How does he do it?

[j. caputo]

I am inspires by a photographer named Tim Wolcott who shoots nature photography. He does alot of fall foliage work. I cant get over how

bright and flawless his images are. I have to ask you all how he accomplishes shots like the one linked below. Does he use special filters

or camera's? Is this a product of manipulation in photoshop? Or is this just a image straight out of the camera that was at the right place at

the right time? See linked image below and any I would appreciate suggestions on how we can produce great images like this? http://www.timothywolcott.com/landscapes/portfolio-06/graphics/photos/landscape_tim_wolcott_08.jpg

[j. caputo]

Sorry, I dont know how to make the link a hyperlink. If anyone can help out I'd appreciate it. I would copy and paste the

picture but I think that is considered stealing it.

[phule]

Good light

 

Right Location

 

Right time (see also: good light)

 

The rest is all probably secondary.

[louie]

Yup. Once you get past the craft of photography (taking well-exposed, sharp, well-composed pictures), the rest of nature photography is being in the right place at the right time.

 

There may very well be some digital darkroom manipulation going on, but not a lot. You can make a great picture a bit better, but it's very, very difficult to make something bad look good.

[leicaglow]

You'll probably enjoy this one too: http://www.josephholmes.com/gallery01.html. I know a lot of guys who shoot this stuff, and not only are they great technically, they have the patience to wait for the light and shot.

[gary_anthes]

What Rob said. Also, the special quality of this photo comes from dialing the exposure down at least two stops so that much of the image is almost black but the exposure is just right for those few trees that seem to shine forth.

[BrettPrucha]

If this photo was taken digitally the saturation was heavily boosted. It's also possible that it was taken with Velvia film and that's what the slide looks like. Like others have said underexposing brings out the colors. Either way for me personally I find the colors too strong.

[randall ellis]

http://www.timothywolcott.com/

[randall ellis]

I too find his saturation and colors to be a little too unnatural for my tastes, but to each his (or her) own. Some of the images of the desert look like he used a blue/gold polarizer, and some of the other color images look like they have the saturation boosted rather high. As the others have stated, impressive photography requires both the technical ability to use the equipment to get the desired results, and the vision required to form those desires in the first place. With nature photography, lighting is very important, so you have to be willing to scout out your locations in advance, visit them under different lighting conditions to see when the best time is to get what you want, and then be able to be there and be ready for the right moment.

 

- Randy

[sandysocks]

Interesting. Looks like some of the best and worst of film. Some of it looks like Ektachrome 64. Some of it looks normal, but shot under subdued light.

[jdipierro]

With those reflections I doubt he uses one but a polarizing filter and really bring out colours too.

[jdipierro]

"can really bring out colours" - Sorry for the typo.

[greenlander]

J,

 

Believe me, I'm no pro and am working hard at improving as well. However, I would urge you not to be mystified by any of the shots I just perused on Tim Wolcott's website. That's not to say that there aren't some nice images there, but in my opinion - the lion's share aren't anything to be awed by. Many are even lacking in sharpness or aren't particularly interesting, in my opinion. With a little patience and attention to lighting, etc, I'm confident you can achieve similar results.

 

Just my 2 cents.