[unclesomebody]

Would love to know how those night-time pics Unc posted were done, either in a hot-air baloon on a very still evening, or one big fuck-off stabalising system from a helicopter!!

Taken from a helicopter whilst using some hardcore 3 gyro stabilising system...

[slackline]

Taken from a helicopter whilst using some hardcore 3 gyro stabilising system...

Cheers had flicked through some of his pics, but hadn't had time to read about his set-up.

[Johnny Brown]

Why do you find those photos so offensive? Those pics particularly or are you not a fan of HDR as a whole?

In those examples, it adds nothing to the image whilst drawing attention to the use of the technique. I say 'drawing', its more like having a gun to your head. I have seen HDR used well, but as SL says its not obvious. The original intention was to find a way of rendering a scene of excessive contrast, not to take a scene of normal contrast and then make the clouds darker than the ground.

In my own photography, the aim is that any photographic technique or craft should be invisible to the average viewer, ie its like a window on reality.

Most  professionals shooting from helicopters use gyros. The vibration is usually pretty intense, you need to be shooting at 1/250 as a minimum in any aircraft. And you have to be careful to keep the camera as far from the fueselage as possible , ie your body damps the vibration. With a heavy camera that gets pretty tiring, the gyro helps with that too.

[Bubba]

I see your point but isn't it just yet another way of using photographic processing as art as opposed to an attempt at realism?

e.g. solarizsation:

[Johnny Brown]

It would be if it was art.

[Yossarian]

Just for the record, I find those shots offensive. Fucking awful. I think in ten year folk will look at much of this era of photography as a fucking joke.

abhorrent is another word...

great photography is all about restraint. self-limitation is maybe a better way to put it. and those pictures smack of knob-twiddling. just because you have the technical ability to do something (or a gadget to do it for you) doesn't mean you have to do it.  i suppose people have always fucked around with pictures, but in the old days it took a lot of time and effort, and you needed a darkroom and/or reprographic kit. now there's so much photo trickery (driven by advertising photography and software manufacturers) that everyone wants to have a go. it's fun. sticking your mates head on the body of jet from gladiators and stuff. but it's not art. 

most of these tricks are already becoming hopelessly cliched. i think a lot of it is driven by adverts. someone works out a clever trick. it looks great in an advert. everyone else starts doing it. it becomes ubiquitous, the novelty wears off, it looks shit.

anyone claiming to be producing art photography should be able to rise above all this anyway.

my pet hates also include faked film edges (some bloke in the times shot a load of images at wimbledon and then actually admitted to adding the edges on digitally - i can't remember if he actually claimed that was an artistic decision, but if he did then he's a cunt), faked cross processing (this is right at the nub of the argument - cross processing film is/was actually a form of limitation in some ways, closing off some of the latitude and making the capture of the image harder - the reward was (if done in a suitable situation) a lovely colourful twist. when faked the point is entirely lost.) and people who say, "what's occurring"...

[Bubba]

Beauty/art is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you don't like a certain photographic style doesn't mean that it isn't art or a good photograph. It just means that you don't like it.

I personally hate much of what is considered to be "great art" but that doesn't mean that it isn't art.

I quite like some of the hdr images - not all of them, but some of them are great imho. If you don't like the effect then that's fair enough but you can't just dismiss it as not being art or a joke - that just smacks of photo snobbery

[Yossarian]

Well, fair enough...

These are more my kind of thing.

[Houdini]

If you don't like the effect then that's fair enough but you can't just dismiss it as not being art or a joke - that just smacks of photo snobbery

Word

[lizzy]

For those of you into particle accelerators, the LHC at CERN. I'm pretty excited about it.....

[lizzy]

Although I see it's already been done, apologies.

[Bubba]

To prevent JB getting driven into a rage, I reckon a seperate HDR topic is probably justified

I quite like this (normal) pic:

[slackline]

That is a very cool kingfisher, amazing detail, you can even make out the membrane over its eye so it can see underwater.  It kind of looks like its in a fish tank though which is a little strange but either way 

[magpie]

That kingfisher picture is amazing, I wow-ed out loud at it 

I'm really tempted to give the fish speech bubbles... 

[Bubba]

I does look like a fishtank i agree but shurely it can't be?

I'm amazed how close it is to the bottom - so precise.

I think "oh fuck" might be a big feature of speech bubbles.

[slackline]

It'd be hard to do inside unless its a very tame kingfisher.  Its just the clarity of the water and stones at the bottom that don't look as natural as you'd expect (but then I rarely never go snorkling in canals or streams so couldn't say for sure).

Great capture though, reminds me of seeing a sea eagle swooping down and grabbing a fish out of the sea whilst we were on a long-boat in Thailand, wish I'd had my camera out for that one!

[SA Chris]

I does look like a fishtank i agree but shurely it can't be?

I'm amazed how close it is to the bottom - so precise.

It's also cool that the can take into account light refraction when diving into water. Pretty cool.

[Eddies]

I think its fake. Waters too clear, stones all different rock but similar size and clean, one little plant and that tree looks just like the ones you buy for tanks.
Right place right time?... Suspect!   Clever tho

This sums up my feelings lately:

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

It will be a fish tank...in the middle of a river. These kind of shots have been around for a while. I was at college in the early 90's with a lad who won young wildlife photographer of the year. He had a couple of these kind of shots in his portfolio. Not too difficult to set up but like most wildlife photography you need endless patience.  At another time he spent weeks (literally) lying on his stomach getting closer to rare sea otters. Mmm fun. The resulting shots were apparently the first of their kind, sea otters swimming in the wild. Shame the shots were shit.   

[Bubba]

Ah that explains it, good knowledge, i had no idea that was common practice - so the camera gear is in a fishtank and triggered remotely (or automatically somehow)?  Still a fascinating pic though.

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

It appears the lad still has endless patience as:
a) He is still shooting Kingfishers and otters and has somewhat improved since he was as college
b) he's gone and married Phillippa Forrester.

http://www.charliehamiltonjames.com/GalleryMain.asp?GalleryID=26216&AKey=RSHKR8D4

[slackline]

http://www.charliehamiltonjames.com/GalleryMain.asp?GalleryID=26216&AKey=RSHKR8D4

  Wow!!!

[Bubba]

Great photos - i watched a whole series with him and Phillippa F in about them raising an orphaned otter pup.

[SA Chris]

That is a very cool kingfisher, amazing detail, you can even make out the membrane over its eye so it can see underwater. 

Nictitating membrane! That just came to me. funny how these things remain buried in your memory.

[GCW]

Phillippa F

I used to fancy the pants off Miss Forrester, especially in the broom cupboard days.  Mmmmm