john_photo

Well, in response to Carl Root. The last thing this picture needs is a polarizer. It looks fine and a more accurate rendition of what was seen. Photoshop is fine to correct vignetting.

somehow I seriously doubt Dan will respond.

Its a nice photo but its not architecturally correct and this bugs me but I could live with it. The Digital manipulation is what really bugs me. Makes me wonder about the rest of the portfolio. I imagine a skilled photographer could look at the PRINT and tell its been faked especially commercial photographers who understand light very well and how exactly those shadows will fall and their intensity, placement etc.

 

Trying to pass off what would otherwise be a semi STAGED photograph by digital manipulation is ridiculous. No staging just Photoshop to the extreme. If you tried to submit this as a journalist it would be rejected because of the manipulation although it might win as a great photo without the manipulation ( ever thought of just taking a PHOTOGRAPH? )

 

If Mr Heller actually charges 1400 dollars for a 35mm print than more power to him. No gallery would ever be able to move it but more power to self marketing thru the internet. If it doesnt bug the buyer than its fine as long as they are aware of the manipulation.

I stated it lacked originality and it does [to me]. Nice photograph that might look good in a utah calendar. Bet a print from that big trannie is spectacular. I've made these points.

Granted its a difficult subject since its been photographed so many times. Its like all the pictures of the golden gate bridge I've seen. Its virtually impossible to come up with something original but it can and has been done but it isnt easy.

As to the classical music paralells I would state that if you want to be known as "technician" instead of "photographer" then more power to ya.

Setting up a tripod, composing, metering and loading up your color saturated film is not that complex compared to what the modern masters have studied a lifetime to accomplish.

Well, I am confident that most experienced photographers could walk away with something nice.

It looks impressive to those who havent been there but I have seen many many pictures of this type and they all contain good light etc. and are technically well done.

There is no seeing involved here. Its mimicry in my mind. Load up your camera with fine grained film and wait for the light along with the others.

BUT, I will give the photographer credit ( and all those other of hundreds of landscape photographers who also shot this scene ) kudos for good exposure, choice of lens, waiting for the correct light etc.

Hell it might even win an award in a camera club competition.

Technically nice and fine but I've seen literally 30 or 40 shots almost identical to this ( sans the panoramic )

Very weak.