# And yet again...great talent trumps any amount of equipment



## Drizzt321 (Nov 13, 2013)

And so, yet again, I am humbled and recognize that I don't have nearly the artistic talent that many have. And that my Gear Acquisition Syndrome should be toned back a bit. Just...wow.

http://www.viralnova.com/kyle-thompson-photography/
http://www.kylethompsonphotography.com/
https://www.facebook.com/KyleThompsonPhotography


----------



## docholliday (Nov 13, 2013)

I'd say he has a few good ones, but most of his "portrait" work is kinda blah. Hipsterish and generic looking, much like what every other startup is doing. Lisa Loeb said it best in "The 90s": "So alternative just like everyone else in the mainstream". Not knocking the guy for trying, but at the same time, not all that exciting in today's Instagram/Hipstagram world.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 13, 2013)

docholliday said:


> I'd say he has a few good ones, but most of his "portrait" work is kinda blah. Hipsterish and generic looking, much like what every other startup is doing. Lisa Loeb said it best in "The 90s": "So alternative just like everyone else in the mainstream". Not knocking the guy for trying, but at the same time, not all that exciting in today's Instagram/Hipstagram world.



Well, to me at least, this ideas are much more art than mine. Then again, I rarely have any good ideas on my own. I'm usually the one that helps implement and capture my friends ideas.


----------



## candc (Nov 13, 2013)

That stuff is good but its not photography, it's photo manipulation and I do that too. This site is most focused on gear. Yes talent with crappy gear can produce fantastic artistic results but good gear will produce better photographs under equal conditions than crappy gear will so best to start with good gear


----------



## unfocused (Nov 13, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> And so, yet again, I am humbled and recognize that I don't have nearly the artistic talent that many have. And that my Gear Acquisition Syndrome should be toned back a bit. Just...wow.



Very talented and creative. Some of the comments here represent either jealously or incredible ignorance. For their sake, I hope it is jealousy because at least that can be overcome.



Drizzt321 said:


> Well, to me at least, his ideas are much more art than mine. Then again, I rarely have any good ideas on my own. I'm usually the one that helps implement and capture my friends ideas.



Don't sell yourself short. You've got some very nice stuff on your website. And, at least you have the courage to show your stuff. Unlike so many of the critics here who never link to their websites and just criticize others. 



candc said:


> That stuff is good but its not photography, it's photo manipulation



Huh? I guess Jerry Uelsmann is not a photographer then? 



candc said:


> Yes talent with crappy gear can produce fantastic artistic results but good gear will produce better photographs under equal conditions than crappy gear will so best to start with good gear



Well it would be best to start with some talent. You can buy gear, but you can't buy talent.


----------



## candc (Nov 13, 2013)

Its good stuff, I said that but to me photography and photo collages and manipulations are different subjects. This site is really dedicated to the craft of photography, its not an art site.


----------



## candc (Nov 13, 2013)

p.s.
its not his site he is pointing to, its somebody else's. I am not ripping on anybody for what they do. I am just saying capturing good photos and what you do with them afterwards are two different things


----------



## ShootingStars (Nov 13, 2013)

This crap isn't photography, it's I'm good with photoshop FFS. I wouldn't buy any of these. It's not talent, it's some kid who taught himself how to photoshop. Real talent is being able to pick up any camera, and getting "the shot" right on the spot. Like Chase Jarvis and Zack Arias.


----------



## docholliday (Nov 13, 2013)

The whole thing about this from my perspective is that I don't care if it's "real" or not...it's just he's not that unique, as there are many more people who have done "surreal" images like these ages before. Yes, they've manipulated their's too. They've captured well conceived and planned images, captured them well, and then Photoshop'd out items. 

It's not only that they did it a while ago, but their's look much more "surreal". People like Brooke Shaden, Natalie Dybis, etc. have been doing this stuff for a while. 

Problem is that everybody seems like they want to do the whole low-contrast, misty/foggy, muted toned imagery (note that I didn't say photography). It's all very reminiscent of some "fine-art" filter applied via Instagram. Yeah, it's that whole Polaroid 66x silk look.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 13, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, to me at least, his ideas are much more art than mine. Then again, I rarely have any good ideas on my own. I'm usually the one that helps implement and capture my friends ideas.
> ...



Thanks! Although I'd say I'm good at capturing what's around me, and working with people who have ideas.


----------



## docholliday (Nov 13, 2013)

ShootingStars said:


> This crap isn't photography, it's I'm good with photoshop FFS. I wouldn't buy any of these. It's not talent, it's some kid who taught himself how to photoshop. Real talent is being able to pick up any camera, and getting "the shot" right on the spot. Like Chase Jarvis and Zack Arias.



I'd have to agree, but also disagree. Photoshopping is nothing more than a tool, just like sandwiching negs, making contrast masks, etc before printing a pin-registered set on an enlarger. In the commercial photography world, you'll be surprised how much PS'ing is going on. Not to change the image, but to remove items like wires, adhesives/waxes, etc before outputting. I wouldn't call that manipulation. But to collage up multiple images and cut & paste pieces from one to another, I would.

BUT, there is something to be said about photographers who'll Hollywood up a set and do it all "in the can". Yeah, it'd be impressive if somebody would do stuff like this on an 8x10 with a single sheet of film.

I'd say it's the difference between "fine-art" and "photograph".


----------



## Aglet (Nov 13, 2013)

It always amazes me what kind of images are popular with the masses, even if it's just a fad.
I really gotta get more twisted and come up with some weird cr*p myself. Shooting technically precise versions of reality may appeal to me and a few others but won't get us on the cover of Rolling Stone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2013)

Aglet said:


> It always amazes me what kind of images are popular with the masses, even if it's just a fad.
> I really gotta get more twisted and come up with some weird cr*p myself. *Shooting technically precise versions of reality may appeal to me* and a few others but won't get us on the cover of Rolling Stone.



Really!

http://www.a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm


----------



## Aglet (Nov 13, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Really!


feel free to suggest those to their editor
if they run we'll cut you in for a finder's fee.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 13, 2013)

It is easy to take a photo of something. Much, much harder to try and be creative and make art. And it is those people who can that have a much brighter photographic future.

In an overcrowded market, where everyone is capable of taking technically competent images, with rare exceptions, it will only be those who push the boundaries of processing techniques who will be remembered in 200 year's time.


----------



## Pi (Nov 13, 2013)

It is not like the guy used an iphone, he used a very capable dSLR (60D). So gear must matter after all.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 13, 2013)

candc said:


> Its good stuff, I said that but to me photography and photo collages and manipulations are different subjects. This site is really dedicated to the craft of photography, its not an art site.


To some extent, this is the essense of it, apart from the fact that I think of photography as an art, wheras post processing is a craft.

We have lots of threads here, where what-ever-happens-in-post-processing is discussed. To me, the art of photography is all the things that happen up until the point when you push the shutter release. In many cases that includes planning for what you are going to do in post (which this guy obviously did), but in general it means getting the light, timing, framing and all the camera settings right, to capture the "it" you were out to get.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 13, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> It is easy to take a photo of something. Much, much harder to try and be creative and make art. And it is those people who can that have a much brighter photographic future.
> 
> In an overcrowded market, where everyone is capable of taking technically competent images, with rare exceptions, it will only be those who push the boundaries of processing techniques who will be remembered in 200 year's time.



I don't think you need to make this type of art to be successful in the photo industry. In fact, I'd say having a solid business plan with networking is far more important. You need to do quality work of course, but if you can capture special moments then you don't need to do loads of artificial post processing and use props, etc. If you were having a wedding, would you rather have this fellow, his props, and his 60D and single nifty fifty capture it - or would you rather have a photographer with good referrals, solid history of wedding work, and the gear/team to back it up? Not saying you need a 1DX and 70-200 f/2.8/24-70 II to be successful, but these days you do need something halfway decent like a 70D w/ a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 or such. There is room for both, as I would say these type of photos are a niche rather than something you'd build a business taking.

After all, the term 'starving artist' was coined for a reason 

Gear doesn't take the quality shots, it just might make those quality shots easier and more likely to attain - especially useful when under pressure... Which is another point - this individual may be great in setting up intricate sets and doing post, but may fail completely when put in a high-pressure, realtime situation such as a wedding shooter. They are not necessarily the same talent.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 13, 2013)

In this respect, I am flabbergasted by the photomontages that were made with tools much more limited than those available today. See this montage of great artist from Brazil, Valério Vieira held in 1901. Valério appears himself thirty times in his work.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 13, 2013)

Just two comments

1. Art is in the eye of the beholder. No one can tell anyone else whether something is "good art" or "poor art". All a person can say is that he or she either likes something or does not like something. 

2. The line between "photography" and "computer generated image" is already blurred and will only get more blurred. Since every digital image is, to some extent a "computer generated image, one person's "photograph" is another person's "CGI".

Who is right or wrong? Both are. ;D

This is really nothing new. Back in the film/dark room days we had the same arguments. People back then were expermenting with different "CGI" -- Chemically Generated Imagery. Did Ansel Adams produce "photographs" using his LV and Zone system in the darkroom?

One thing that is pretty clear in my opinion -- This is really not something worth arguing about.


----------



## jrda2 (Nov 13, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> One thing that is pretty clear in my opinion -- This is really not something worth arguing about.



+1


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 13, 2013)

Aglet said:


> It always amazes me what kind of images are popular with the masses, even if it's just a fad.
> I really gotta get more twisted and come up with some weird cr*p myself. Shooting technically precise versions of reality may appeal to me and a few others but won't get us on the cover of Rolling Stone.


You and me both. I entered a local art "contest" to display my work around town and after my work was passed over, they offered to send me samples of the types of photos judges had liked in the past. With one exception, all of them were over-processed, cliched crap. Tie dye filters, fake bokeh, sepia tone with fake burned corners, etc.

To me, photography like that is like a lousy steak being slathered with sauces and toppings, insane treble and bass in a cheap stereo system, or lipstick on a pig - whatever you want to call it. It's covering up sub-par work that's out of focus, poorly composed, etc.

Luckily, less trendy people, i.e., most commercial clients, appreciate quality over flash and are very appreciative of my work. 

I guess I'll never be an "artist", but then again, I've never considered myself one


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (Nov 13, 2013)

Geez...what a bunch of pretentious 'photographers' we have here. It's more than a little daft to dismiss his work as that of an 'Instagram Hipster'...please, have some respect.

It seems that this kid has what so many of you are so quick to dismiss him don't have....an imagination. With a little training....or a lot of trial and error...anybody can make a technically 'good' photo. On the other hand....not everyone has an eye or the brain for something creative.

To the person who said this kid would be better off 'with a business plan' shooting weddings...sorry, but for many of us that is the personification of photographic Satan. Personally I get ZERO enjoyment from shooting weddings but hey, if you or others make a buck at it then good for you.

There are numerous ways this kid could leverage his imagination and vision into a paying photography career...once again it is others like you who lack the foresight or imagination to see it I could easily see this kid making a go in the commercial realm while the rest of us sluff our 'technically perfect' yet boring, cliche photos at the doors of stock agencies....or worse yet, sell our souls to the latest Bridezilla who will be burning your vanilla bean hold the foam portraits at her divorce seven years later.

Cheers


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Nov 13, 2013)

I bet they never moaned about only having 1 cross type focussing point!!


----------



## emag (Nov 13, 2013)

I entered some of my photos in a local fair some years ago. The judges didn't pick any as winners. Members of the public did ("Peoples' Choice"). That meant even more to me. My artistic talent/ability is precisely squat, but I knew where I had to be to get that shot and when I had to be there. A setting summer sun silhouetting a local bridge from a specific vantage point. Similar stuff's been shot a zillion times.....but it remains one of my favorites and apparently others liked it also. The same venue had dozens of photos from every wedding photog in the area, most of whom are no longer in business, all interchangeable and so similar. I hope they still enjoy photography, all were technically competent and good at their craft but just didn't stand out in what is a competitive business. I've seen many examples of wedding photography on CR that were inspiring and helped me to appreciate what a talented person can do. 

I guess my point is, agreeing with AcutancePhotography above, art is truly in the eye of the beholder. Kyle Thompson's work doesn't do much for me personally but I don't think that makes him any less of an artist, I respect his efforts.


----------



## BenKing (Nov 13, 2013)

I can't find it now, but I remember reading about this guy a while back, and it stated that he did much of the effects in camera. Just wanted to throw that out there in case it changes your perspective at all about what he's doing.

Personally, I enjoy his work.


----------



## BL (Nov 13, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I guess I'll never be an "artist", but then again, I've never considered myself one



that's ok. make art for yourself. to hell with the masses


----------



## brad-man (Nov 13, 2013)

bosshog7_2000 said:


> Geez...what a bunch of pretentious 'photographers' we have here. It's more than a little daft to dismiss his work as that of an 'Instagram Hipster'...please, have some respect.
> 
> It seems that this kid has what so many of you are so quick to dismiss him don't have....an imagination. With a little training....or a lot of trial and error...anybody can make a technically 'good' photo. On the other hand....not everyone has an eye or the brain for something creative.
> 
> ...



Well said, and welcome to CR! Some very disappointing responses happening here. _Photography_ should not be pigeonholed.


----------



## skullyspice (Nov 14, 2013)

_"Re: And yet again...great talent trumps any amount of equipment"_

and just imagine what he could do with a 5D3 and an 85L!


----------



## eml58 (Nov 14, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Well said, and welcome to CR! Some very disappointing responses happening here. _Photography_ should not be pigeonholed.



I agree, welcome to CR, and it's a pity "bosshog" felt it necessary to be as critical in his own post (of critical Posts) as others have been about the original subject, I guess that's Photography to some, very emotive.

Wether we "Like" or "dislike" the work in question, we really should respect the Lads ability, he is doing some very interesting work, sort of Salvador Dali esqe, which has an audience, maybe not on CR, but Salvador Dali sold Paintings, this Lad will almost certainly find a Market as he progresses in experience & ability, I wish him all the very best.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> And so, yet again, I am humbled and recognize that I don't have nearly the artistic talent that many have. And that my Gear Acquisition Syndrome should be toned back a bit. Just...wow.
> 
> http://www.viralnova.com/kyle-thompson-photography/
> http://www.kylethompsonphotography.com/
> https://www.facebook.com/KyleThompsonPhotography



Well it depends upon what you shoot. If you are trying for some mind-blowing sports action shots shooting with some hipstamatic thingy might not work out as well.

Depends what you like and want to do, he likes the faded instagram look and heavy photo manip and semi-contrived scene type and nothing else. I'm not really into that so much myself, seems a bit over the top and contrived to me, but plenty love that sort of thing (especially photo contests, where anything not all hyper set up like that often gets a quick boot, which I do think is a shame, but whatever), but if you are then yeah another $10,000 L or two more 1DX probably won't do much for you. Experimenting and getting a lot of practice and skill with photoshop might.

And yeah you can certainly take amazing shots, tons of them, with practically whatever. It just depends if you care about taking other types of shots where some more details in teh foliage at the edges or more apparent texture in the mosses and barks or more ability to nail high-speed random action at low DOF or some or not (even then yeah you can use something like a 20D and less than a super-tele and get some pretty amazing action shots, absolutely without question, but you will also be regularly annoyed at the shots you missed and didn't have to miss, yeah some are on you, but some are on a camera too; give a top pro a 20D and I guarantee he blows more shots than with his own equipment and if make it a night game and give him f/5.6 lens you also get a lot more grain and junk but he probably has a much better take with a 20D and a 70-200 f/4 than a beginner, especially one without all that much innate talent, using a 1DX and 300 2.8; for something like basket ball for the 20D really struggled and add in say a 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 and no strobe access and give a decent relative newcomer a 1DX and a 70-200 2.8 and strobes and I bet the latter might end up with a better take though).


----------



## dufflover (Nov 14, 2013)

Of all the examples to do the whole "gear vs. talent" thing I didn't think it would be this out-of-touch example lol. I would've thought those Rebel + kit-zoom images would be the ones to be showing off ...

I can appreciate a good image and all that, including the creativity (though this specifically is not my cup of tea), but it is so detached from the gear vs talent debate it's not funny, (ESPECIALLY) when the whole "photograph vs digital art" argument comes into it. It's no better or worse than a realistic photo; it's just not comparable.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 20, 2013)

I love the creativity this guy has... photo manipulation or not.
Reality is... more than half the people in this forum, including myself can't think like this...

I don't frequent instagram, flickr, etc.
But, I bet the people complaining that this stuff is 1 in a million or even a billion, can't provide more than 10 other people that can do stuff like this...

A lot of people here, have amazing equipment and yet how many of them are proud enough to exhibit their pictures like this guy does?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 21, 2013)

I think this guys style is his own, and like it or not, he's got a knack for that and if that's what he wants to do then fine.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> You and me both. I entered a local art "contest" to display my work around town and after my work was passed over, they offered to send me samples of the types of photos judges had liked in the past. With one exception, all of them were over-processed, cliched crap. Tie dye filters, fake bokeh, sepia tone with fake burned corners, etc.


I did not enter, just looked at winners. Indeed, the judges at our local Fair pick some pretty common and rather poor quality images. I decided to avoid entering after seeing some wonderful work passed over.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 3, 2015)

Drizzt321 said:


> And so, yet again, I am humbled and recognize that I don't have nearly the artistic talent that many have. And that my Gear Acquisition Syndrome should be toned back a bit. Just...wow.
> 
> http://www.viralnova.com/kyle-thompson-photography/
> http://www.kylethompsonphotography.com/
> https://www.facebook.com/KyleThompsonPhotography



Heck, I liked a lot of his work and have to agree with you. I'm a 50 something year old man and think he's doing fine work.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 3, 2015)

Interesting photos...I liked them. Thanks for posting this Drizz!


----------



## nda (Feb 3, 2015)

bosshog7_2000 said:


> Geez...what a bunch of pretentious 'photographers' we have here. It's more than a little daft to dismiss his work as that of an 'Instagram Hipster'...please, have some respect.
> 
> It seems that this kid has what so many of you are so quick to dismiss him don't have....an imagination. With a little training....or a lot of trial and error...anybody can make a technically 'good' photo. On the other hand....not everyone has an eye or the brain for something creative.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## triggermike (Feb 3, 2015)

I think his work is cool and creative. I also know many have no attraction to this sort of artistic expression - hence "in the eye of the beholder."

On another note, there's much talk here about "photoshop" and to me, all his work looks like a single shot photo with props and no photoshop at all! That is part of the interesting nature of the work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2015)

triggermike said:


> I think his work is cool and creative. I also know many have no attraction to this sort of artistic expression - hence "in the eye of the beholder."
> 
> On another note, there's much talk here about "photoshop" and to me, all his work looks like a single shot photo with props and no photoshop at all! That is part of the interesting nature of the work.



He is just a male Brooke Shaden, and it is all very heavily photoshopped.

Galleries like it so they must be selling it...........


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 4, 2015)

'magination? We don't need no stinkin' 'magination! We got gear!


----------



## petach (Apr 6, 2015)

The guy has the eye, period!
he has the talent, period!
he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
He understands what people (and editors of publications) like 

He makes me sick. 

I wish him well


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2015)

petach said:


> The guy has the eye, period!
> he has the talent, period!
> he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
> He understands what people (and editors of publications) like
> ...



You should go and see art college photography student work more often. There are hundreds of people with every bit as much of an "eye", "talent", and "understanding of light". You can buy a video course by Brooke Shaden for $99 that shows you exactly how to make images like his from concept through photoshop to finished product. There is nothing special about the images, but then being 'special' is very difficult nowadays, and originality is close to impossible.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 6, 2015)

Here´s a totally different photographer. In my view, this is guy is a photographer, because 99% of the work is done when the raw file is on his memory card. For anyone interested in nature, birds and wildlife, have a look. This guy goes to extreme lengths to get That image and, being an amateur, his number of awards are quite impressive.

http://www.audunrikardsen.com

Kyle Thomson is more of a post processing artist to me. Even though it does not create much interest with me, I have no problem understanding and accepting that all the capabilities offered by today´s post processing software represent great artistic opportunity and the really good ones can do spectacular things. But I seldom see something I would want to buy and hang on my wall (I have more than 100 paintings, drawings and graphical prints on them though). 

Personally, the more I see of these kind of pictures, the more of a photography purist I become.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 6, 2015)

petach said:



> The guy has the eye, period!
> he has the talent, period!
> he understands light and how to best capture/present it. Period
> He understands what people (and editors of publications) like
> ...



Isn't the whole point of using "period!" to represent "finality"? I suggest the use of "semi-periods" 

The point of whether photography involves getting the finished product out of the camera is moot (and I sort of agree, heavy post processing isn't 'technically' photography but more fine/digital art). The guy has the talent to create images that will please people and sell well. He definitely has a pretty good understanding of light, at least to the point he can manipulate it as necessary. 

I remember watching a Creative Live video by Brook Shaden. The OOC images were not just mediocre- I would have deleted them right off the camera when I saw them on the LCD. But her website has beautiful stuff I wouldn't mind hanging on my wall. So who cares what came out of the camera? She manages to make something out of it. But yeah, I wouldn't call it photography.

In principle, I disagree with the OP. This isn't an example of talent trumping gear. This is an example of using artistic talent to complement perfectly adequate gear. An example of talent trumping gear would be me shooting with a 5D Mark III and any pro on this forum (and many amateurs) shooting with a Rebel.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 6, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Here´s a totally different photographer. In my view, this is guy is a photographer, because 99% of the work is done when the raw file is on his memory card. For anyone interested in nature, birds and wildlife, have a look. This guy goes to extreme lengths to get That image and, being an amateur, his number of awards are quite impressive.



I wouldn't subscribe to that view - he's a good photog because his _resulting_ shots are good and he makes it _appear_ as if it's done in camera - which is good because it makes ppl look at the actual picture rather than wondering which PS version he was using. But you didn't see the raw files, did you :->



Eldar said:


> Personally, the more I see of these kind of pictures, the more of a photography purist I become.



I don't find heavy shot preparation (which is indeed a sign of a good photog) mutually exclusive with post-processing skill. Like good flash photography, it doesn't look it, but has a subtle improvement effect and is just a part of the digital process. But maybe I'm not old enough (no offense ) yet or doing photography long enough to become a purist myself.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > You and me both. I entered a local art "contest" to display my work around town and after my work was passed over, they offered to send me samples of the types of photos judges had liked in the past. With one exception, all of them were over-processed, cliched crap. Tie dye filters, fake bokeh, sepia tone with fake burned corners, etc.
> ...



Doh. Sounds like Catch 44 - either join 'em and start your tonemapping, or try to get out of it all by faking a snapshot look.

I recently tried to get some shots into a tv media channel ("daily picture") before the news. But whatdayaknow - they positively *don't want pictures that are "pro"*, i.e. look "pro", whatever that is exactly. They should be taken by "normal people" on a nice walk with your dog 'round the block, no preparation or tech knowledge desired or required. 

Obviously a lot of viewers are fed up with a gloss "pro" look and/or competent post-processing. Imho that's stupid, but there you are. Probably the first effect of every Joe Sixpack doing PS nowadays?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Here´s a totally different photographer. In my view, this is guy is a photographer, because 99% of the work is done when the raw file is on his memory card. For anyone interested in nature, birds and wildlife, have a look. This guy goes to extreme lengths to get That image and, being an amateur, his number of awards are quite impressive.
> ...


No, I did not see the raw files. But the images he submitted to these competitions need to include the raw file. Because no manipulation is accepted. Several of his images are described in detail and I can assure you they are well prepared.

An example; The winning image of this year´s NNPC: A dark blue images of a trout just below the surface, with a mountain landscape in the background (you´ll find it as the last image in New uploads in his gallery). This images is shot in the middle of the night, in a shallow river. The camera is placed in a homemade aquarium, just above the water. The fish is attracted by using strong lights. Under water he placed two flashes. Initial focus on the fish, with f22 to get maximum dof on the fish. Then the focus is changed to infinity, through a home made focusing aid and the background is in focus for an additional 30 seconds, to capture the mountains and the sky. All in one take, using a 1DX, Samyang 14/2.8, flashes and lights and the homemade remote control for focus.

There are a couple of eagle images also worth checking out. One is shot from below the surface, just when the eagle catches the fish, Where he had the camera submerged in a home made sub. The other one is a close-up, wide angle shot, remotely controlled with the camera on a home made fleet, of the eagle just as it is about to hit the water. Fantastic images for a purist.

And, to repeat myself, I have no problem seeing the fun and challenge of mastering the various post processing options we now have. And I am not talking down people who invest their talent in using it. Many of them have skills I can only dream about. But manipulated images seldom have an appeal to me. There are many art forms I do not appreciate, but that does not mean that i talk them down. In many cases I just don´t have the ability to enjoy what they do.

But, I know I am one of the dinosaurs. I write with a fountain pen, I still read real books, I have a mechanical swiss watch and I prefer manual gear shift on my cars ... : (but I just got a Tesla P85D, so I am trying to learn )


----------



## pwp (Apr 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> petach said:
> 
> 
> > The guy has the eye, period!
> ...


The talent and sheer creativity at art colleges frequently blows my socks off. Not just in photography but across the different disciplines. It's inspiring. 

In the first hour on the first day of my first year at art college (photography) there were around forty of us students bursting with optimism listening to a talk from the head man. He put things bluntly when he said that statistically two, maybe three of us would end up with any measure of success in our chosen field. It turns out he was right, two of us are in the business.

The photographer being discussed here has that important "something extra". Drive. Even a modest talent can break into the business if they have a ton of drive, ambition and communication skills. Talent alone is dead in the water. While the work could be seen as that of a beginner, he IS a beginner and making a phenomenal start. Good luck to him, he'll probably punch through.

-pw


----------



## Ryan2tawfiq (Feb 28, 2020)

docholliday said:


> I'd have to agree, but also disagree. Photoshopping is nothing more than a tool, just like sandwiching negs, making contrast masks, etc before printing a pin-registered set on an enlarger. In the commercial photography world, you'll be surprised how much PS'ing is going on. Not to change the image, but to remove items like wires, adhesives and a spray waxes, etc before outputting. I wouldn't call that manipulation. But to collage up multiple images and cut & paste pieces from one to another, I would.
> 
> BUT, there is something to be said about photographers who'll Hollywood up a set and do it all "in the can". Yeah, it'd be impressive if somebody would do stuff like this on an 8x10 with a single sheet of film.
> 
> I'd say it's the difference between "fine-art" and "photograph".


What are three functions of waxes?


----------

