Why We Love the Desert

[Jim Galli]

Couple of new shots today. I rarely play with the digital cameras. They are usually just for work so not much creativity. The evening light was lovely so.........

joshua

prince's plume​

Both with the D90 / 300mm f4AF

I would gladly receive criticism though think it's asked for too much so hesitate to include that in the title. Are these simply fluff? Cliche? I'm not a digi guy so have no clue. They took seconds to make which is very different than my usual workflow, but they seemed pleasing to my senses.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I would gladly receive criticism though think it's asked for too much so hesitate to include that in the title. Are these simply fluff? Cliche? I'm not a digi guy so have no clue. They took seconds to make which is very different than my usual workflow, but they seemed pleasing to my senses.

Hi Jim,

I like no. 1 best, although I wonder what we're missing colorwise (but then I'm a color shooter).

No. 2 is lacking in composition, the empty area at the bottom right is distracting, IMHO.

The Bokeh in both cases is very good, so it is useful to concentrate our view on certain image areas by using a wide aperture.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

I like second best I think the background is either too full or too empty on the first one ...But the background blur is very nice and shows an attempt beyond "just for work, not so much creativity"

 

[Asher Kelman]

Couple of new shots today. I rarely play with the digital cameras. They are usually just for work so not much creativity. The evening light was lovely so.........

joshua

prince's plume​

Both with the D90 / 300mm f4AF

I would gladly receive criticism though think it's asked for too much so hesitate to include that in the title. Are these simply fluff? Cliche? I'm not a digi guy so have no clue. They took seconds to make which is very different than my usual workflow, but they seemed pleasing to my senses.

Jim,

Together, the pictures talk of extremes of form. I'd go further with this exploration. Simple, pure and perhaps will work as a series. The advantage for you is that all you experience with framing in LF can be put to use in a second.

Asher

 

[charlie chipman]

I would gladly receive criticism though think it's asked for too much so hesitate to include that in the title. Are these simply fluff? Cliche? I'm not a digi guy so have no clue. They took seconds to make which is very different than my usual workflow, but they seemed pleasing to my senses.

Taking a picture is taking a picture I thought.
Be it film or digital it is up to the photographer to decide how much time and energy they want to put into the process, then end result is what matters.

If you made these with film instead of digital would it change whether or not you have a clue as to if these are fluff or not?

 

[Jim Galli]

If you made these with film instead of digital would it change whether or not you have a clue as to if these are fluff or not?

That's fair I guess.

These would both be impossible with the 8X10 camera. The lighting is almost 180 degrees out from my postition, and antique lenses have no tolerance for that. A Nikon with 300 is the perfect tool to capture dramatic back light.

Yes, I think they are fluff. I don't think 'art' is created in 5 minutes with a digital camera.

Here's one done with the 8X10 camera and an 1880's Darlot lens that has signature galore;

joshua tree​

Also fluff I suppose but magnitudes more difficult to produce.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

That's fair I guess.

These would both be impossible with the 8X10 camera. The lighting is almost 180 degrees out from my postition, and antique lenses have no tolerance for that. A Nikon with 300 is the perfect tool to capture dramatic back light.

Yes, I think they are fluff. I don't think 'art' is created in 5 minutes with a digital camera.

Here's one done with the 8X10 camera and an 1880's Darlot lens that has signature galore;

joshua tree​

Also fluff I suppose but magnitudes more difficult to produce.

Have to admit I like this last one a lot better, certain styles suit certain looks and those digital images look too sterile for me to make their subject matter 'pop'.

 

[Jim Galli]

Have to admit I like this last one a lot better, certain styles suit certain looks and those digital images look too sterile for me to make their subject matter 'pop'.

Thanks Ben.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Have to admit I like this last one a lot better, certain styles suit certain looks and those digital images look too sterile for me to make their subject matter 'pop'.

For this much dimension, we'd need a 24 mm for the full frame digital format!

Asher

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Hi Jim,

Ah yes, the instant gratification that is so far removed from the view camera. I'm not even sure how you do it! I had to get rid of the instant gratification completely, and work myself up via different film formats to large format, to make it work. I have not again introduced said instant gratification into my life, fearing that - as a non-professional - I would find it difficult to effectively mix both mediums. As somebody who has seen a bit of your excellent and unique work, I would have to agree that both shots are fluff by comparison.

I guess we all need fluff sometimes. Your fluff is technically accomplished, captured in beautiful light, with an exceptionally good modern lens.

Both would work excellently when fluff is called for (large, random wall prints to create mood in a restaurant or shop, etc).

But still fluff.