Why do I like the work of Neil Buchan Grant so much??

[gmahler5th]

<p>I have struggled to keep up with a hobby of mine, and recently stumbled upon the work Neil Buchan Grant which strikes a chord deep within about what I would like to achieve in my photography.<br>

So what is it that makes his work so special? Does his use of Leica differentiate his work to such a degree that he can achieve a nearly perfect balance of grain (realism) and sharpness and perfect composition (how he does that with mid distance lenses puzzles me) that makes his photos a work of art and eye candy for the aspiring photographer? </p>

<p>I look through his photos, like here <a href="http://buchangrant.com/blog/?p=623">http://buchangrant.com/blog/?p=623</a> all the while chanting to myself I need to make better compositions, apply more grain/film effect in post processing to achieve better realism, isolate my subjects better and apply expert sharpening techniques but is that really what separates the ordinary shooter from achieving work of this caliber?<br>

Lighting and contrast is another defining characteristic of this work which is perfect in just about every image I look at!<br>

Welcome your comments.</p>

 

[Sanford]

<p>It looks like he used an Olympus EP3 for a lot of them. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>Lighting and contrast is another defining characteristic of this work which is perfect in just about every image I look at!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why can't you get stuff like that, walking down the street, snapping photos of pretty young ladies and wizened old fishermen?</p>

<p>Take a look at the catch lights in the eyes in the portraits. Those people have been lit. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a full crew with him.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>So what is it that makes his work so special? Does his use of Leica differentiate his work to such a degree...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>of course. Buy a M9 as well, a set of lenses and you're there</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...sharpness and perfect composition (how he does that with mid distance lenses puzzles me)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>me too, it's ludicrous</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>apply more grain/film effect in post processing to achieve better realism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>absolutely. Grain, HDR, grad filters and all of that are intrumental to get all of that</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but is that really what separates the ordinary shooter from achieving work of this caliber?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>of course not. There's talent from someone who knows exactly what he wants and presents it in highly stylized photos. It's probably that which appeals to you.</p>

<p> </p>

[MarieH]

<p>Its funny, the 'perfection' in these images does the opposite to me..it leaves me cold. I don't see any life or character in his images, just perfect technique. I guess its just not my thing, so I can forego the 7000 dollar camera lucky me ..teehee.</p>

[Brad_]

Agree with MH. No soul...

[gmahler5th]

<p>Funny, MH! :) Not sure I feel the same way, but your point taken.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Cameras are way less important than the photographers who use them and the photographs taken with them. Look at the skin on most of his people. Realistic, you say? Anything but! Very processed, metallic-looking skin, harsh. I'm not necessarily a guy who wants or needs realism, but here the processing is the first thing I note, the humanity is way down the list. There's a sterility about most of the images, even though it's clear he knows what he's doing. It's just the sensibility I don't like. These seem much more about making "good" photographs than about exploring a subject or scene or telling a story.</p>

[ferensen]

<p>Yes on MH, Brad, Fred G. Boring indeed. Reminds me, I'm old enough to remember the "Kodak Moment" ads with pictures which looked much the same. That "moment" has past however.</p>

[dennis_couvillion]

<p>While the guy certainly has a good eye these images look too plastic for my taste.</p>

[ibay]

<p>Whenever I find heavy digital manipulations, specially in street/documentary genre, it just turns me off. Just not my liking no matter how good contents are.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>These seem much more about making "good" photographs than about exploring a subject or scene or telling a story.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes, but then this was his brief, at least as I understand from the text.</p>

<p>As for the rest I personally think "perfect technique" isn't at odds with good streetphotography (which this is not presented as such). anything but in fact.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>yes, but then this was his brief, at least as I understand from the text.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, we both know that not every goal, just because it may be achieved, is worthwhile.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"As for the rest I personally think "perfect technique" isn't at odds with good streetphotography (which this is not presented as such). anything but in fact"</p>

<p>　<br>

Humour me,Ton, what is your definition of perfect technique..and, why, and how it applies to these photos.</p>

<p>For my tastes they are overcooked and don't really speak to me of anything really.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>true Fred</p>

<p>that's too general a question Allen but I will say this. Apart from the fact that some (commercial) assignments are required to have a certain look it seems to me that some people think good (or perfect if one wants, a word I didn't use) technique is at odds with good streetphotography. I'm of the school that while good technique isn't in all cases intrumental it's still one of the fundaments of good photography in general.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For my tastes they are overcooked and don't really speak to me of anything really</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's described as travel photography. I think they are well suited to be published in some travel magazines.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "I'm of the school that while good technique isn't in all cases intrumental it's still one of the fundaments of good photography in general."</p>

<p>I'don't think anyone would argue with that thought ,Ton.</p>

<p>"it's described as travel photography. I think they are well suited to be published in some travel magazines."</p>

<p>If we are talking Brochure Travel photography I would agree.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>you and me both</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I really don't like the way he processes his people photos at all. Too technique driven for me. His landscapes are good and would do well in the right venues, but he tends to really push color vibrancy and saturation. This discussion on technique is interesting. Sometimes the "media is the message" but I think these fall a little short as the technique in itself doesn't really convey anything .</p>

[MarieH]

<p>Perfect technique, or not so perfect. The portraits are enhanced, the landscapes are enhanced. I guess its the `enhancement`I dislike. Technique is important but these are not the natural images from the camera..obviously. They do remind me of travelogs from a glossy magazine, but not street photography as I like to see it. To me these photos `lie.' Now what`s a lie and what isn`t is another debate. I guess all photography is a lie.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>To the OP: Steve, why do you like Neil Buchan Grant's work so much? What attracts you?</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I don't believe the photos are enhanced in post. The subjects are lit with artificial light, and that's why they don't look real. </p>

 

[MarieH]

<p>But look at the eyes....some shopping here, I think. At least dodge and burn.besides the light.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe the photos are enhanced in post. The subjects are lit with artificial light, and that's why they don't look real.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /> That's not the case at all. The most obvious one is the guy with no shirt, tattoos and a whistle. That's what's usually called an "ultimate fighter filter." That has nothing to do with lighting and it's used in other photos there. I know because I use it, I don't personally like it, but the fighters like it because it's the look of the UFC trailers and between-action TV clips. The woman with the red hair has had her eyes enhanced.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Well, a little of both, probably. My point was that nobody could expect to walk down the street and take random photos here and there, photoshop or not, and have the consistent look of these photos. There's a crew making that happen.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>There's no "crew" on any of these IMO.<br /> Guy just uses natural light then plays with the images a bit in post. (e.g. Eyes dodged and the stuff Jeff mentions)</p>