shot in the eyes of tech geeks.
Agreed! f8-f11 is ideal, F16 is a noticeable step down. F22 is unusable IMO.My experience with the IQ160 and the 40mm HR-W is that f11 is my max on that combo, after that there is a noticeable loss of resolution, f14 is still good though since one is starting with a LOT of resolution and I have used it but at f16 the resolution loss is quite a bit and at f22 its huge. That is IMHO.
For my SK 43 XL, I do not get past f/11. According to Rodney, he got post processing skill to take care of of loss of resolution in the field. Rodney's prints proves that.Agreed! f8-f11 is ideal, F16 is a noticeable step down. F22 is unusable IMO.