Western Tools

rwells

Sorry about the watermark, but hey, it's the world we live in...

Panther

Howdy Randy,

Oh my, what wonderful rich tones and beautiful details, you have really captured the essence of the West with this one.

Very nicely done!!!

clemensphoto's

very nice job.

jeffmeyers

Great tone and mood!

Azzaro

bow........azzaro

Tango

very cool, great work!

Eia

Different, really good detail, mood, and color!!! Send it to Cowboy magazine!

What's the specs?

travelways

Sorry if I make an intervention here. I'm just a beginner in photography and I'd like to learn.

I'm wondering if the photo is not a little too dark...

On my screen in the right area I hardly see any detail...

Tango

photo-bug wrote:

Sorry if I make an intervention here. I'm just a beginner in photography and I'd like to learn.

I'm wondering if the photo is not a little too dark...

On my screen in the right area I hardly see any detail...

im putting my bet down that Mr.Wells wants to have your eyes drawn to the hand gun. hence the intent of dynamic range and guassian blur within this image...

travelways

AaronNelson wrote:

im putting my bet down that Mr.Wells wants to have your eyes drawn to the hand gun. hence the intent of dynamic range and guassian blur within this image...

Yes you are right - I see this now. Thanks

Tango

photo-bug wrote:

Yes you are right - I see this now. Thanks

once Mr. Wells weighs-in then we will know if i lost my bet or not...

rwells

Panther wrote:

Howdy Randy,

Oh my, what wonderful rich tones and beautiful details, you have really captured the essence of the West with this one.

Very nicely done!!!

Hey Craig,

Thanks for the nice words. Glad you liked the shot. We Texas boys have to keep the Old West alive

rwells

clemensphoto's wrote:

very nice job.

Thanks Clemens,

I appreciate your feedback.

rwells

jeffmeyers wrote:

Great tone and mood!

Jeff,

Thanks for looking!

rwells

Azzaro wrote:

bow........azzaro

Azzaro,

I take it you liked the shot

rwells

AaronNelson wrote:

very cool, great work!

Thanks Aaron,

I appreciate your taking the time to look and comment.

rwells

Eia wrote:

Different, really good detail, mood, and color!!! Send it to Cowboy magazine!

What's the specs?

Hey Eia,

Thanks for the compliment.

I'm not sending the pic to any magazine's though, it's part of my "Southwest Gallery" that I am marketing.

redleash

That is one terrific shot, Randy! Takes me back to 1880 or so . . . or, seeing as how we live in Texas, maybe it was last week.

I would've said "magazine shot" also, but now I am much more interested to see/hear more about your Southwest Gallery.

When are you coming over this way? I can't recall when you planned to shoot the missions.

Lauren

eL eSs Vee

That is a beautiful shot, Randy! Flawless, in my opinion.

rwells

AaronNelson wrote:

im putting my bet down that Mr.Wells wants to have your eyes drawn to the hand gun. hence the intent of dynamic range and guassian blur within this image...

Hey photo-bug,

Aaron is correct

I normally think it's a bad idea/omen if one has to explain a photograph. Meaning; the photo does not relay the intent of the artist.

I'll go into some details for your entertainment though...

First: This explanation is of course my opinion. It could be wrong, but it is mine, for better or worse.

I have been a working photog for some time now, mainly in the sports discipline. Due to reasons of overcrowding in that area of photography, I decided to diversify. I decided to delve into the "art" world. I don't fully understand it yet, but I do understand some aspects of art.

That brings up the second point: Some might not categorize this work as art, but I do. What's the difference? For this explanation, lets say that to me, a lot of "photography" should be technically correct, but "art" is free to break all the rules.

You have to find your own niche/look.

I haven't been posting many "art" pictures on dgrin due to this being a "photography" board. Not knocking that one bit. I LIKE IT! -- But, what that simply translates to is this: Most viewers expect posted pics to fall within the confines of a "photograph". Technically correct. If it doesn't, then it is perceived by many to be fowled. It then requires "explanation".

In this particular piece, my intent was to bring the modern day viewer back in time, to the Old West in particular. I also wanted to combine the (somewhat) look of a painting (on the right side of picture) with the more precise look of photography (on the left side of picture). The use of color, lighting, focus, texture, leading angles & rule of thirds hopefully gives the eye/brain different areas to explore. Not just to look at it quickly, and everything taken in with one swoop of the picture.

Can't believe I just spewed all that out I'm sooo mis-understood

Anyway, hope that helps answer your question.

BTW: Aaron wins the bet

rwells

redleash wrote:

That is one terrific shot, Randy! Takes me back to 1880 or so . . . or, seeing as how we live in Texas, maybe it was last week.

I would've said "magazine shot" also, but now I am much more interested to see/hear more about your Southwest Gallery.

When are you coming over this way? I can't recall when you planned to shoot the missions.

Lauren

Lauren,

Those are very nice words, & I'm very glad the piece accomplished it's mission to you.

I'm presently negotiating with a couple of galleries for my art work. (Going back to Santa Fe also) I've not come to a decision yet on which one, if either. I'm trying to decide the best marketing path for my work. (gallery, INTERNET, commercial) So, it's pretty much under wraps right now.

I'm not sure when I'll schedule a mission shoot down your way, but will ask for some info (if that's OK) before I come down.

Thanks again

rwells

eL eSs Vee wrote:

That is a beautiful shot, Randy! Flawless, in my opinion.

Lee,

I do appreciate your looking and commenting on my work.

Thank you

Tango

hey Randy,


you have been holding out on us?
there are more than you think that enjoy your work here.... its just the naysayers might over-talk us... get posting mister.

Jack'll do

Great shot Randy! Looks like it should be on the cover of "Guns of the Old West" magazine, or as an advertisement for the firearm. As a longtime SASS member and CAS shooter I really love this image.

redleash

Randy,
I understand you keeping your plan under wraps--I'd just like to see more of your work. As Aaron says, "get posting." I've been going for some more artistic looks in some of my shots, partly because I'm trying to let out my creative side that's been hiding for too long, and partly because I'm too inexperienced in the technical aspects of photography. I've been shooting since I was a kid, but largely for my own enjoyment. Only recently have I been sharing outside my family, including posting stuff on here.

Sorry, this is your thread so that's 'nuff about me. I just want to encourage you like Aaron and others did--don't hesitate to post your shots if you want to share and if you want feedback. I will most definitely enjoy it!

Best of luck with your efforts. And by all means, I will send you the missions info soon.

Cheers, and Happy New Year!

Lauren

travelways

rwells wrote:

Hey photo-bug,

Aaron is correct

I normally think it's a bad idea/omen if one has to explain a photograph. Meaning; the photo does not relay the intent of the artist.

I'll go into some details for your entertainment though...

First: This explanation is of course my opinion. It could be wrong, but it is mine, for better or worse.

I have been a working photog for some time now, mainly in the sports discipline. Due to reasons of overcrowding in that area of photography, I decided to diversify. I decided to delve into the "art" world. I don't fully understand it yet, but I do understand some aspects of art.

That brings up the second point: Some might not categorize this work as art, but I do. What's the difference? For this explanation, lets say that to me, a lot of "photography" should be technically correct, but "art" is free to break all the rules.

You have to find your own niche/look.

I haven't been posting many "art" pictures on dgrin due to this being a "photography" board. Not knocking that one bit. I LIKE IT! -- But, what that simply translates to is this: Most viewers expect posted pics to fall within the confines of a "photograph". Technically correct. If it doesn't, then it is perceived by many to be fowled. It then requires "explanation".

In this particular piece, my intent was to bring the modern day viewer back in time, to the Old West in particular. I also wanted to combine the (somewhat) look of a painting (on the right side of picture) with the more precise look of photography (on the left side of picture). The use of color, lighting, focus, texture, leading angles & rule of thirds hopefully gives the eye/brain different areas to explore. Not just to look at it quickly, and everything taken in with one swoop of the picture.

Can't believe I just spewed all that out I'm sooo mis-understood

Anyway, hope that helps answer your question.

BTW: Aaron wins the bet

Thank you very much for all your explanation.

I had no doubt that Aaron will win the bet - that's why I didn't bet...:nono

I'd like to assure you that I do look at your photo as to a piece of art, because it is a beautiful one

- I was wondering about a little bit of light, just point of view photo "rules", that I'm starting to understand...
However more and more I understand that there are no rules :giggle

Beautiful artwork anyway

Sam

Randy,

This image is absolutely superb!!!!! And yes I would call it art.

How do you plan to have this printed? The reason I ask is I think an image like this will look fantastic on a textured fine art paper. A fine art paper will add to the rustic, historic painterly look, warm tones, and feel.

Please keep posting!!!

Sam

jstpeter

Randy,

Great image, did you use some HDR techniques on this?

Jason

rwells

AaronNelson wrote:

hey Randy,


you have been holding out on us?
there are more than you think that enjoy your work here.... its just the naysayers might over-talk us... get posting mister.

I don't think there are naysayers here about my work, just people trying to help out on a particular photo. How would they know that a photo was supposed to look like it does? That's not an issue for me.

I've spent the last 4 months creating the look that I'm after for my artwork, and building a gallery deep enough to market. It's kind of a gamble you know, creating work with a different look to it, then hoping other people like it enough that they are willing to spend their money on it.

My gamble is creating artwork that is a far departure from traditional photography. (NOTE: the photo in this thread is not the particular look of my gallery. This photo is more traditional) There are literally thousands of great photographers out there producing exceptional photographs. That's a lot of competition. If you produce a different look/product, and people like it, well...you've substantially raised your chances of making a living from your work.


Thanks for your support...

rwells

Sam wrote:

Randy,

This image is absolutely superb!!!!! And yes I would call it art.

How do you plan to have this printed? The reason I ask is I think an image like this will look fantastic on a textured fine art paper. A fine art paper will add to the rustic, historic painterly look, warm tones, and feel.

Please keep posting!!!

Sam

Sam,

I appreciate your support & I agree with your reasoning.

I plan on printing this on fine art paper if I can get it done gallery wrapped, otherwise I'll print it on canvas. I'll print up the first one 24x36. This will go on my living room wall. I used to build rustic furniture and our house is a rustic western motif.

BTW, what do you think about the brushed on clear coating applied to fine art paper/canvas? Like it, hate it? - Who produces prints with it applied?

rwells

jstpeter wrote:

Randy,

Great image, did you use some HDR techniques on this?

Jason

You wouldn't ask the cook what he put in his chili, would you