[eszra]

I think you would classify what I do as fine art photography. I'm new with no technical backgrounds on the subject. Looking for feedback/suggestions/critiques.

Here is the link to my imagekind account:
http://eszra.imagekind.com/works

[Tomasis]

not so bad motives. like them but I feel that equipment was not good enough to capture such nice ones. what did you use for camera and lenses? where did you shoot?

next time post in gallery/finished works ;)

cheers

[eszra]

thanks for replying Tomasis. Some of them were with my old point and shoot. Some are with my new Canon Rebel XT, and I just use the lens that came with it (18-55).

[med]

those are awesome photographs... i have the rebel xt and i can never get any of my pictures to look that smooth or...nice. lol. great shots.

[eyewoo]

[eszra]

thanks guys. Since they are manipulated beyond looking like photos, maybe fine art photography is the wrong thing to call them. Like I said, I have no background in photography/art.

med:

For the new higher res Rebel images:
1. I shoot bracketed RAW at 0, +2, and -2 using a tripod.
2. In Digital Photo Professional I set it to landscape and then use either Cloudy, daylight, or overcast depending on the color I desire (I'm not aiming for realism)
3. Curve adjustment based on what I want the exposure for. For the 0 exp. I'll try to bring out water and around the horizon area more, +2 bring out objects in the estreme forground, -2 sky.
4. On the next tab I usually hit the button at the top that auto stretches contrast (forget what the botton is balled)
5. batch export as JPEG
6. If they aren't well aligned (sometimes this even happens with a tripod, seeing as the rebel requires you to hold the buttom down for bracketing) I'll load them into HUGIN to align and then export to a layered TIFF
7. I load the JPEGS or layered TIFF into the GIMP and then add layer masks and blend in the desired parts of each exposure.
8. I'll also duplicate layers and screen, overlay, or multiply for brightness contrast adjustment and usually take a brush to parts of these too.
8 After merging I might apply a mild orton effect or sharpen at half the default ammount (like 3 and .25 I think)

With my point and shoot I was also blending in an HDR image, but none of that since I've been shooting in RAW...

Actually the ones in my gallery are vertical panos X2 so I totally overload my RAM with layers and bog my PC down. I have all 3 exp. times 2 shots plus additional layers all at like 8MP. I need more RAM...

[Impaler]

Hey, not bad. Have you considered shooting .jpg instead of raw? Might help with the resource workload through which your computer is having to bulldoze.

*photo theory rant warning*
Don't get too bothered with categories, either. Strictly speaking, there are only three types of photography: news, advertising, and fine art. This isn't to say that the three art mutually exclusive. Lots (most) of fine art photographers have to butter their bread with commercial work, and lots of news fotoz have made it into the halls of Great Art. So, unless these are going into a newspaper (and they couldn't, not with HDR), or they're being used in a beach ad campaign, these fall under the massive umbrella of fine art photography.

It doesn't matter what post-exposure treatmeant you give them; flexibility is one of the true beauties of photography. You don't even need a camera to make a photograph. Kim Abeles makes photographs with smog and stencils. She calculates "exposure" based on that president's ecological history. Another photographer (his name escapes me) exposes and develops a 4x5" transparency all the way to opaque, then scratches away the silver like a scratchboard. Technically, that's still a photograph. Honesty and integrity is a value only in news photography. In ad work, a lie is an underlying assumption; we all know that bottle soda doesn't naturally glisten like a delicious jewel, etc. Deception and interpretation are inherent strengths of fine art photography. There are no rules to hold you back; there's only the image.

So what the hell is my point? Simply put, you're too young to get married to a genre or category. Flickr has fooled legions of aspiring photographers into believing that they have to tag their photos to death to distinguish them from one another. That could lead me into a whole new rant about the woes of bottom-up folksonomies, but that's for another day, another time.

Let me just summate: Your photos are pretty nice, cameras are the least important part in making a photograph, switch to .jpg if you don't have enough RAM, and let the critics figure out what kind of photos you make. You just concentrate on making them.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Tomasis]

I dont think what escra have done is photo manipulation. just simple pure photography

[eszra]

Thanks, I had no idea there were artists out there making art in those methods you discribe. Thats human inginuity at its best.

My stuff is more exposure blending then tone mapped HDR. Some similar results I guess, but mine is mostly done by hand (with a computer brush in GIMP). People on Flickr love my stuff, yeah I use Flickr, hopefully I haven't been to badly influenced by it Mayby there isn't a market for my type of work beyond the computer screen, but I intend to find out. I've considered local galleries but figured they would laugh in my face. I'll try to market the Imagekind gallery some more, at least its free. If not, I still have my love of just creating in the first place, paid or not...

[Impaler]

Galleries can be tough, especially if you're in a big city. Keep in mind that gallery owners look at at least 20 portfolios a week, so getting in can be extremely tough. You should also make several copies of your portfolio, since you'll essentially be dropping one off at a gallery for weeks before (or even if) you get it back. You'll also be giving them a 40% cut of any picture they sell. Keeping that in mind, galleries are about the only way to sell fine art fotoz, and it doesn't hurt to at least try.

Better yet, pick up a copy of The 2007 Photographers Market. It's essentially a phone book full of potential clients, along with what types of photos they buy, formats, etc. It's also the best place to start in a heavily saturated, bewildering market.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[eszra]

thanks Impaler. I have this idea in my head. Who wants to buy pictures of places they have not been? Thats one of the purposes of pictures in the first place... That makes local galleries make more sense really, people and tourists are apt to buy the stuff because it may meansomething to them... Just an epiphany (however it is spelled)

I saw that book at Waldens. It looks really good. After I get alot more photos in my portfolio I think I'll give galleries a try.

[GeoBen]

rather than concentrate on the details of the technology (some of the finest photo artworks have been created with the simplest cameras) I would spend some time on the CONTENT of the pictures.

these are all very pretty, but lacking anything to make them interesting. Yes, I like looking at Brittany Spears, but for a dinner companion, I would much rather Meryl Streep. I mean, you might want to have a conversation.

A photograph (as any other artwork) SHOULD be a conversation, an exchange of something meaningful. Ansel Adams photographed some of the loveliest scenery in the world, but each of his pictures carried with it something about AA himself. Where are YOU in your pictures?

regards,

geo.