[Krank]

Im after some quality climbing pics and the only photographer i can find who i think is any good is this dude http://www.ladzinski.com/. anyone got any good sites i can look at, most of the stuff i see looks like point and click. cheers

[squeek]

Simon Carter's site: http://onsight.com.au/

Alex messenger's site is http://www.snowfire.co.uk/  but doesn't look like it's working (for me anyway)

http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk/front.html

Gruffs site:  http://www.exposure-therapy.com/home.html

Alistair Lee's site: https://www.posingproductions.com/homepage.php

Dave/Cofe/Scouse : http://www.beardownproductions.co.uk

They might keep you occupied for a little while.

[Krank]

cheers fella i will check them out.

[Krank]

checked them out theres a few nice ones on dark peak and some nice ones on beardown but not really anythin that comes close to what i wanted. cheers anyway

[dave]

theres a few odds and sods on here, like this and this and this.

P.S. when you say you're "after", some photos, what exactly do you mean, some to just look at or what?

[squeek]

not really anythin that comes close to what i wanted.

What did you want?  Something specific?  I thought you were just after some climbing photographs. 

Simon Carter's photographs are pretty much all stunning IMHO.

[Krank]

i was after some pics to just look at and to see what standard of photography the climbing world has to offer, as i am a photographer and have only just got into climbin in the last few months i was wondering wot my competition was like.i was after stuff like the website i linked in my first post really stylised images not just nicely exposed straight shots.

[unclesomebody]

Maybe you could post a link to some of your own photos as I (and others) would be interested to see them... not necessarily climbing photos if you're only just getting into it, but something to reveal your style.

[Krank]

good call i wil get on it and put some up in the next few days.

[squeek]

i was after stuff like the website i linked in my first post really stylised images not just nicely exposed straight shots.

Simon carter's World climbing images book has lots of good photos, and Heinz Zak's Yosemite book, you might be able to find them in Waterstones or Cotswolds if you wanted to get an idea.  They're not really stylised shots though, probably because when you're hanging 1000s of feet up off a rope it's hard to stylise the shot and the best thing to do is to get in the best position and get the exposure right.  I personally don't like the stylised shots from the gallery you linked to, ie the artificial light on boulders at dusk/night.  They seem very artificial.

[Bonjoy]

 I'm with you squeek. I don't see how rigging a bunch of lights and getting someone to climb something in the dark is any less bogus than totally fabricating something with photoshop.

[Krank]

I think its good because it takes more understanding of photographic practise to be able to produce those shots than setting your camera to automatic and pressing the button. im not trying to put down any climbing photographers as i have seen some really nice images, i am just more interested in stylised images. I can understand hanging from a rope half way up a monster face doesnt leave you that many options so bouldering is probably where i will find the images i am after. I think it is better than straight photoshoping an image to achieve a style because you need to understand under exposure and light control and also need to be able to meter effectively, and to achieve this effect on slide film when there is a very small exposure window of maybe a couple of stops is to me quite impressive.

[Bonjoy]

 You seem to be saying that the image is better because it requires more skill to produce. Isn't it a bit simplistic to assume that artistic merit is directly proportional to technical difficulty?

[grimer]

I liked those pics. In answer to your questioney thing, Jon, saying you had an image of a climber hanging off some rock with a massive bolt of lightning striking a tree in the background. If the pic was of a bolt of lightning going off behind a climber i would find it much more interesting, impressive and exciting than someone photoshopping a bolt of lightning into the background of a climbing shot.

In a way, it's like seeing a real first ascent of a dangerous climb versus a toproped recreation with the rope rope edited out. Bot appear the same, but one is naff.

[Krank]

grimer you have got what i meant, im not tryin to say an image is good just because it is technical, i have seen some very technical shots which look rubbish, but surely an artisticly good image which is also technically good would be at the top of the pile. and personally i feel the images in the Ladzinsky gallery are the best i have seen on both fonts. i can understand that it is personal prefference which images appeal to you but those appealed to me and i wish to find more.

[Bonjoy]

I liked those pics. In answer to your questioney thing, Jon, saying you had an image of a climber hanging off some rock with a massive bolt of lightning striking a tree in the background. If the pic was of a bolt of lightning going off behind a climber i would find it much more interesting, impressive and exciting than someone photoshopping a bolt of lightning into the background of a climbing shot.

In a way, it's like seeing a real first ascent of a dangerous climb versus a toproped recreation with the rope rope edited out. Bot appear the same, but one is naff.

How would you know which it was? Perhaps we should start photographing photographers taking photos  .
 A photo of a lightning bolt would not be the sort of shot I was being critical of because the photographer is capturing a rare  and fleeting natural event (much like an FA picture). This is not the same as the sort of staged lighting effect photo I was talking about, such as this:

 Climbingjohn seemed to be saying he admired 'rigged' shots as opposed to 'point and shoot', mostly because they where hard to do. This seems to be more about admiring the photographer than the photo to me.

[grimer]

Granted, that one you posted does look like the negative for a picture of a skidmark, but i liked the creativity of many of the others. It just seemed like somebody trying things out and experimenting, many of which, for me, worked. And the thing too is thateven if it was done in Photoshop, i would still be very impressed, because to make a 'point and shoot' pic look like those would, I imagine, require a lot of skill.

Is it really that much different from using fill-in flash? Or that photo of Johnny Brown's of nine Toes doing the Storm lit by lamps, that people seem to like, myself included?

[Bonjoy]

 The above shot isn't bad, but my point is this sort of thing is somewhat devalued by the fact you could produce an almost identical image in next to no time by splicing two shots together in photoshop. What's the point of the photographer doing it the hard way. So we can admire his proficiency and dedication? Perhaps he didn't do it the hard way. We'd be none the wiser either way. The value of the image therefore rests soully on our belief regarding the way the image was derived. To my mind this is slippery ground.
 That said there are some amazing photos on that site.

[Bonjoy]

Is it really that much different from using fill-in flash? Or that photo of Johnny Brown's of nine Toes doing the Storm lit by lamps, that people seem to like, myself included?

I'm not against 'special effects' if you will, per se. If used subtly they can make a great photo. My original point being just that special effects alone do not a good photo make.

[Krank]

i know that the images are not photoshoped because i have been in contact with the photographer. and the point of doin something the hard way is because you can it shows your skill and talant. ever done eliminate boulder problems say no thumbs wot is the point of that? or sitting starts wots the point when you could do the problem from standing. Point and shoot is not real photography its just like holiday happy snaps to show talent and skill in camera controll is the whole point of photography at a higher level.

[grimer]

The value of the image therefore rests soully on our belief regarding the way the image was derived. To my mind this is slippery ground.
 That said there are some amazing photos on that site.

Well this is almost an exact parallel of the analogy of genuine photographs of bold ascents, compared to staged ones with the top rope tucked around the corner.

[Bonjoy]

 i know that the images are not photoshoped because i have been in contact with the photographer. and the point of doin something the hard way is because you can it shows your skill and talant. ever done eliminate boulder problems say no thumbs wot is the point of that? or sitting starts wots the point when you could do the problem from standing. Point and shoot is not real photography its just like holiday happy snaps to show talent and skill in camera controll is the whole point of photography at a higher level.

To me the point of photography is to produce good photos. Therefore it matters nothing if the image came about as a result of years of practice and the application of difficult techniques or if it came about by blind fluke. Visually I prefer simplicity over obvious artifice, whether that be derived via technical equipment or digital/manual post processing.

[Krank]

you wouldnt be happy to stay at the same climbing grade forever would you? everyone wants to get better and it is the same for photogrphers. point and click with good exposure is the first step, then the mastery of different technical aspects of photography such as dark room techniques or advanced light metering is where you go next if you wanna get better. i say again, appealing images are even better if they have a high technical standard.

[Bonjoy]

The value of the image therefore rests soully on our belief regarding the way the image was derived. To my mind this is slippery ground.
 That said there are some amazing photos on that site.

Well this is almost an exact parallel of the analogy of genuine photographs of bold ascents, compared to staged ones with the top rope tucked around the corner.

True enough, that's murky water too. Often in those circumstances a shaky amatuer shot has more life to it than a pro shot because it has the ring of truth and is obviously of the actual event. I'm not suggesting this subjective element can be removed always.

[Bonjoy]

you wouldnt be happy to stay at the same climbing grade forever would you? everyone wants to get better and it is the same for photogrphers. point and click with good exposure is the first step, then the mastery of different technical aspects of photography such as dark room techniques or advanced light metering is where you go next if you wanna get better. i say again, appealing images are even better if they have a high technical standard.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying technical proficiency has no merit. I am saying the image is more important than the skill taken to make it. Take a look at the pictures that get voted highly on Ukclimbing.com. Many are obviously by skilled photographers but others are clearly technically weak but evocative nonetheless, because they capture something rare, or are good by fluke, or juxtapose interesting things.