p.1 #1 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
Hey friends,
As some of you know I have been assisting one of my favorite photographers for the last year or so. I have learned a TON of stuff from him, but he just updated his portfolio. Honestly, i'm completely blown away
p.1 #2 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
Ahh bologna... your work is great, and you'll drive yourself nuts comparing yourself to Dave Hill all the time. Keep plugging away. That's what I'm doing, and I honestly believe that I improve every time I shoot. His new work does looks great though.
p.1 #4 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
My. God.
Noticed you several times in the adventure girl video. Awesome.
Jun 25, 2009 at 02:01 AM
monoatomic72 Offline • • [X]
p.1 #5 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
The photographs on his site are very well done and very much a pleasure to look at.
The rest though falls completely under the realm of digital art. While it does show a HUGE talent at being able to manipulate things in Photoshop and whatever other programs were used to create the final images, (and those images show the work, detail and absolute limitless things you can do with a computer and some know how) any of the "greatness" that the images could have been is lost when you have no idea what is real and what is processed.
Again the work is just amazingly done, but I'd much rather look at a good photograph, then a HEAVILY manipulated piece of art.
p.1 #6 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
monoatomic,
i hate to say it buddy. his stuff is pretty close to what it looks like on his site right out of camera.
I hate comments like that. haha
Jun 25, 2009 at 03:03 AM
monoatomic72 Offline • • [X]
p.1 #7 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
I'm sure the guts of the images are pretty close, but the final images are littered with extras that lend themselves more towards the digital art realm than staying in the photography realm.
In the Adventure Girl shot where she is holding the map, there is no rain, no giant rocks in the background, no birds flying off in the distance. The whole background is basically produced digitally. All of those elements make up the total picture that we are viewing. Although the girl, the sand directly around her, the map, and the bones in the ground are from the actual picture, the rest is included digitally. They weren't elements originally seen and that is why I said what I said.
Maybe I just look through the lens as more of a purist when it comes to what leans more towards digital art than a photograph, but to me when you start adding in elements that on their own would have drastically changed the way the picture was taken, the idea that the final image in anyway can relate to the original photograph is just lost on me.
Even though it isn't his, I'll use an example of a piece of work you posted recently.
The pool table shot. It was taken at a pool table in someone's house and it was a cool picture as it stood. The idea behind it was unique and I thought it made a good photo as it was. While the final product is a good use of your photoshop skills, wouldn't it have been just as easy to take that shot in a pool hall or a dive bar with a pool table and not done all of the digital processing of the image?
I don't want to start a great debate over what constitutes what, this is just my opinion of the work presented through the two galleries which have some very heavy signatures of being digitally worked on.
p.1 #8 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
monoatomic72 wrote:
The photographs on his site are very well done and very much a pleasure to look at.
The rest though falls completely under the realm of digital art. While it does show a HUGE talent at being able to manipulate things in Photoshop and whatever other programs were used to create the final images, (and those images show the work, detail and absolute limitless things you can do with a computer and some know how) any of the "greatness" that the images could have been is lost when you have no idea what is real and what is processed.
Again the work is just amazingly done, but I'd much rather look at a good photograph, then a HEAVILY manipulated piece of art....Show more →
I must say, I thought the exact same thing when I checked out Dave's site. The "photos" certainly catch your eye, and have an initial visceral pop. Next you say to yourself, "wow, that's really clever and well done."
-but about a minute later, I was pretty much bored and ready to move on, because everything is so obviously fake.
I imagine that this is only a problem, though, when viewing the whole collection, as we would a bunch of actual photos. If these were made to be seen only one at a time, perhaps in a magazine, then they probably worked really well.
p.1 #11 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
RianFlynn wrote:
monoatomic,
i hate to say it buddy. his stuff is pretty close to what it looks like on his site right out of camera.
I hate comments like that. haha
His photographs may be but there is an awful lot of photoshop and post production to get many of those in the slideshow you linked to. I have to agree with the others the photos are really good, great use of lighting, the other stuff is digital art and doesn't do a thing for me.
p.1 #12 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
I agree with all the post above.
Not to take anything away from Dave.
He's style is unique and he knows his stuff.
But it's so photoshopped it's def more digital art.
And you can say that that it's like that in camera.
But the only thing that is like that in camera
Is the subject and lighting.
The backgrounds, and extras, and toning, etc.
It's all composite and PS.
He even has videos on his site and you can see how little of the overall environment
Is shot together with the subject. It's all post work.
Which is incredible. But again, much more digital art oriented.
Personally, I'd rather see just a really well taken photograph.
And not something so run through PS so much that it is cartoony and "unrealistic" looking.
p.1 #15 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
RianFlynn wrote:
monoatomic,
i hate to say it buddy. his stuff is pretty close to what it looks like on his site right out of camera.
His stuff is phenomenal, call it photography, call it digital art, call it whatever you want. But that's just a ridiculous statement.
You obviously have a lot of talent, Rian, and whatever you choose to do with it will be strong and worthy, I am sure. And it's awesome that you've had the chance to work with DH. But it won't be until you start to move in your own direction (which I'm convinced you will) that you realize your potential.
p.1 #16 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
before you put this guy on a high pedestal, think that every photographer shows you only his best stuff, never the stuff he trashes. So look at it from this perspective, rate his trash vs yours if he cares to share it. Then you can better gauge his skills and yours as well.
p.1 #17 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
You put up straight photographs and a group of viewers will be bored and move on. You put up digital art and a group of viewers will be bored and move on. Never get caught up in other peoples opinions about your creative work. Maybe listen to the opinion of your MD if you are ill, but when it comes to your creative work it has to be your passion not what someone else tells you is great or boring. You will only give up your creative tools (sell your camera) if you let others steer your path for you or make you think you can't trust your own vision.
There was an old saying in the zen world, "if you see the Buddha on the path, kill him." I think they meant when you are on your journey you will not arrive by following someone else.
p.1 #18 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
RianFlynn wrote:
Hey friends,
As some of you know I have been assisting one of my favorite photographers for the last year or so. I have learned a TON of stuff from him, but he just updated his portfolio. Honestly, i'm completely blown away
p.1 #20 · Damnit. I'm selling my camera. Dave hill updated
monoatomic72 wrote:
I'm sure the guts of the images are pretty close, but the final images are littered with extras that lend themselves more towards the digital art realm than staying in the photography realm.
In the Adventure Girl shot where she is holding the map, there is no rain, no giant rocks in the background, no birds flying off in the distance. The whole background is basically produced digitally. All of those elements make up the total picture that we are viewing. Although the girl, the sand directly around her, the map, and the bones in the ground are from the actual picture, the rest is included digitally. They weren't elements originally seen and that is why I said what I said.
Maybe I just look through the lens as more of a purist when it comes to what leans more towards digital art than a photograph, but to me when you start adding in elements that on their own would have drastically changed the way the picture was taken, the idea that the final image in anyway can relate to the original photograph is just lost on me.
Even though it isn't his, I'll use an example of a piece of work you posted recently.
The pool table shot. It was taken at a pool table in someone's house and it was a cool picture as it stood. The idea behind it was unique and I thought it made a good photo as it was. While the final product is a good use of your photoshop skills, wouldn't it have been just as easy to take that shot in a pool hall or a dive bar with a pool table and not done all of the digital processing of the image?
I don't want to start a great debate over what constitutes what, this is just my opinion of the work presented through the two galleries which have some very heavy signatures of being digitally worked on....Show more →
I think It'd be better to just listen to Rian, dude works with the guy directly. I mean, ask the average photographer how to get these shots and they'll say "ITZ LUCISARTZZZ lolz".
