Photographers' Union Thread

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Liesje Am I the only one that's never very interested in black and white landscapes? Not that they aren't great photos, I would just love to see color!

I think theyre both great in their own right. You get a much different reaction when looking at a black and white image than you do with a colour image though. Even down to how your brain processes and interprets the information. What makes the b&w shots interesting would be ruined by adding colour and vice versa. Theres a really good presentation I found online on the subject. I'll see if i can find it again if anyone is intersted in watching it. Its a 50 minute long powerpoint, so the production isnt the greatest, but the information is really good

[ntalwar]

Thought this was cool - the White House photostream on flickr released today.
Photos from the 5D Mark II (same camera as mine ).

Flickr: The Official White House Photostream's Photostream

[Liesje]

I love black and white, just not wide angle landscapes. I think for my eyes there is just too much texture when the entire landscape is black and white.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Liesje I love black and white, just not wide angle landscapes. I think for my eyes there is just too much texture when the entire landscape is black and white.

That's why you have to print big to enjoy it all.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Diemen That's why you have to print big to enjoy it all.

woooooord

[Jive Turkey]

Since we were somewhat talking about b&w photography, I think i'll post some shots from a few of the really great b&w shooters.

Irving Penn:







Richard Avedon:





Sally Mann:







Those are some of the more well known shots from each photographer, but they are well known for a reason. If you're unfamiliar with any of them, you should check out more or their work.

DISCLAIMER

I also want to post some images from Joel-Peter Witkin. I should include a disclaimer though. If you dont know his work, Witkin is known for his Still Life shots in which he uses cadavers (whole or part). The images can sometimes be disturbing, but they shouldnt be written off as just shock value photos (though if you think that, its just as valid as someone who says the contrary). They are beautifully done and strangely compelling. I'll put them under spoiler tags so if you dont want to look at them, you arent forced to see them. Please dont look if you think you are only going to be offended. Thats not the reason I'm posting them. I'd really like to hear what people think about them. Are they strangely beautiful? Do you like them? Hate them? Do they exploit the subjects? Art or shock value?

 

 

 

 

[RedRocksU2]

Do any of you know who Eugene Lally is?

I had the pleasure of talking to him for about an hour today at work.

[Justin24]

Avedons work is great. Reminds me of Diane Arbus work the last photos are eerie a little disturbing but done very well. I love B&W it give photos a different perspective from color photography.

[Jive Turkey]

Here are a few photos from the photographers in that first list I posted. Gregory Crewdson is probably my favourite photographer (along side Corbijn). I've never had the opportunity to see any of his work in person though, which is unfortunate. His prints are massive! like, 10 feet wide. From what Ive been told ,standing in front of them and having the photo completely fill your field of view is a unique experience. One day....

I'll spoiler tag the ones with artistic nudity because I dont know what everyone's work policies are. Its far pornographic though

Gregory Crewdson:









artistic nude

 

[Jive Turkey]

Philip Lorca Dicorcia is another personal favourite. I really enjoy his stolen portraits work. the concept was that he would set up strobes for a certain spot on the sidewalk in times square. He set up a camera focused on that location. All of this was out of the the sight of passersby. When someone would step into that section of pavement, the shutter would be released and he would have a portrait of an unsuspecting pedestrian. awesome concept and execution. The lighting is gorgeous and the expressions of the people have a sort of disconnectedness to them. If you didnt know any better, you'd swear some of these were set up

[bonocomet]

I really like the works by both of those last two photographers

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey Philip Lorca Dicorcia is another personal favourite. I really enjoy his stolen portraits work.

Apparently, he was sued for using those photos for commercial gain by one of the subjects, but the statute of limitations had expired. Those photos are great though.

On a slightly different topic, I've seen people rave about Capture One software for RAW processing. What does it do that other tools (like PS) don't?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by ntalwar Apparently, he was sued for using those photos for commercial gain by one of the subjects, but the statute of limitations had expired. Those photos are great though. On a slightly different topic, I've seen people rave about Capture One software for RAW processing. What does it do that other tools (like PS) don't?

If I'm not mistaken, it was the Rabbi who sued, claiming an infringement on his religious rights. I think it had something to do with it being against his religion to have an image of himself used in a commercial sense (DiCorcia sell his prints, as most artists do). That case, and any others that may have come about, were ultimately dismissed. Because they were on public property, their images are fair game to be used as long as they arent falsely portrayed or it isnt directly for commercial purposes (eg. you cant take a picture of a random person, then use that picture in a newspaper article on mental insanity. Also, you cant use that persons image in an advertisement). the loop hole for DiCorcia was that, as fine art, the original goal of the photo was art and not profit.

Capture One has its advantages and disadvantages. For a lot of the more specific adjustments (anything involving masking, comping images, filters etc) photoshop is much easier and gives you the benefit of being able to go back and turn off layers you dont want. However, for tonal adjustments, curves, exposure correction and especially upsizing files, Capture One is far better than photoshop. I'm not sure the specifics are far as the program code is concerned, but the algorithms Capture One uses to resize are far superior to Photoshop's. It treats colour and luminosity differently, so when you upsize, its similar to upsizing a vector graphic rather than as remapping a series of pixels. You'll find that you can push the files much further. Also, because its not treating the images as pixels, when making colour adjustments you'll end up with smoother transitions and less banding. Capture One also gives you the benefit of being able to shoot tethered to a laptop and then have your adjustments applied in real time. I dont think anyone would ever use only Capture One though. Its a way to get your images as far as possible with minimum destruction to the file before moving it into photoshop.

[Justin24]

Some images from last weeks photo shoot.

[Justin24]