Aim for the Sky

Panther

Shot with modded D70S, Thanks for looking

black mamba

Well done , Craig. I like it.

Azzaro

I agree with Black Mamba........ azzaro

DaddyO

Yes. Very nice.

Panther

black mamba wrote:

Well done , Craig. I like it.

Howdy Black Mamba,

Thanks Very Much!!

Panther

Azzaro wrote:

I agree with Black Mamba........ azzaro

Thanks Azzaro!!

Panther

DaddyO wrote:

Yes. Very nice.

Thanks!!

Skippy

Panther wrote:

Shot with modded D70S, Thanks for looking

That looks great Craig....... tell me something,
what is your favourite lens for doing IR with even though you shooting NIKON ... Skippy
.

Panther

Skippy wrote:

That looks great Craig....... tell me something,
what is your favourite lens for doing IR with even though you shooting NIKON ... Skippy
.

Howdy Skippy,

Thanks!

You mean you don't shoot Nikon? , I am usually the only Nikon shooter when I am out with friends.

I keep the 18-70 kits lens on the D70S, it's been a very solid performer in all situations. I do pic up a small amount of flare/or hot spot but in very rare instances.

I would suggest using the best lens you have that is IR compatable, since the lens quality as with all type of photography is a great hedge to good images.

Getting Close Huh

NeilL

Panther,

it's a nice shot, cool, balanced, classical. Unmoving. Museum.

If that's what you wanted, you got it!

But if you asked me my preferences, I'd shake it and twist it and hurl it and get it a little bloody.

You have a bow but it's not a propulsion machine, it's an anchor. You have high columns, but they're not rocketing into the blue, they're pylons stuck in layers of brown mud. You have, not a triumphant view reaching into the heavens, but the claustrophobic view from the bottom of a trap.

The energy of all the potential vectors in your image, if you released them, would warp and launch it.

To get to that blue circle of space you have to coil and spring! Otherwise you just stand and stare, helpless and unmoving.

Oh, did you want C&C!?!

Neil

DaddyO

NeilL wrote:

I'd shake it and twist it and hurl it and get it a little bloody.

Oh, did you want C&C!?!

Neil

Priceless.

It was once said in Hollywood that your were not someone hot until
Don Rickles had is humor with you.

I could use a good shake, twist and hurl in my photography. I know
bloody is coming though. I just don't want the camera hurt when
it comes. Michael

Panther

NeilL wrote:

Panther,

it's a nice shot, cool, balanced, classical. Unmoving. Museum.

If that's what you wanted, you got it!

But if you asked me my preferences, I'd shake it and twist it and hurl it and get it a little bloody.

You have a bow but it's not a propulsion machine, it's an anchor. You have high columns, but they're not rocketing into the blue, they're pylons stuck in layers of brown mud. You have, not a triumphant view reaching into the heavens, but the claustrophobic view from the bottom of a trap.

The energy of all the potential vectors in your image, if you released them, would warp and launch it.

To get to that blue circle of space you have to coil and spring! Otherwise you just stand and stare, helpless and unmoving.

Oh, did you want C&C!?!

Neil

Howdy Neil,

Uh Thanks!!

Interesting thoughts, it's a shame you really didn't tell me what you thought

NeilL

Panther wrote:

Howdy Neil,

Uh Thanks!!

Interesting thoughts, it's a shame you really didn't tell me what you thought

But, Craig, I don't know what YOU were thinking with this image!

Neil

Panther

NeilL wrote:

But, Craig, I don't know what YOU were thinking with this image!

Neil

Howdy Neil,

Sorry, I wish I thought about things like that but I don't. I just see things and shoot what I like, of course I like a lot of things that's why I have 4 external hard-drives full of shots.

The "Archer aiming for the Sky" is about is deep as it gets for me.

Kindest Regards,

Craig

NeilL

Panther wrote:

Howdy Neil,

Sorry, I wish I thought about things like that but I don't. I just see things and shoot what I like, of course I like a lot of things that's why I have 4 external hard-drives full of shots.

The "Archer aiming for the Sky" is about is deep as it gets for me.

Kindest Regards,

Craig

Yes, I understand what the archer is doing. But you? Seems you are using your camera like a mirror to show us something, but what? You say you like it, but what do you like? Is there some idea in it that attracts you, that you want to share? If so, do you think you need to do some of the same kind of work with your photo that the sculptor did with the figure? In other words, make something of the idea that you get from what you are seeing?

I think you haven't done justice to your own reaction here. That you did have a reaction is clear, despite claiming that such a thing is too deep for you. You post the photo and then you ask us to believe there is nothing to it?

Neil

ivar

The nice thing about art is that it can be seen and interpreted differently by everyone. It doesn't need to have deeper layers, it doesn't need to have a 'meaning', and the meaning can very between those who view it.


I like this shot; Perhaps it's a tad on the dark side, for me, but I like the fact that the archer seems to point at the light, it sort of gives me an 'reaching for the stars' kind of feeling, know what I mean?

NeilL

ivar wrote:

The nice thing about art is that it can be seen and interpreted differently by everyone. It doesn't need to have deeper layers, it doesn't need to have a 'meaning', and the meaning can very between those who view it.


I like this shot; Perhaps it's a tad on the dark side, for me, but I like the fact that the archer seems to point at the light, it sort of gives me an 'reaching for the stars' kind of feeling, know what I mean?

Valid point, and I do know what you mean.

I also like the pic, but for me it is too static for the idea. It's about movement or aspiration (I think?), but it doesn't give me that sensation. It remains a mental idea rather than an experience.

I guess what I am asking is, whether a photo should just "photocopy" the idea in the sculpture and architecture or take the idea and make its own expression of it. Panther has given us a very unmoving and grounded image of an idea which is all about shooting upward into free space. It's that contradiction I am concerned about.

Neil

Richard

NeilL wrote:

I guess what I am asking is, whether a photo should just "photocopy" the idea in the sculpture and architecture or take the idea and make its own expression of it. Panther has given us a very unmoving and grounded image of an idea which is all about shooting upward into free space. It's that contradiction I am concerned about.

Neil

Seems to me that both are valid choices.

Almost all of us have come to know works of art through static photographic reproductions of the originals. They are never as rewarding as the works themselves, but they can still provide a meaningful experience. There are also technical challenges in capturing the original.

The other choice is to incorporate the work as one element of a fresh image. This is the more creative approach; it is both harder and more fun. As Neil suggests, you can try to express the same idea the work is based on in your own way, but you can also use the work (or part of it) to express a totally different idea.

I rather like Craig's shot as is. I could also imagine shooting it closer in and to the left a bit so that there's more sky and less symmetry. I might also be tempted to have some fun by pasting in a BIF where the archer is aiming, or maybe an airplane. All of these could work, but I think it's only fair to judge a photo for what it is, rather than what it is not.

NeilL

Richard wrote:

Seems to me that both are valid choices.

Almost all of us have come to know works of art through static photographic reproductions of the originals. They are never as rewarding as the works themselves, but they can still provide a meaningful experience. There are also technical challenges in capturing the original.

The other choice is to incorporate the work as one element of a fresh image. This is the more creative approach; it is both harder and more fun. As Neil suggests, you can try to express the same idea the work is based on in your own way, but you can also use the work (or part of it) to express a totally different idea.

I rather like Craig's shot as is. I could also imagine shooting it closer in and to the left a bit so that there's more sky and less symmetry. I might also be tempted to have some fun by pasting in a BIF where the archer is aiming, or maybe an airplane. All of these could work, but I think it's only fair to judge a photo for what it is, rather than what it is not.

Nice comment, Richard.

Neil

black mamba

Richard....

I think your comments regarding this issue are very much " right on ". I particularly agree with the last sentence of your reply.

Tom

Qarik

excellent composition

Panther

ivar wrote:

The nice thing about art is that it can be seen and interpreted differently by everyone. It doesn't need to have deeper layers, it doesn't need to have a 'meaning', and the meaning can very between those who view it.


I like this shot; Perhaps it's a tad on the dark side, for me, but I like the fact that the archer seems to point at the light, it sort of gives me an 'reaching for the stars' kind of feeling, know what I mean?

Howdy Ivar,

Thanks!!

Panther

Richard wrote:

Seems to me that both are valid choices.

Almost all of us have come to know works of art through static photographic reproductions of the originals. They are never as rewarding as the works themselves, but they can still provide a meaningful experience. There are also technical challenges in capturing the original.

The other choice is to incorporate the work as one element of a fresh image. This is the more creative approach; it is both harder and more fun. As Neil suggests, you can try to express the same idea the work is based on in your own way, but you can also use the work (or part of it) to express a totally different idea.

I rather like Craig's shot as is. I could also imagine shooting it closer in and to the left a bit so that there's more sky and less symmetry. I might also be tempted to have some fun by pasting in a BIF where the archer is aiming, or maybe an airplane. All of these could work, but I think it's only fair to judge a photo for what it is, rather than what it is not.

Howdy Richard,

Very nicely put, Thanks for the kind reply and thoughts.

Panther

Qarik wrote:

excellent composition

Thank You Qarik

cmorganphotography

I probably shouldn't solicit you this way, but what gear do you use? How do I get as good as you are? Is it all technique and knowing the camera or is everyone an individual?

Panther

cmorganphotography wrote:

I probably shouldn't solicit you this way, but what gear do you use? How do I get as good as you are? Is it all technique and knowing the camera or is everyone an individual?

Morning CMorgan,

Thanks very much and that is very kind of you.

As far as gear, I had bought a new Nikon D70S and sent it immediately to LifePixel for conversion. I had been shooting IR for about 3 years with a Sony 717, was forever "Hooked on IR" so the natural progression was to move to a dedicated camera, for me anyway. You can achieve the same results with a number of screw on filters in the R72 Range, but the downside is much longer shutter times which cuts down on your percentage of acceptable shots due to movement caused by wind or the subject not stay still. A number of people get excellent to outstanding results from this, and it's a good way to decide if you like the experience and feel of IR, it's not a medium for everyone.

I have had a camera of somekind around me for almost 40 years, damn that just made me feel old:D everyone develops a style that they like, and it changes and moves through different phases, both in learning and styles.

I guess the best advice I can give you, is shoot, shoot, shoot. Look at as many images as you can, see what you like or dislike about each shot you see.

One thing that I have learned untold value in is being a member of several local camera clubs, and Camera Forums on the Internet throughout the years, get involved in them, enter competitions. Enter the competitions they have on DGRIN, learn from the critiques of your images and of others images ( but always remember others thoughts or ideas are subjective an differ from individual to individual, so don't necessarily change your style to suit others, but always listen to what they say an see if your image "in your mind" improves or not to you!! but think long and hard before you dismiss their thoughts, sometimes the images hold value to Us that others don't have the same tie, so they see it from a different perspective)

Sorry to ramble, but this is a wonderful Collection of Forums here, Andy and the Group, comprise of some of the Top Shooters from around the World, so keep your eyes on what you see and just keep shooting and learning, I learn something new about technique, processing, or shooting almost everyday, and for me, that keeps it fresh, exciting, and new.

Kindest Regards,

Craig

Awais Yaqub

Truely marvel

CWSkopec

Panther wrote:

I had been shooting IR for about 3 years with a Sony 717, was forever "Hooked on IR" so the natural progression was to move to a dedicated camera, for me anyway. You can achieve the same results with a number of screw on filters in the R72 Range, but the downside is much longer shutter times which cuts down on your percentage of acceptable shots due to movement caused by wind or the subject not stay still.

Craig,
I had to laugh when I read the line that you're Hooked on IR, only because your shots make me want to give it a try.
I haven't gotten my hands on one of the R72 filters just yet, so I'm left here to wonder if the colors in your images are there straight from the shot, or if you add them in post. It was my impression that most IR photos were "B&W" but yours always have such perfect colors in them.
In any case, thanks for always posting such interesting images!!

Panther

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Truely marvel

Thank You Awais!!

Panther

CWSkopec wrote:

Craig,
I had to laugh when I read the line that you're Hooked on IR, only because your shots make me want to give it a try.
I haven't gotten my hands on one of the R72 filters just yet, so I'm left here to wonder if the colors in your images are there straight from the shot, or if you add them in post. It was my impression that most IR photos were "B&W" but yours always have such perfect colors in them.
In any case, thanks for always posting such interesting images!! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Howdy Chris,

That's an old line from all the guys and gals that I used to shoot IR with, usually we said we were "Addicted to IR" but I changed it a little<g>.

Not sure what gear you are using, some cameras and types react so differently to shooting IR. Like I had written earlier, I started with a 717, which had a night shot mode built in, which when attaching a couple of heavy ND Filters and a Hoya R72, and in Nightshot mode produced IR Images, the drawback with it, although slight, was the fastest shutter speed was 1/60th of a second and F2 Fstop, but man what images that camera produced and still produces.

As far as the colorization of my images, most all of them that aren't black and white have been post processed using the "Channel Swap" method of changing the values of the Red and Blue Channels in Channel Mixer of PShop, and then of course a little piddling.

So, please give it a try, it really is a neat an intersting phase of photography.

If I can help or answer any questions just pm me.</g>

david-low

Nice compo