vincetylor

We are here to become better photographers! At least that's why I am here. The "execution" is the issue. This is a good capture of a very good subject. My reference to National Geographic in this case has nothing to do with money at all. I think many (though not all) would agree that National Geographic sets the standard when it comes to wildlife photography. I also concur with Marc and Dave that this image is more original that the one posted from Natl. Geo. However, if photographers on this site wish to become better photographers than they are now, then attention to details like mentioned above are one of the keys to doing so. This one could have been improved by simply taking a few inches back. As fresh as the image is, it's still technically falls short. We might like it anyway, not really paying much attention to the nose being out of focus. However a place like National Geographic, where the standard is consistently high, would probably reject this image for those very same reasons. So then, the solution? Get the entire face in focus. A very wide angle lens like this will usually not have a DOF issue. In this case then, the photographer was just a bit too close. A great idea, but just not quite technically there.

 

This is not about choosing "business and dollars" over "art or emotions". It's about how to improve this photograph, and how to improve our craft as photographers. Imagine being able to have your wildlife image published by such a prestigious magazine. I think most would consider that an honor... and I guess a nice royalty would not hurt either...

 

 

 

The reference to National Geo., has nothing to do with money, it has more to do with where we might look to see a recognized "higher standard" for this type of photography. I can tell you that I have never had my wildlife images published by a magazine like this. Though I would not mind one bit. I am not the only person commenting on the nose being out of focus by the way. It is clearly an issue to quite a few others as well. To improve this photograph would mean a little better DOF in that area, that's really all this is about. Aloha.

Nice "real world" image. I too think you captured the adorableness so to speak of these very cute animals quite successfully. Those sad eyes and the little feet off the ground make it that type of image for me. I do not have any issues with the consistent tones throughout either. Like mentioned above, this blending-in probably helps against predatory birds and the like. Real life camo!

 

That said -and I do like this- I would not consider it is a professional type of capture for this type of image. This is a good capture of a very good subject. The problem? The limited depth of field. With a close up like this, you will often get a limited DOF. In fact most closeups of any animals will be limited. However, having a portion of the nose or a portion of the FRONT of the animal out of focus is generally not acceptable in the professional wildlife world. The back-end of the animal can drift out of focus, but the front should maintain sharpness. I am not saying that this is just a snapshot, because the photographer has many well crafted images throughout his portfolio, and this does have a lot going for it as well. Some will even consider this as nit-picking. But this is the picture of the week, and to take it to another level, I think he should have backed up just a bit or stopped down, if even only a little. Here are two images from National Geographic that are similar. While this image here is intersting and likable, I do not think it would have made it into a publication of this stature for this one very simple reason.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0105/feature8/zoom6.html

 

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0209/feature3/zoom4.html

"Another way to ask the question is :

When your eye is on the viewfinder, what is in your mind? does this rectangle I see in this little box will make money ? Or do you feel an emotional thing about beauty and do not resist to immortalize it by clicking on the button ? Without any commercial idea behind ?" Marielou D.

 

When I am out shooting anywhere, it's always about the beauty, it's always about trying to capture the essence, yes the spirit of each location. It is never about dollars. It is the most enjoyable thing I can do practically anywhere. The business part of the process is entirely independent and separate and far less enjoyable from the shooting itself.

General Question:

"Do we have to consider a picture is good only if it has a potential to be sold? Isn't that a kind of seeing by the narrow side view of things ?" Marielou

 

Well pics of my dogs sure aint that sellable, but in my mind they sure are good for me. So the overall answer to your question is no, a photo does not have to be sellable to be good. For fine-art or stock usage however, then the answer to your question is a fairly solid YES. If it does not sell in a gallery wall, or for stock usage library then that should tell you something about that image. But develop thick skin. many images I thought would roll out the doors simply were duds. My wife likes to remind me of those. On the other hand some sleepers occasionally turned up big. This one surprised all of us.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1967620

 

I have had quite a bit of success in our print line as well as for stock. While this here was a dud...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2091205

"Knowing that your lifestyle depends on making images that people want to buy is going to affect your style drastically, probably in good and bad ways". Mr Bill

 

Actually once you get started in the "business" of selling photography, you better catch on rather quickly what it is that people actually want. Or you'll be licking the dust off your work. This I found out fairly quickly. The unique and artistic images were my favorite types from the more exotic locations. People did *like* those types of shots and I would hear some nice remarks. At the very same time however, they would then put that print back down and then purchase the far less artistic (in my mind anyway) images from very recognizable locations. Often people, when given the opportunity, would prefer purchasing something that they are somewhat familiar with or have actually been to. The key was to try to make those images from recognizable locations as artistic as is possible. So in that sense, yes it can alter ones style as it certainly did mine. In fact we actually named my business on this clearly obvious premise. Hence "Hawaiian LandMark Images" was born. However all is not lost in this endeavor to shoot what I also like to shoot. Once we became established and had a strong foundation of saleable images, then I found it to be possible to ADD these more artistic images from less recognizable locations. Now our print line has a healthy combination of both types of fine-art prints. Though obviously far more of the former than the latter.

 

"Would this picture have commercial value as part of a series of shots of Zanzibar or tropical beaches or camels or the sociopolitical implications of tourism?" Mr B.

 

I would think that yes! there would be a place for an image like this in some type of a collage or series of images from here. Though again, I also believe a stock photo could be *created* that could make it far more effective. As we know this was live. Commercially I think it would have a better chance than as fine-art.

 

 

"Thank you Vincent, for your reply. This discussion is now echoing another that is taking place at: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DxSA also started by Marc, who seems to be everywhere!"

 

I am done. Perhaps later on. Marc has his opinions and so do we all. He has a few "Oscars" in my book. But that's an inside joke between he and I. We like to have a little fun once in a while. Same with Carl. So where is Carl?...

"for me time is NOT money -as I already said - Time is pleasure." Marielou D.

 

Cool. Good for you too Marielou. However, if I had that approach, I'd probably be living in a van down by the river...

 

"I don't make pictures for money. You do. great difference between you and me and that makes us in radical opposite worlds." Marielou

 

Not really. I take pictures, you take pictures. I edit pictures, you edit pictures. I post pictures, you post pictures. I get paid for my pictures, you get to lay out on the beach and get your picture taken. We really are not that opposite now are we?

 

Aloooohaaa!!

Perhaps you did not read my last comment Marielou. Here, I did say this:

 

"As a documentary photo, street shot and even travel image it does successfully show an interesting contrast of activities and well captured at that."

 

I believe I also said that because I DO sell fine-art (as well as stock) my point of view may be somewhat altered here. In other words I am looking at this from those points of view since this is what I do. From my OWN point of view here then, I personally do not believe this would succeed as fine-art anywhere. That's just my opinion. The placement of the people sort of ruin that romantic or tropical appeal for me. Even for stock use, I doubt it would have that great of an interest, for the same reasons. Though I will also add it could be used in some situation, just that the position of the people could be much improved if this were staged specifically for a stock usage photo.

 

You also said this:

 

"Without the two guys and without the camel this picture would say nothing and would just be a postcard from a beach from anywhere around the near equator world."

 

Right or wrong, that is the same point I was making Marielou. At least this way you could actually make an income from the image. And I even ammended my point of view to include the camel without any people. That too could work as a postcard, possibly fine-art and yes even for stock. In other words, I believe this could be used commercially, to make money, with those adjustments. Perhaps as Bill mentioned THAT is really not what's important here to you or anybody looking at this. But from somebody that is looking to carve out a future in this business exclusively, then it definitely could make a difference. Thanks again.

"Does every shot have to be a postcard or have commercial value or even artistic value? This shot shows that particular moment in the world, and does so very well. Isn't that enough?" Bill Foster

 

THAT is a good point you make Bill. I certainly cannot disagree with you from that point of view. Perhaps as a photographer that does earn a living, my own point of view has been somewhat altered. I too take plenty of images for just personal use that would have no appeal commercially whatsoever. And I am not saying this image has NO commercial appeal by the way. Perhaps since this is a POW, I have taken a more critical approach than I would normally. From the standpoint you mentioned above "This shot shows that particular moment in the world, and does so very well." you are very right indeed. As a documentary photo, street shot and even travel image it does successfully show an interesting contrast of activities and well captured at that. As for fine-art, and in my opinion, in terms of marketability, I would still like this better without the people and perhaps also without even the camel.

 

Thanks for the thoughts, this is how we improve.

Try attachment again.

Cheers to that!

Here is a version I might find workable. After looking it over during our fun conversation (and in between 14th World Series baseball), I guess I have a problem with the PEOPLE in this scene, much more than with the camel itself. Without the people, I actually find this quite interesting. Perhaps moreso than even roosters...

"You may continue shooting the usual postcard of the same beach without the camel and the men - which all stock agencies have thousands of...:-)" Marc G.

 

Interesting, though there are "thousands of the same", as you say, I wonder why I sold the rights to 15 earlier today, to two different marketing agencies. The bottom line in my opinion, is that the camel posse adds no real value to this image. In fact quite the opposite. It takes away from a very marketable, aesthetically appealing image, for the sake of being different? We have gazillions of roosters on Kauai. I have plenty of very good images of them by the way. Guess how many travel brochures showcase these roosters. Guess how many requests I get for stock usage. I doubt the camels on the beach would attract visitors to this place. Perhaps they would attract you though. Go for it!

And yes, it happens to be quite humorous" Marc G.

 

It is?? Perhaps you'd like to tell me what's so funny. Oh yes, there is a camel on the beach... aaaahahhahahahahahaahh

 

"all we need to do is to kick the camel "out of the way" - or we can be kind and let it go away by himself...:-) And then, finally, we'll get "something worth keeping", meaning: something 100 times less original" Marc

 

Okay then how then would you use this image? No stock company that I can think of would want it. Fine art?? Not a chance. On Marilou's wall? Doubt that too. Just because an image is different, or "less original" does not make it in any way better. In fact there is a probably a good reason why this is more original than 100s of others as you say: It's not really worth shooting in my opinion. (No offense Marielou, I do think you have an outstanding portfolio too by the way!) Without question, I would probably like shooting the sailboat with the nice turquoise layers quite a bit. If this mini-caravan walked in front of my lens, I'd also probably be looking to find another shot. Technically it looks fine I guess if that is the goal (with the exception of line through the head). While it is different than what you would might typically find, I just don't think it works as anything special. If I'm shooting Yosemite landscape and a cop on a horse walks in my view, have I really improved that shot just because "it's more original" Don't think so marco. Sorry to disagree with you.

For me, this does not work. Their is really nothing special about the little "camel procession" in this image. The sailboat as well as the layered turquoise colors at least gives this shot a chance, because in my mind it gives the image a tropical and perhaps even a somewhat romantic atmosphere. Either of those potential atmosphere's are shot off the page with the camel party. It's a contrast that does not fit unless perhaps the goal is a somewhat humorous one. And even there, it's not much of that either. I would guess waiting a few more seconds when the posse is completely out of the way would open up a better opportunity for something worth keeping.

Thank you Denis! I appreciate your clarifying these things.

 

If I were looking to purchase a print of this as fine art, I would probably not be overly concerned about exactly HOW the sky came to like it is now. I am sure a few serious "museum gallery" buyers might want to know, but I would guess most would just be happy with a beautiful print. On the other hand, this is a photography site. Before I personally chime in and decide to comment on whether I like an image or not, (and many others feel the same) I DO wnat to know how this effect was achieved. To me, it adds value as well as strengthens my appreciation for the image that you did in fact capture this as explained above, rather than simply running a blur tool over the sky. Either way it would still be quite a beautiful image. But in my mind, it is more than just a beautiful image, because now I know (as a fellow photographer) how much work actually went into this capture.

 

Thanks again for taking the time. I have learned some things along the way too. Beautiful work indeed!

On his website, in the same series, this image here looks (to me) that a blur tool was definitely used on the clouds.

 

http://www.denisolivier.com/p_sets.php?sid=21&pid=726

 

*IF* it was used on the clouds on that image of the series, then what makes it impossible to believe it was also used on this image of that same series?

I do know you CAN stack polarizers, and have done this a time or two myself. It's my opinion though, that you could stack several polarizers for a daytime scene and still not buy enough time for an exposure this long here. Now, Michael makes a point regarding this perhaps being a stiff grass-like substance on the field, and which would not sway. If this IS a daytime scene -which it always looked like to me- then I simply cannot buy into this image (specifically the clouds) being unmanipulated unless there is a VERY stiff breeze. These clouds are very low, very thick, and in my opinion it would take several minutes at the minium to move this mass, this far, even if it were windy. I am more persuaded by the notion that this may in fact be a night shot. I have seen others similar to this such as here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1055515

 

The tech details listed it as a ten minute exposure. Or how about this seven minute exposure:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1455130

 

Again, if this is a daytime image, I would not have any idea how I could slow the shutter the five or more minutes that I believe was needed to record this image. I am not saying this adamantly, nor that the photographer is dishonest. I am simply asking to be persuaded by somebody that this is indeed what happened naturally, and that the blur tool was not used on the sky instead.

"Perhaps you're a purist who believes that a photo should reflect as closely as possible what was seen with the eye. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a little like religion: don't fall into the line of thinking that your way is the only way."

 

No I am not a purist, nor am I thinking my way is the "only way". Where did you come up with that anyway? I simply said: "I have a hard time believing this is unmanipulated". I then logically laid out why I have a hard time believing. And I am still not completely convinced yet, but do see a few possibilities now. Here is what B&H says about the 20-D:

 

"Shutter Speed 30 - 1/8000 second, Bulb"

 

If it is true that one can use a longer exposure than 30 seconds with the 20-D, then that certainly does make the "possibility" of this being unmanipulated more reasonable. If this was taken at night, under a full moon, that too would add immensely to the argument. However, with digital, anything over 30 seconds will almost always have significant noise issues, but that too by itself can be overcome. Also, if this were taken during the daytime -as I had perhaps wrongly assumed- I cannot see even with stacked polarizers and heavy ND filters, you would get this long of an exposure under these conditions. With a polarizer, in overcast conditions, in a dark cove shooting a stream, the best I can get is perhaps 5-10 seconds max. To give the photographer the benefit of the doubt here, I would have to assume this was taken at night, with an exposure of most likely over ten minutes. Only then, can I see the possibility that this is unmanipulated. As Marc mentioned he appears to have used photoshop blur on other images, so it would be helpful if the photographer could share a few extra details on this one to clear away doubts.

 

I never commented on whether I like this or not, I noticed the unmanipulated box checked, and a red flag popped up. As for the 2.8 issue, I do agree he may have meant the speed of the lens in general. However usually you do not add the "f" in the tech details for general speed, but instead to list the actual aperture for that particular image.

I have a difficult time believeing this is unmanipulated. The clouds for one are long and thick here. The only way I can see this type of movement with this thick mass of cloud cover is for one of two things to happen. 1) This would have to be a VERY long exposure. Or 2) It would have to be rather windy on this day. The problem is that if it were windy enough to blow these clouds briskly, you would obviously have blurred grass and trees as well. Not the case obviously, so we can quickly rule that idea out conclusively. The other possibility then, is that this was a very long exposure because we already know there is no wind at all. The problem with the idea of a very long exposure is that not only would digital noise likely become an issue in the darkened sky, but the Cannon 20-D can only expose an image for 30 seconds maximum. Which is a known negative issue for many landscape photographers, and applies to most all digital cameras. Now, I live here in the Hawaiian islands where brisk trade winds are a regular part of life. Here IS a 30 second exposure attached. Notice while there is some movement in the clouds, clearly not near as much in this image posted here. So then, who would like to explain how these clouds moved this much in under 30 seconds with no wind, and no digital noise??

 

Also the photographer lists the aperture at 2.8. I'd also like to hear how you can get a 30 second exposure, in daylight, at 2.8 without blowing the image to pieces?

Re-loaded an improved version 10-4-05 removing some of the reds through channels, as well as a few other adjustments. Thanks for all of your helpful comments. The original version is also attached here for those that want to compare. Aloha.

Thanks for your opinions. Yes Stephen the experience was actually greater than anticipated. I was able to get as close as I could handle and shoot until I was shot. I have since went back once just last month. Hiked eight miles round trip at night with flashlights with my son, only to never even get the camera out of the bag. Zero! Was just nothing available without risking our lives. The location we did not go onto fell into the ocean three weeks later...

 

This is not cropped Roger. In fact I rarely crop anything since I need to print very large. Is imperative I compose correctly the first time. Not always the case, but I do try. Thanks again. Aloha.

I too somewhat prefer the uniqueness of the other two Sean. However, I think this one is a little more what people actually envision with the volcano. Yes you could see around pretty well on this evening. Still, needed a flashlight on the hike back to the car. A very long, but eventful evening. Thanks for the comments.

The fourth from a series of ocean-entry volcano images last Summer.

Unlike the other three before this one, nightfall has set in, so now

the colors have become much more harsh comparitively speaking. Reds

and yellows now rule. While the first three were captured from a

ways up on the ridge, for this (and perhaps one more extreme close-

up) I am down on the beach very close to the action. Yes, you can

feel and smell the heat! As always ANY opinions are appreciated.

Aloha.

I would think that quite a few people might find this image appealing due to its simplistic nature just as it is. I can also understand why some folks would actually like the softer, somewhat muted colors. Neither of these issues really offend me by themselves. The slightly bleached out area on the right side here does pose a little more of a problem however. It caught my attention at first glance, even before reading Dave's comment. I don't see that as a good thing at all, though I might add it does not ruin the image entirely either. However, when I combine all three of these points together: 1) the fact that the colors/lighting are nothing special to look at...(you can find these in any creek, stream, river anywhere in any country). 2) There is no real focal point at all in the image. and 3) That the right-side highlights are actually a distraction, not addding anything really positive to the scene. Well then, I cannot see what's left that really stands out in a positive way. Like I said above: "There are some interesting textures in the water itself due to a rather slow (four seconds) shutter speed." But that's really about it for me.

 

The reason many images similar this one have some type of stationary subject, is because they give the image a focal point. A grounded base which one can always return to regardless of whatever else the image contains. In my opinion it makes exploring around further to see what else is out there easier to do. It also adds contrasting elements, which when successful give the one viewing even more to appreciate. It often makes the image more artistic looking and gives that "painterly" effect. Again, these thoughts are from my perspective, as I look at this image. (I do respect other viewpoints)...

 

So does the fact that this photograph does not contain that stationary element actually make it better, just because of the fact that most do have that element? Well, does a sunset with the horizon in the center make it better than one observing the generally accepted rule of thirds, just because it's different? There are certain circumstances where it does work better, but not always and not usually. Perhaps if this one had more interesting textures, and or richer colors then maybe it might be one of the few acceptions to the rule. In this case, with this image, I just do not see anything that unique or that good worth writing home about.

 

Although when I read what you said Marc, I think we probably feel quite similar. You said this:

 

"Well, ok, this POW doesn't move me very much, and it doesn't teach me much about the world, nor I am greatly interested by what I see, as a matter of fact".

 

and

 

"...I'm not falling in love here..."

 

I think we agree more than you perhaps realize. Thanks for the discussion. Is always interesting. Aloha.

An image like this usually works best with SOME type of focal point from my experience. Whether a leaf, dead branch or most commonly seen, some type of rock formation. A well placed stationary subject acts as an anchor of sorts and gives the composition a foundation. Here, in this image, I find that element to be missing and somewhat needed. In addition, this is not a very colorful image, nor really very interesting from my standpoint. As mentioned above the highlights are a distraction on the right side of the scene as well. So then what does that leave you with here? There are some interesting textures in the water itself due to a rather slow (four seconds) shutter speed. But that's just not enough to make this one anything special to me. Though I must add, after looking through this photographer's folders, he has some truly outstanding work. Most notably his "Lakes" folder. Beautiful images there!