[grimer]

But surely you would admit that the pics on that site are a milluion miles better than what you get on UKC? And that the staged pics are still great pics? And that the photographes technical proficiency had allowed him to look great on the web?

[Krank]

Bonjoy i agree a good pic is a good pic even if its on cheap disposeable camera. but i am just more interested in the tech side and i am wanting to improve, so it is good to know wot images can be achieved through different means.

[Bonjoy]

But surely you would admit that the pics on that site are a million miles better than what you get on UKC?

I don't think i've said anything to suggest otherwise.

And that the staged pics are still great pics?

Some are good, some are naff. Generally I get more out of the straightforward unstaged ('point and shoot' if you like) ones on that site. That's my preferance

And that the photographers technical proficiency had allowed him to look great on the web?

What did I say that makes you think I think otherwise?

[grimer]

When you said that everything on UKC was miles better than ALL the stuff on that site, and when you said the photographer has no technical proficience, and when you said i like point and shoot, but only with a gun and an elephant. That's when.

[Bonjoy]

How'd you like this photo?

[grimer]

I like the way the photographer has used black and white mode to create a broody sense of atmosphere. Very reminiscent of Brandt's early work, yet with the underlying sense of social commentary more often found in Brassai. Five star?

[r-man]

That's one scary pumpkin. Whether or not you are seduced by the goulish artistry of this image, you have to admire the skill of the carver.

[cofe]

Point and shoot is not real photography

hmmm. just like climbing vdiffs isn't real climbing?

the ladzinski stuff is very good because it demonstrates creativity, not technical excellence. I tire of climbing shots taken with a 1500000mm lens.

damn it, i'm now involved in the bloody discussion. idiot.

[squeek]

and the point of doin something the hard way is because you can it shows your skill and talant.

Option a)  get 2 climbers at night.  Get some lights. get one to get to the second bolt, get them to sit on it, play around with settings until the picture looks right, get climber to pull on to the rock and take picture.

Option b)  Get 2000 foot high, hanging off an overhang in the right postion, the climbers you're taking a picture of are speed climbing so you they won't pose in any position, they're just climbing as fast as they can.

You seem to be saying A is the hard way, and B is basic.  Others might disagree.  If you're on the ground and can the climbers will just pose all you want and you can move the lights wherever you want, then what's the difficulty?

The stylised images are very good, but they're a bit more "Reebok: xTreme wear" advert pictures for me.  Technically and artistically very high, but they have no soul.  IMHO they'd be just as good without the climbers, because they're more about the lighting effects than the climbing, really.  In fact I might like them more without the climbers because they'd be a little more abstract.