4 ms·

But the emphasis was on the processing, not the content of the images themselves, other than cropping. I don't think the intention at this point was to get into

But the emphasis was on the processing, not the content of the images themselves, other than cropping. I don't think the intention at this point was to get into adding / removing actual physical elements from the scene. Edit: I guess it depends if there were other images in their corpus that didn't have any flaws, but who's to know?

brudgers 9y ago
With the exception of the weakly snow capped mountains (part of photography is showing up at the right time) different crops would have eliminated the conditions I described. But to unpack my critique a bit further, an unwillingness to make compromises like the weakly snowcapped mountains and paying the price of an extra week in the field waiting on foul weather is part of how professional photographers get professional shots...and part of how the maintain their professional reputation is not publishing shots that don't live up to a high standard. Or to put it another way, compare the images in the blog post to Carter Gowl's http://www.gowlphoto.com http://www.gowlphoto.com. Gowl produces a couple of images a year and those are good enough to charge a couple of hundred dollars per print. Even if the images in the blog post were appropriately high resolution, I don't see them commanding a similar price. YMMV.
- ma2rten 9y ago
  The blog post itself actually confirms what you are saying. They say they asked professional photographers to rate their creations. 40% of their creations were rated at semi-pro or pro level. Looking at their plot only very few of them got a solid 4.0 (professional rating). So, the headline is kind of misleading.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    Out of curiosity, I looked at the linked photos of Jasper National Park (one of the locations) on Google maps. They make an interesting point of comparison, https://www.google.com/search?q=jasper+national+park https://www.google.com/search?q=jasper+national+park
stephencanon 9y ago
In our modern era of digital photography, 99% of what makes a great photograph is the content, not the processing. Being able to make a technically flawless image is interesting, but to compare it to serious professional photography misses the point almost completely. To be fair, there's plenty of technically good but uninteresting professional photography, too.

brudgers 9y ago

With the exception of the weakly snow capped mountains (part of photography is showing up at the right time) different crops would have eliminated the conditions I described. But to unpack my critique a bit further, an unwillingness to make compromises like the weakly snowcapped mountains and paying the price of an extra week in the field waiting on foul weather is part of how professional photographers get professional shots...and part of how the maintain their professional reputation is not publishing shots that don't live up to a high standard. Or to put it another way, compare the images in the blog post to Carter Gowl's http://www.gowlphoto.com http://www.gowlphoto.com. Gowl produces a couple of images a year and those are good enough to charge a couple of hundred dollars per print. Even if the images in the blog post were appropriately high resolution, I don't see them commanding a similar price. YMMV.

ma2rten 9y ago
The blog post itself actually confirms what you are saying. They say they asked professional photographers to rate their creations. 40% of their creations were rated at semi-pro or pro level. Looking at their plot only very few of them got a solid 4.0 (professional rating). So, the headline is kind of misleading.
- brudgers 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, I looked at the linked photos of Jasper National Park (one of the locations) on Google maps. They make an interesting point of comparison, https://www.google.com/search?q=jasper+national+park https://www.google.com/search?q=jasper+national+park

stephencanon 9y ago

In our modern era of digital photography, 99% of what makes a great photograph is the content, not the processing. Being able to make a technically flawless image is interesting, but to compare it to serious professional photography misses the point almost completely. To be fair, there's plenty of technically good but uninteresting professional photography, too.