[joe.penn]

Wow, some incredible art on 500px using the 645D:

500px / Search

Rebeca Saray is an HDR master!!! Incredible!

[aurele]

impressive !

[Na Horuk]

Yeah, I saw those photos before, but they don't even seem like photos anymore. Its more digital paintings; I would love to see the actual workflow, to see how much is the photo and how much photoshop.
We should get those people to join the Pentax Forums

[Ristretto]

Hmh, from a technical point of view really stunning. But these pictures don't touch me. Too artificial, like paintings.

[joe.penn]

Yeah, I saw those photos before, but they don't even seem like photos anymore. Its more digital paintings

Hmh, from a technical point of view really stunning. But these pictures don't touch me. Too artificial, like paintings.

Hence the name of the thread -> Stunning Art Made With The 645D

This is by all accounts true art, as much as true art as oils created with strokes are. Those art pieces started with an artist's vision, then from there the 645D did it's part in the workflow, then suburb HDR Tonemapping techniques were applied to the exposure and then more than likely hours upon hours of additional post work. Really impressive...

[thechumpen]

Very impressive. Not seen 500px before. If you go to Market then Best Sellers there are some very good pictures there.

[RobA_Oz]

Hmh, from a technical point of view really stunning. But these pictures don't touch me. Too artificial, like paintings.

Interesting choice of words: from the Oxford, the origin is "late Middle English: from Old French artificiel or Latin artificialis, from artificium 'handicraft' (see artifice)"

If photography isn't a handicraft, I don't know what is (except perhaps for painting). Still, it's a matter of personal choice.

This all begs a question about the relevance of the format, though. How much of this could have been achieved on a 35mm or APS-C format camera? I do know the work of Bill Gekas using a Pentax K-5, by the way (and I see he's represented here, too), so a lot is to do with the artist, but on the technical side is it the sensor format or the artist's viewfinder that has the greater influence? I do know that, in the film era, looking down into the viewfinder of a medium format camera gave me a different perspective on the subject and slowed me down - I can only imagine a plate camera would have done more so.

[tuco]

Hence the name of the thread -> Stunning Art Made With The 645D

This is by all accounts true art, as much as true art as oils created with strokes are. Those art pieces started with an artist's vision, then from there the 645D did it's part in the workflow, then suburb HDR Tonemapping techniques were applied to the exposure and then more than likely hours upon hours of additional post work. Really impressive...

He acknowledged the technical post processing as good. Then stated his views on photography. No need to try and connivence him that half of photography is to be revered above any other aspect of photography.

[joe.penn]

He acknowledged the technical post processing as good.

Yes he did.

No need to try and connivence him that half of photography is to be revered above any other aspect of photography.

Convince him (I guess that is what you meant)? Anyways, care to elaborate? Maybe you posted to wrong thread or something because I see nowhere where anyone tried to convince anyone of anything. As noted, the thread was titled "Stunning Art" for a specific reason...

[Ristretto]

Interesting choice of words: from the Oxford, the origin is "late Middle English: from Old French artificiel or Latin artificialis, from artificium 'handicraft' (see artifice)"

I am German speaking so please don't nail me on my wording...

[Ristretto]

Hence the name of the thread -> Stunning Art Made With The 645D

This is by all accounts true art, as much as true art as oils created with strokes are. Those art pieces started with an artist's vision, then from there the 645D did it's part in the workflow, then suburb HDR Tonemapping techniques were applied to the exposure and then more than likely hours upon hours of additional post work. Really impressive...

Yes, really impressive, but if the result don't touch me all the huge work don't impress me. Even if Rembrandt or Michelangelo himself did this art-work - I don't feel concerned.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying this is bad or ugly or whatsoever. I am fine when others are touched with this and found it "true art". It's a very personal thing (which is typical for "art" by the way).

I think that is what tuco tried to explain (thank you, tuco... )

[RobA_Oz]

I am German speaking so please don't nail me on my wording...

I wasn't trying to put down your choice of words, merely trying to point out that "art" and "artificial" derive from the same concept, which is about the human effort that is necessary in depicting something. That begs an awful lot of questions about the value of the scale and direction of that effort, which is a discussion to be had elsewhere, but nonetheless boils down to a matter of personal taste.

As for you being a native German speaker, that wasn't obvious in your post, and anyway, there are far too many native English speakers who use words without much, if any, consideration of their origin and meaning. Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter is alive and well and thriving in this over-connected, over-communicating world we live in.

[em-tx]

I like Abbas Arabzabeh landscapes. I found them great. There are even funny, like one with ship. I do not like HDR. I appreciate mastery, but does not talk to me as an art.

[Sagitta]

HDR has so many different ways of being applied its not funny. Most people see the style where someone went "lets go EXTREEEEEEEME "and (in my eye) rightfully back away, then say the whole technique is bad, when its not.

I use HDR in many of my shots, but for me its usually more for pulling up small details otherwise lost in the shadows or for recovering details in much-too-bright highlights. There very much is a skill involved in not blowing up a shot because of sloppy HDR work, and the best (better than I at the least) can start getting near painterlike qualities because a painting will have a lot more range than you could pull off with a normal photograph.

You could say that the great artists were using HDR far before the concept was even considered.

Quick examlple:


If someone was to shoot a similar scene, they'd find the darks overwhelming, or the sky blown out unless they were extremely skilled and/or using a graduated filter of some sort.

Thomas Cole painted this as the human eye saw it, and the closest you could pull off a similar overall appearance in modern digital photography would probably be with HDR.

[LaurenOE]

I really liked her images/art as they show a technical competence and creative side.
Generally I am tired of seeing these kind of images as they tend to be formulaic.
The formula? Pretty women/girls, with a talented MUA(Make Up Artist), get together and do a shoot in a studio/setting in a classical angst/waif series of poses and with digital filters - voila - we get a heavy manipulated look.

This particular artist takes the formula and goes a bit beyond and mixes it up, so she rises above what we normally see.
She uses great props, and creative lighting. Her settings are also pretty good.
I will never delve into her kind of glamor/fashion/fantasy work, but I think she's done some of the best work in this genre.
Kudos to her.