The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

One year retrospectives (tech camera)

jlm

Workshop Member
i'm with you Torger. how many big bend, antelope canyon shots do we need to see, or need to be made?
 

jagsiva

Active member
i'm with you Torger. how many big bend, antelope canyon shots do we need to see, or need to be made?
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.
 

Jamgolf

Member
"So what works for one photographer, may not work for other"
I don't think anyone is in disagreement on this point. Right?

Now as to Rodney Lough Jr. I think his website presentation is cool, many times you can't appreciate an image unless it fills the monitor. His website implementation allows a visitor to do that. Also - since Subrata pointed out that Rodney uses an IQ180 on a tech camera, that caught my attention. I want to see what has been done and can be done with such equipment. I find it educational. I doubt anyone will disagree with this either.

Now the usual controversies such as merits of Peter Lik style photography, what has been photographed to death, what qualifies as artful, what types of pictures to take, over the top post processing etc. I think I am on both sides of that and can see both sides of that. I will say Lik is selling what people are buying. Nothing wrong with that. If Lik and Lough (and others) are successful photographers then I say - Good For Them.

Also, I struggle with the idea of photographed-to-death. Should we not visit Antelope Canyon, Iceland, Yosemite, Mesa Arch, Machu Picchu etc. since they have been visited billions of times? And if we go there we should put away the cameras? I see really no problem with attempting to take a similar picture as the ones that have already been executed succesfully, at least that would be educational and I'll have a sense of how poorly I did in comparison. Having said that - when I am at such a vista I try to find other compositions. I have no problem admitting that I do not shy away from the hackneyed/cliche - but I always try to find other different compositions for which I feel a sense of ownership.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

Geoff

Well-known member
There is a bit of a thrill to visiting places where others have been. The question is "what do you do with it?". For example, a visit to Pt Lobos is like an encounter with Weston, and for the first few times, one is left with a sense of following his lead, his vision, and uncovering the place through his eyes. Hopefully the next step is to establish some distance, dialogue or even discussion between your work and those that came before, albeit perhaps only in one's own head. Still, its a place for discourse, and can help to push work to new places.

I've not been terribly successful at such places in establishing a clear voice on my own, but the challenge has helped me upon return to other, less frequented grounds: there, the calling to establish one's own voice is ever stronger, and the push to "step out" reinforced.

So in Torger's world, I'd vote for the art side of the picture, and leave the product side to others. And as Steve mentioned above, one of the great joys of tech cameras is movement in two directions and the ability to compose more carefully and precisely on site. Not to say one might not do some serious PP compositional work, but the main drive for the image seems more appropriate when done in the field, with the real stuff in front. Perhaps over time, field work will be understood as a different approach from PP.
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
I have no problem with what people shoot, and I see no problem in shooting those famous scenes in your own way. The most important aspect of making good photography is to shoot what you enjoy yourself.

I do have a personal idea of what is good art and what is less good though, and in that context I think it's impossible to not relate to what has been done before, and the digital revolution hasn't exactly made it easier for landscape photography. 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.

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.

However when one starts philosophizing about these things one quickly realizes that there's actually infinite ways to approach landscape photography as an art form, and what's "best" is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't really mind the images of mr Lik and mr Lough Jr (they don't seem to like each-other by the way :) ), but I do get a bit provoked by their way to present their work and their ego-pumping. I get an itch to say "if you're as good as you say, how-come doesn't you have any solo exhibitions in any art museums? And how-come is the print resale value so incredibly much lower than it costs to buy the prints in your own galleries?" ;)
 

Jamgolf

Member
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.
That's well said. Profound actually.

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.
Quite interesting. I have thought similarly. In fact I have a few project ideas, that I want to pursue.
Forum member stngoldberg posts documentary images which are a 'project' style. I always appreciate his images, they say something about the places.
Rebecca Bathory's work is also 'project' style and I admire her work.
 

Ken_R

New member
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.
Of those three I like Rodney's image the best by far.

Having seen prints from both Lik and Rodney I have to say while both produce stunning prints Rodney's prints have much more subtlety in them and even upon extremely close scrutiny they are just as close to perfection as I have ever seen. He shoots for the print and that is something that is not really appreciated on the web. I have talked to Rodney and seen him work. He mostly uses an Arca RL3Di and Rodenstock 40mm HR-W lens with the Phase IQ180 on a RRS Pano rig (Arca Cube head). His captures are superb and his post-processing very judicious and with good taste. I think Lik has a post-production studio with a few people that do the work for him under his direction. A lot of time the work is more heavy handed and works well for an initial shock and awe (great for getting people inside the store) with exaggerated color and contrast. Rodney's is more about the enormous size prints with very pleasing compositions and punchy but subtle colors. He has awesome consistency.

Whether they are artists or not that is for another thread but I would consider them (Photo) Calendar Photographers of the highest order. They capture and present reality (specially Rodney since Lik has been know to manipulate images much more including some aggressive compositing) in some of the highest quality possible in print. It is immersive reality. As with any photography there are creative decisions made all along the process but overall they stick to a realistic interpretation of existing (mostly iconic) scenes.

Regarding the OP's retrospective on his tech camera experience It kind of mimics my own.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I looked at Rodney Lough Jr's website. His pictures blew me away.
His camera setting is so simple and constant, RL3D/Rodenstock 40mm/f/16.3/ISO 35.
He didn't care about diffraction, just one simple setup. He didn't waste time for technical jargon. He didn't need more dynamic range.
The clarity, color and perspective are so perfect. Post-processing is second to none.
After looking at his work, my opinion is he is second to none for color landscape photography.
What I learnt is "Rodenstock 40mm and f/16.3". From now on, I will tape my f stop at 16+ and stop listening to "Diffraction" problem at this f stop. I believe I will have more time to concentrate on perspective and composition.
Thanks very much for the link that every landscape photographer has to visit.

Rodney Lough Jr.

Pramote
 

Jamgolf

Member
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
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 ... ?
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
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.

Every one of those makes me want to puke.

That's simply not how the world looks.

I have no doubt every one of them would get a gazillion likes on social media and a 99.9 on 500px though.
 
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 ... ?
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.
 

Jamgolf

Member
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.
So what are the points of "irreversible loss of resolution" for IQ180, IQ160, IQ150 ?
I try to stay at or below f8, because that is what Rodenstock recommends and to avoid diffration.
But its nice to know that getting away with f13 is possible.
 
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
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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
Agrred - great thread and I'm totally in sync with Jamgolf on the joy of tech.

i was kind of bummed out that I couldn't make the Julian Calverley/Alpa/CI event in my neighborhood.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
"Well, success is an important thing! It’s often been said that an artist ought to work for himself, for the “love of art,” that he ought to have contempt for success. Untrue! An artist needs success. And not only to live off it, but especially to produce his body of work. Even a rich painter has to have success. Few people understand anything about art, and not everyone is sensitive to painting. Most judge the world of art by success. Why, then,leave success to “best-selling painters”? Every generation has its own. But where is it written that success must always go to those who cater to the public’s taste? For myself, I wanted to prove that you can have success in spite of everyone, without compromise. Do you know what? It’s the success I had when I was young that became my wall of protection. The blue period, the rose period, they were screens that shielded me".

Picasso
 

Ken_R

New member
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.
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.
 

jagsiva

Active member
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.
Agreed! f8-f11 is ideal, F16 is a noticeable step down. F22 is unusable IMO.
 
Agreed! f8-f11 is ideal, F16 is a noticeable step down. F22 is unusable IMO.
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.

Subrata
 
Top