Untitled

Unnatural, drab, dreary non colors from a still under development, compromised medium. Digital can only give great photos, when using spectacular lighting, aka jaymaisel.com, who uses digits on his 1000 super shots..This shot. Horizon in the middle, boring, as it is neither earthy nor an ethereal shot. The subject is not clear due to the digits and poor canon zoom optics. It looks as if we are flying above low stratus clouds, that have their edge in the foreground, and a line of hills just peeking through.. I dunno what else it looks like, as I dont read the captons, I LOOK.. A contax aria and a zeiss prime, used, would cost as much as the canon digital and be a correct tool for nature....I dunno why people jump onto unsuitable digits for nature, landscapes etc, except, as we have said, maisel type work..Also study photos4u.dk. The two sites have over 2000 fotos from masters of light and composition. Study for a few weeks, then go out with a fresh mind. U will notice u will shoot 1000% better, and get many wows, even from stupid guys like me who give u shitty critique..for which I apologise..u can try shoot like them and u will find that as yr subjects will be diff. u will not be copying them, but using their ability to see and feel BEFORE shooting. light, perspective etc etc.. U will not learn too much from PN as 90% of the shots are NOT extra ordinary, BUT u can use it to learn what NOT TO DO...Best. TT

Fabrice,

 

This is a nice shot. I might crop a little off the top. You have a consistently good portfolio - a lot of nice saturation and composition. Keep shooting. Stop by my folders if you have time, and any constructive comments you can offer will be appreciated.

 

btw, I use 'dull, dreary digitals' too and I kinda like 'em :) I have a Canon D60, an Olympus C2500L, a Minolta Dimage S414, and an old Kodak DC3200 (the first digital I ever had); I also have several film cameras I'm not getting rid of. I like 'em all.

 

-s

I don't fancy this one myself, but that's just my taste. This Tom Turk appears to have some sort of agenda - nearly every post from him is pimping a couple of photo stock sites and tearing into non-Zeiss tools. And he is too lazy or ignorant to actually spell out his words. Spell-check broken, Tom?

 

Where is YOUR body of work, Tom? For a guy with a big mouth your portfolio is conspicuously empty.

 

I know my stuff is mediocre at best and I'm learning, but I never claim to be a great artist. If you're such an expert, show something.

 

Charlie,

You got that right, and it is an understatement. The main thing he is, is just plain rude. Many of his ranting 'critiques' are just personal attacks which have no constructive value. Mr. Turk, aka 'professor' Turk, is accumulating a growing number of agitated victims here on photo.net.For a great laugh, see Joe Russo's responsive series in his folder here on photo.net. There are other postings starting to 'crop-up' (pun intended). Rest assured, the 'professor' brought this 'development' on himself.

 

The important thing is, that the creators of this decent photo and others should not be discouraged or made to feel bad by this guy's belligerent blather. Critiques should motivate. We all have a certain emotional investment in our work, no matter what level of advancement in which we are currently working, and I think a constructive critique, even one which finds many problems with the work at hand, should be considerate of that investment..

 

. . .just my 2 cents worth ...

 

-s

In all fairness he seems to have a good eye, I think. It's his 'mouth' that is the problem. And then there is that 'German made' bias, basically nothing is worth using if it's not made by a few select brands. A marketers dream. As the saying goes, a poor craftsman blames (or credits) his tools.

 

I visited his photo-site (not only can he not spell, but the link is broken) and I actually liked a few of the images, although they were not anything spectacular IMO. Oh well. I think maybe he's a bored old man who has watched life and possibly now technology pass him and needs to try and regain some semblance of control.

 

Maybe I'll be that crotchety someday, but I hope not.

Thanks Thomas, but how can you tell of the quality of this photo ??? Do you have or have used a Canon 300D ? This is one of my earlier sunrise shots and have progressed due to constructive criticism. I have printed several poster size (32" x 48") prints from my Camera, not of this particular photo and am very happy and comfortable using it seeing as though my first Camera was a Canon EOS-50E. Naturally I have scaled down these photos to make them easier to upload and download, so the real quality cannot be shown at 72dpi. Keep checking I am almost taking sunrise shots every morning now. Thanks Fab. Thanks all !!!

He does not have a good eye, is only repetitive in tech jargon and also appears to be colorblind, not being able to tell the difference between blue and grey....