I found the exchange between you and Jane interesting. The pictures I like best are those that you can remember after seeing them. For me, landscape shots have hardly ever done this no matter how fantastic the location, how great the light, how technically perfect the shot. So the b&w picture stays in my mind much more than the rest. As Jane said these are personal opinions, and Paul Hill refers to the role the viewer plays in seeing a photo - as important as the photographer. Classic landscapes do not demand much of the viewer. That's not to say they're not worth taking, but if you want more than an immediate "wow" you have to work at it. You obviously are hitting both based with this series.
I hear what you’re saying night86mare, I didn’t realize that I was being overly negative and I appreciate you calling it to my attention.
Bear in mind, though, that I put in a bit of time composing that critique already; delving more would be getting to be a bit much.
Its not that I didn’t like the images that didn’t work for me (didn’t rate any below 5), its just that I did not feel that they were that great (Marc has set a high standard, he has some truly killer images in his portfolio). I wasn’t moved and I really don’t know why. Perhaps it’s because I don’t want to be or go there to see the scene personally, but that’s not definitive.
I believe Marc already knows which of the images in this set are the true stand-outs. Marc didn’t begin shooting yesterday or last week for that matter, he’s one of the best Landscape shooters out there; you get into that position by knowing a truly great shot when you see one.
And yes I do like being called, Dexy Dex, among other things. My personality is lighthearted so my friends and I often tease each other with playful names and such. Nothing sinister intended here and certainly no condescending motive was present.
I know this is off topic, but could someone tell me where I can read up on how to blend 2 different raw files and how I can get a better understainding about masking landscape shots. I agree with the views of Contador 3 and 9 are the best, all of the other photos are excellent too.
Marc thanks for posting pics and saying how you obtain them, I have been inspired by your work. You providing a explanation has lead me to more interest in your work.
What first got me started taking an interest into photography was seeing your photos and Patrick Difruscia on Photosig and then I went to the TimeCatcher website.
Contador, I think Marc will understand your critiques and I just looked at your website. You have excellent work also. I am still using a 20D and a some old medium format folders from the 50's to take landscape pictures. Eventually I hope to get the new 5DmarkII and travel to the locations you guys take pictures at.
To all the pros, Please post more pics and explain in newbie terms too, so people like me (newbie) can get a better understanding of the process.
For what its worth, below are my thoughts on each image:
1. Rated 6 out of 10. Love the sky, pass on the foreground.
2. Rated 7. It looks like you had to force things to rescue this image. Probably the best you could have done under the circumstances. Potentially a great shot worthy of a return engagement with an exposure plan.
3. Rated 8.5. BAM!! Great light here.
4. Rated 5. Doesn’t work for me.
5. Rated 5. Ditto.
6. Rated 5. Ditto.
7. Rated 5. Ditto.
8. Rated 7. Quaint scene.
9. Rated 9. BAM!!! Crop to 4x5 might give it more umph by bringing scene foreward and more readily available to appreciate (see) details.
10. Rated 7.5. Crop to 4x5 this time to minimize (cut off) distorted perspective at bottom.
Not bad for being preoccupied as a tour guide, all in all. Quite good actually.
I’ve been getting comments lately because I seem to be on a 4x5 crop schtick for portrait mode shots. You can blame it on Rodney Lough who, I’m sure you realize, shoots with an 8x10 Large Format camera.
Thanks for looking. I appreciate the opinions on the photos.
From my perspective, the name calling does sound condensending. As does the 'tour guide' comment...not sure what you'd mean by that anyway, since these pics weren't part of any tours. It doesn't seem to me your comment was intentionally offensive though, so it's not that important to me.
I dislike numeric ratings greatly and don't want to get into evaluating images that way, so I'll try to listen to the critiques you offer.
I should point out that there is absolutely nothing 'rescued' about #2. I had every exposure I'd need and more to render this scene exactly how I wanted it, and with not the slightest damage done to any of the files. It may be that I preferred the darkness here that might give it the look you refer to.
As far as the rest go, I think everyone understands that you won't please everyone all the time. I didn't really feel that any one image here was much better than another, personally. I liked all of them quite a lot, and think they meet the standards I have for the rest of my portfolio. But there's no perfect pictures out there! Everything can be critiqued, and everything can be better in some way. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. It does help me to know what those opinions are, whether I agree or not.
Marc,
I love your pictures and please do post more.
We all can learn from you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and my opinion is: I love them.
Now, if you can share the detailed location of each picture ... it would be spendid.
Did you have a chance to stop in Babbs (Cattle Barrons) for the best steaks ever?
izabelam wrote:
Marc,
I love your pictures and please do post more.
We all can learn from you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and my opinion is: I love them.
Now, if you can share the detailed location of each picture ... it would be spendid.
Did you have a chance to stop in Babbs (Cattle Barrons) for the best steaks ever?
I've stopped there a few times, yes. Allthough I don't eat steak myself, I was really impressed to see a nice place like that out in a tiny locale like Babbs. Better food there than at St. Mary resort, IMO, and not as touristy or expensive.
Lots of beauties. The second and the black and white are my favorites. I like several of the others also. One thing that I like is that the water, while "slowed" still has a feeling of movement to it. I really like the dynamic mood you retained in the water.
Marc I have long been an admirer of your work and regularly spend time at your website.
In addition to being a photography nut I am also somewhat of a Rockabilly buff. In looking at your series here I am reminded of an early quote by Carl Perkins when speaking of a very young Elvis Presley.
"He made the rest of us look like a bunch of hicks".
That same comment might be said of you Marc. Thanks for sharing & take care. Bob
Aside from the fantastic color and great images (No. 2 is my favorite), I'm amazed by the absolute clarity and sharpness in each of the presentations. Particularly since they have been resized down to web size.
Even when I'm at my utmost carefulness it seems I can't get near that quality.
Do you have any secrets on sharpness, or sharpening prior to presentation?
ckcarr wrote:
Aside from the fantastic color and great images (No. 2 is my favorite), I'm amazed by the absolute clarity and sharpness in each of the presentations. Particularly since they have been resized down to web size.
Even when I'm at my utmost carefulness it seems I can't get near that quality.
Do you have any secrets on sharpness, or sharpening prior to presentation?
My web sharpening method has been very well documented online. There's a good percentage of photographers posting on the web that use it with excellent results.
Essentially, if you want a sharp, 750 pixel image you start by downsizing your file to anywhere between 1300 pixels and 1900 pixels, apply a simple 'sharpen' filter TWICE (sometimes even three times to certain selected areas where color isn't effected adversely) in PS and create a very oversharpened midsize image. You then downsize to your final of 750 pixels or so. Do touch-up's with 'sharp brush'.
There are many variations and considerations to this for every scene, however. You must adjust this method and play around with it to get it to work nicely for every image, but it WILL work as good or better than anything else, for every image and it's easy enough so you can play around with different variations each time.
That should help.
I have an action with the sharpen 2x but a fade that is adjustable (click the little menu box to the Right of this step in the action and then it will stop at this point for you to enter whatever value you want if you don't want the default value - which for me is 75%).
This process is awesome and requires using nothing but Photoshop Elements or CS (2/3/4) and works better than anything you can buy because you are sharpening while there is still a LOT of detail that doesn't exist if you make it 720 pixels first and THEN try to sharpen it....
it would be spendid.