Ban sunsets?

[yinkamd]

Dear Juha

 

Thanks for your response. I did love your portfolio. Your photos are truly excellent, which is why I was surprised at your comments. Sunsets are NOT easy to shoot; they create all kinds of exposure problems.

 

When I referred to ignorance, I was talking about your comment, not about God.

 

Turning the matter over to the issue about God, I did not state that it was any particular "God". The fact is, sunsets have been here much longer than we have and will be here long after we are gone. They are much more beautiful than any of us.

 

You talk about "scientific fact". Just what IS "scientific fact"? That there is no God? Can you prove that? Then it is NOT fact! Be careful about getting into the trap that lots get into, of arguing that a hypothesis or theory is "fact". You CANNOT prove evolution or any other theory you may believe in. It is not "FACT". No-one has ever shown that species evolve. No one has ever proved that one changes into another. They are theories, NOT fact!

 

Yinka

[j.kivekas]

Yinka, you are entitled to believe. However, spreading false facts is not something you are entitled. Evolution is fully proven, It is everyday business in breeding cattle, forests, flowers, food, fish. We know how DNA works to the detail. With humans you can look at height statistics at places where nutrition has been constant and you still find people getting longer and longer. I can't imagine what further proof you need. Go to the nearest dog farmer and he'll explain you. Yes, there may be a missing link in the chain of what has been digged out of the ground as far as humans are concerned.<p>

I also remind you that the burden of proofing is on him who markets. Prove me there is a god and I'll be a happier person. Tell me why little new borns have to suffer if their is such a righteous being. Most wars on this earth are somehow about a religion or another. Yeah, all this because some dude ate an apple. Come on! It's a bit like all the creatures from the space have two legs and two hands and one head. Wonder why would those look like humans.... same caliper stuff.<p>

You believe, by all means, I don't. Let's get back to photo biz.

[yinkamd]

Jusha

 

I am surprised that you make such statements. Evolution has not been proven! Adaptation has. NO-ONE has ever demonstrated a change from one species to another. True, living things do adapt and in fact may undergo what some will term micro-evolution. However, NO-ONE has ever shown that macro-evolution exists or is even a reasonable suggestion. There has never been a change of species.

You are the one presenting a hypothesis as fact.

I am not debating your right to believe in what you believe in. What I contest is your statement that God is the creation of our imagination, while evolution is "FACT"

Growing longer in response to diet, or genetic changes within a species is NOT evolution, but rather adaptation or, if you will, micro-evolution. So, people who live in Africa, where mosquitos are endemic, selectively acquired the sickle cell gene, which makes them resistant to malaria. Have they changed into a new species? NO!

I am a physician who specializes in fetal medicine. I have done extensive work in genetics. Nowhere does it even start to suggest that evolution is anything more than a theory. You talk about how DNA works in detail. Yet, Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, who mapped out the Human Genome, and knows more about DNA and genetics than all of us put together, is a strong believer in God.

The point is, you cannot say that you are stating "FACT" when, in fact (pardon the pun), you are not.

You are entitled to believe what you do. Just do not run down others who believe otherwise, and present your view as fact, when it is not.

 

Best wishes

 

Yinka

[will king]

Juha, I am a believer but I won't get into a drawn out debate with you here. If you want to discuss it, I'll be more than happy to do that offline. Just shoot me an email.

 

About shooting sunsets. You say that they're easy. I guess shooting anything is easy, right? It's making them look good that's the hard part, and that could be said about any genre of photography. Take a look at all the over rated fashion and nude photos here. People rate them high based on the beauty of the woman and not the skill of photographer.

 

Do me a favor and browse through the portfolios of Marc Adamas and David Clapp. When you can make photos of the same quality than I won't think your comments are ignorant. Until then, your comments are just that.

[yinkamd]

Quote Will King {Take a look at all the over rated fashion and nude photos here. People rate them high based on the beauty of the woman and not the skill of photographer.}

Will, I agree with you to a large extent. However, when it comes to nudes, the high ratings often do not even have anything to do with the beauty of the woman, and certainly nothing to do with the quality of the photography.I have seen lots of nude/explicit photos where the woman was not beautiful neither was the photography good, where the ratings were dispropotionately high (6s and 7s) Unfortunately, sometimes it is just the nudity, which gives me grave concern about some of the people who do the ratings!

 

Yinka

[lex_jenkins]

Juha, you're taking a harmless comment out of context. The mere mention of a deity does not amount to unwanted proselytizing, any more than the mere mention of nudes makes me a paragon of righteous morality simply because I don't photograph nudes. (For the record, I don't photograph nudes only because of that pesky court order. And because I ran out of room for the bodies in my backyard. But that's another story. Probably not a true story, but it sounds good. Now you have something else to be offended about.)

[don_e]

"If each of us had our pet peeve genre of photos banned from the critique forum, there would be no pictures to critique."

 

We can only dream...

[j.kivekas]

Hey, let's get back to photo biz and forget that God and evolution off-topic. And for the sake of it, I am not banning sunset shots. I find this whole thread thoroughly amusing. I just happen to agree with those who think sunset shots are cheap tricks. Those marc adams' and david clapps know the same perfectly well: the sunset shots are good and safe sellers and eye catchers. They are safe bets to get praising comments because it's really hard not to succeed with them.

[will king]

Do you even understand what goes into shooting into dramatic light while maintaining dynamic range? Look at those pretty models you shoot and look at Marc's portfolio and tell me who has the harder job of making an image look good. Shooting in a studio with controlled and even light is a bit easier than shooting outdoors in an uncontrolled environment with extreme changes in light. Please give us one example of one of your cheap tricks sunset shots.

[j.kivekas]

Will, I still stick to my words. You are obviously doing your sunset shots with multi exposures layered and masked or alternatively with some HDR-application (which I do not find especially demanding). Layering and masking is not what this thread is about. That is post processing. I have a photo in my portfolio which had 35 layers. Now, you can imagine the relative degrees of freedom between 3 and 35. Remember, before the time of HDR we used to have the gradient filters to compress the dynamics. The point of this thread was that even with a Fischer Price camera you can get a decent shot of a sunset which gets praise in a site like this. Of course your shots are million times better, but shoot one with F&P camera, submit it here and tell me do you really see any difference in the comments. That's the point. <p>

Just roughly, during the last nine years I've probably shot 200 000 - 300 000 shots of which less than 15 000 in studio. In many ways I am still a debutant in the studio and find studio working muc much harder than ambient for the same reason you mention. I just put my words in different order: In the studio you've got control light, it is all about controlling the light and not just taking what the "god" gives you. In that sense the studio work offers more degrees of freedom to control, more things to take care of, more opportunities to screw up.<p>

Will, the point is, go and shoot a married couple as good as you can. Then shoot one of your sunset HDRs as good as you can. Put your absolute best in both. Submit both here. Now, both of these shots are done at the same level of ambition (your best shot) and see which one gets to notice. That is the point. It is so easy to please with a sunset shot but it is so f.... hard to get "an easy" studio shot right so that there is the same amount of attention. And if there is attention it's some besserwissers like me critiquing some tiny futile details of it. So far the most-difficult-to-get-right -genre has been product photography, for me. You can spend a week in the studio and you are still not happy with the outcome - and then you submit it here and it doesn't get noticed. I'll stick to my words. Go to see Hannu Eskelinen's sunsets in his portfolio. His shots are single exposures done with gradient filters. Somehow I find the old technique more worthy of respect than the present HDR-trend.<p>

Will, go and shoot more of those sunsets. They are marvelous.

[j.kivekas]

Yinka, I quite agree with you that fashion shots are "overrated". Actually I would prefer to say that the genre is overactive. If you are really into what is underrated - then go to see genres like documentary, news, sports, especially those ones where you need to master the capturing of the decisive moment. Those photos often look dull even if capturing has been very difficult if not pure concidence. You don't get a second chance in those, you can not bracket, you can not HDR, you've got to get it right that one only moment given you.

[j.kivekas]

...and one more thing about overrating or underrating. A few days ago I went through all the categories and commented at least one photo in each. I took me about an hour. Now, any reader, when did you do the same?

[will king]

Juha, first of all, I do not do HDR. Personally I do not like the look of a typical HDR image. I do however, do manual exposure blending to achieve dynamic range. You seem to think that post processing is not about photography. Well...I'm afraid you're wrong. Ansel Adams perfected his images in the darkroom. The fact of the matter is photos need to be processed. Photos are nothing more than raw clay that needs to be molded and shaped to bring out the full potential.

 

<br>

<br>

 

I guess you think sunset photos are overrated. That seems to be your arguement. Well, don't get that confused with degree of difficulty. Just like with anything else in the world, there will be the good, the bad, and the ugly. There are good sunset photos, bad sunset photos and down right ugly sunset photos. How they get rated has nothing to do with the degree of difficulty.

<br>

<br>

Not to belittle studio work, but I'll stick to my statement of sunset shots being more difficult than studio glamour shots. First of all one has to actually seek out a location worthy of shooting. Then wait for that 15 minute window when the light is just right. No room for error. The sun is not going to stop or slow down because you haven't gotten that IT shot. The weather plays a large part. There's no dial that you can change on the bright light. You can't tell your landscape to turn a certain way. You virtually have not control over your subject. In the studio, there's really no time limit. You can adjust the lights whenever you want. You can ask the model to do whatever you want. You don't have to deal with dynamic range issues. Hmmmm, you compare the two and tell me which is more difficult.

Take a look at this image from

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5977733" >MarcAdamus</a> and tell me that you could create something remotely close to this.

[j.kivekas]

Isn't this ridiculous :))))<p>

May be it is because I'm not natively English speaking that it is hard time for me to make you understand. Will, you just confirmed that the biggest trouble getting the sunset shot is dragging one's ass there. That was my original claim. Yes, digital dark room work is part of photography today. But you are missing the point again. The point is that you can go there in time and shoot with a F&P camera and it produces a photo that will be praised here. Far from perfect, but it will be praised here because it still looks pretty with the colors ranging from blue to red to gold over the sea. What this means that a sunset shot is possible to shoot easy - it does not mean that your photo would have been that easy. But it means that the scales of rating and commenting are all distorted in such photos. If you had put 95 % less effort you 'd still 95% the same ratings. Shouldn't that frustrate especially you who put a lot of effort there.<p>

The Marc Adams link - where is the sky form blue to red over a sea. This example is not really about this topic. Ok, maybe it is shot during sunset, but it is not obvious, and yes, it is a beautiful photo, but I can not see it being a very difficult shot. He's taken care that he is there at his chosen position at the right time and has captured in a rather cliche-wise with long shutter speed the waterfall. Outdoor Photographer/Photography are both filled with photos like this. I can not see a reason why I couldn't reproduce that shot. There is a bit weird light on the hill - it's probably dodged locally or a combo of two because it has got the light painted ambience.<p>

Will, next time you go to the beach just set your camera to P-position and shoot from the hip, submit it here and see what happens. You could even bracket - I hardly call that demanding. I guarantee that that shot will devaluate the really good ones you've shot on the beach.

[yinkamd]

Juha

 

You obviously do not know what you are talking about (didn't I say that several postings back?). Why don't YOU post your sunset shots with an F&P camera shot from your waist? This argument is not making sense, and by carrying on, you make your case progressively worse. I am not going to grant you the pleasure of continuing to argue with you, so this will be my last posting on the subject. Nevertheless, your statements have been rather arrogant and bigoted. Tolerance, and appreciation of others' good work is a part of greatness. You have repeatedly claimed your personal opinion as fact. "Anyone can shoot a great sunset". "One needs to skill to shoot a great sunset". You would even belittle photos by one of the greatest amongst us, Marc Adamus, who is internationally renowned, as "cliched".

In my opinion, you deserve no further responses. Shame, you have some good photographs in your portfolio. A little humility would win you lots of friends....

 

Yinka

[will king]

<i> Juha Kivekas, Feb 21, 2008; 04:42 a.m.

<br>

Isn't this ridiculous :))))

</i>

 

<br>

<br>

Yes it is. Let's end this argument right now. Tonight, when the sun goes down, take a picture of it. Post it in this thread and also post it in the critique forum. Let's see how your theory holds up. Let's see how well it is received and rated.

[don_e]

I think I understand Juha's point; it is that certain subjects are more likely to be enjoyed by the viewer. Because of that, a mediocre photo of such a subject is likely to be rated higher than a high quality photograph of another kind of subject, and that such viewers for the most part do not distinguish a high quality sunset (or babies, or puppies, or fields of flowers, or nudes) from a mediocre one of the same. We're just wired that way.

[petemillis]

I'm sorry to say I tried to take a picture of a sunset....it was a nice sunset, but a crap picture!<div></div>

[William Kahn]

We haven't seen the sun at all for several days here on the Cumberland Plateau in TN, so here's one from a few years back in Colorado.<BR>

<BR>

Watch ev'ry sunset<BR>

As though it were the last light<BR>

At the end of time<BR><div></div>

[William Kahn]

OOPS! Sorry about that....<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Sunsets; kids soccer, dogs images are the three sacred fine art tenets!:)