Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes  (Read 5112 times)
Kerry L
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2012, 01:12:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The only problem is not tripping over the deeply rutted footprints and tripod holes already in the sand.

That's getting to be a problem in a lot of spots.
Logged

"Try and let your mind see further than your eyes.”
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1851



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2012, 03:30:04 PM »
ReplyReply

One thing is for sure: I can think of many worse and less successful fine art and commercial photographers to imitate than Kenna.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2012, 09:37:32 AM »
ReplyReply

My intention was never to imitate Michael Kenna. I love minimal aesthetics and have been trying to find a way to use that in my photography. Murray Fredericks work has been a huge inspiration in that area for me.

Personally Michael Kenna's work has not appealed to me on a huge level, it may be that I haven't studied it enough. Michael Levin's work on the other hand I find very nice.

Most landscape photography I see is much the same, same places, same angles, same colours. I think the B&W long exposure approach makes the location much less important and places much stronger emphasis on the design aspects in the photo (composition, repetition, balance, textures, shapes, lines, etc).

It's getting very hard to create something 'original' when much of everything has already been done, and statements like yours, GBPhoto, don't really help at all.
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1851



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2012, 10:03:51 AM »
ReplyReply

t's getting very hard to create something 'original' when much of everything has already been done, and statements like yours, GBPhoto, don't really help at all.

Everything already has been done, but not by you and that is precisely why you should do it. Ignore the snark and just do the work. If it is good or great it will stand on its own merits. It really doesn't matter what everyone else has done or who other people compare your work to.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2012, 10:07:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Everything already has been done, but not by you and that is precisely why you should do it. Ignore the snark and just do the work. If it is good or great it will stand on its own merits. It really doesn't matter what everyone else has done or who other people compare your work to.

Thanks Ellis, the comment irritated me but certainly won't stop me. It reminds me though of a quote by Isaac Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Also we see the great works of Socrates, then Plato and Aristotle. Each was an apprentice to the former. None were copying the other, just pushing the work further where someone else left off.

Not photography related but still relevant I think.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 10:09:57 AM by pjtn » Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2012, 10:13:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Cheesy
Hello again PJTN. If I were in your situation I'd spend the money on things that would make an immediate difference. A good lens and the means to really hold the camera rock steady. The beanbag I use is particularly for the 70-200 lens, as it will pick up wind and very slightly vibrate. If you upgrade the tripod and head first then that will stand you in good stead if you go medium format later. But try before buying!
I too would like a 645D but I have come to the belief that with the latest digital cameras, the lenses are more important than the bodies (and number of pixels). Perhaps if I were printing larger than 24 inches things would be different. As it is, I frequently have to slightly blur my images to make them believable. The last thing I want is for someone to say “Heavens, that's sharp!” when they first look at one of my prints. Um, yes, but what about the content?

Thanks again David. I've been considering what you said and may very well stick with the 5D MKII. I'm going to order a much heavier and sturdier tripod whichever direction I choose and if I stick with the Canon I'll get better lenses. However, I've also been trying to arrange a demo with the 645D. If I get the chance I'll be able to better make the decision I think. It would not be smart spending $11,000 on a camera to see no difference in the print Smiley
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1851



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2012, 10:44:55 AM »
ReplyReply

It reminds me though of a quote by Isaac Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

When Newton wrote that he was taking a slap at  his predecessor at Cambridge...who was a dwarf.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2012, 11:01:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to order a much heavier and sturdier tripod whichever direction I choose

I bought arguably the biggest and sturdiest stills tripod out there.  The Gitzo GT 5560SGT.  I've never regretted it, not even when walking for miles with it on my shoulder.

For long exposure inspiration, look at Mitch Dowbrowner's work.  There are very few tripod holes and footprints visible in his portfolio.  I believe he uses a Sony SLR, but I have no proof of that.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2012, 01:08:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry for the collusional snipe earlier, but it really came out of the frustration we all feel at finding our favored subjects more shopworn with every passing day.

For instance, searching "pier ocean long exposure" on flickr produced the attached picture on page 4.  I was able to find about 1 pretty good Kenna-esque image per 3 or 4 pages.  I could have easily done the same for my genre, probably would have got a good one every page.

So what's a photographer to do?  I noticed that on flickr there is now a sub-clique that is moving the camera under piers, but facing as before.  As others have stated, just keep shooting.  You're right to forge ahead, it's all we can do.

Perhaps by giving up the old meme that our photos should have the quality of being "original" we can free ourselves to explore other aspects of imagery.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbuk1/5081877574

ps have http image attachments been disabled here?





Logged
ChristianRandwijk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2012, 02:13:14 PM »
ReplyReply

On the matter of walking in someone's shoes, using someone's tripodholes, standing on someone's shoulders, well, imitating someone's style, I think that is the first great step towards originality. Hell, if you go look at landscape painters from the last couple of centuries or so, we're definately all on their shoulders too. As far as learning goes, in most fields I think, that is the beginning. Finding someone you admire; be it an architect, photographer, painter, philosopher, physicist, or sociologist, and emulate that style (yes, science also has a style). At some point you are going to take a detour, wing it, do something different just because it feels right, and that's when you are going to be on the path towards developing/discovering your own style. I am of the opinion that you can't design your own style, you'll come into it at some point, and maybe/probably even be surprised at the result. To me that is beautiful, wondering at a picture you made, which you find beautiful, and wondering, just why did you do it THAT particular way. Then, slowly, you'll find out why you did what you did. I think emulating, copying, whatever you call it, is a fantastic LEARNING tool. I have done, and will keep doing, for some time at least, very very very cliché coastal landscapes with long shutterspeeds and ND grads, the whole nine yards. I won't show them to anyone, but I'll keep working to get into the grind, and discover my own style in there somewhere. Maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't, maybe I'll find out that architecture is really my thing (which I'm beginning to suspect). Just some thoughts...
Logged
250swb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2012, 03:53:16 PM »
ReplyReply

It has all been done to death, just as colour saturated 'Velvia' landscapes were done to death a few years ago. Nothing dates a photographer by being a year or two late. But, lets be realistic, all artists freely borrow from generations that have gone before, nothing is totally original, its all a progression. So if the OP wants to have a go and get it out of his system that is great. I just wouldn't recommend spending money on a camera especially to do it. The upside is that he could take it further, add his own twist, find a style to make his own and it all becomes a worthwhile excercise. But simply copying will only impress family and friends. In the UK there are some special locations that you see photographed and published in magazines and posted on the internet time after time, all looking exactly the same but by a myriad of photographers who got their special ND filter from Ebay. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

Steve
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad