Amazing photography

So I was going through my Flickr page and typing in keywords to the Home page just to see others work, and came across this guys site...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrick-smith-photography/

I am blown away by some of these pictures especially in the "Big Sur" and "Yosemite" folders. He makes it a point to put "No HDR" on all his shots, I can't imagine how he gets them to look this way without HDR. Maybe just very talented in PS? Any ideas? It looks surreal.

They are amazing. Funny that he thinks it matters HOW he gets the image. That is what bugs me about the method wars. I really don't care what it takes to get the image.

Now I do agree that it is impressive if these are untouched single exposures, but I seriously doubt that is true. All the stuff I see there could be done with exposure blending that would not be considered HDR by purists, but is still technically HDR. I bet he is doing some sort of exposure blending on these. If not, he is doing some impressive lighting on the foregrounds of some of them.

Yes, he caught a great lighting scene, esp on that Big Sur shot. And yeah, HDR would not produce the same results, as it would combine multiple images and that would produce some ghosting effect (which can look neat itself).

Agreed a very talented gentleman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daq7

They are amazing. Funny that he thinks it matters HOW he gets the image. That is what bugs me about the method wars. I really don't care what it takes to get the image.

Now I do agree that it is impressive if these are untouched single exposures, but I seriously doubt that is true. All the stuff I see there could be done with exposure blending that would not be considered HDR by purists, but is still technically HDR. I bet he is doing some sort of exposure blending on these. If not, he is doing some impressive lighting on the foregrounds of some of them.

---

I don't see any dynamic range in these images that would require multiple exposures. It seems to me that he's just (and that's quite a 'just') taking them at the perfect time of day when all of the various light sources are within the range. - TF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daq7

They are amazing. Funny that he thinks it matters HOW he gets the image. That is what bugs me about the method wars. I really don't care what it takes to get the image.

Now I do agree that it is impressive if these are untouched single exposures, but I seriously doubt that is true. All the stuff I see there could be done with exposure blending that would not be considered HDR by purists, but is still technically HDR. I bet he is doing some sort of exposure blending on these. If not, he is doing some impressive lighting on the foregrounds of some of them.

---

I agree that the methodology isn't very important. But what's exposure blending?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I don't see any dynamic range in these images that would require multiple exposures. It seems to me that he's just (and that's quite a 'just') taking them at the perfect time of day when all of the various light sources are within the range. - TF

---

Exactly. Good catch as far as lighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GB1

I agree that the methodology isn't very important. But what's exposure blending?

---

I think it's kind of a lesser version of hdr. Photomatix (which a lot of use, or at least play with for hdr) offers two modes; tone mapping (which gives that "hdr" look) and exposure fusion, which is for more even looking shots without all the hdr stuff.

Definately cool pics. makes me want to look into some other filters.

Outstanding photos

HDR or not HDR, blended or non blended I think he has talent and no doubt his images are top notch IMO.
Great linky Josh!

what I don't get is how some of his shots that are "30 second" exposure look so good. Usually when I go higher than 5-6 seconds my entire shot is washed out, even on a tripod. I admit I am not very good at it, but how can you maintain the colors with such a slow shutter speed? any tips?

i bookmarked his stuff, pretty cool

I would say that's because he is taking most of these shots right at dusk. Everything is quite dark, but the artificial lights are on, the sky is no longer too bright and there is still enough ambient light to catch the rest with a slow shutter speed.

I'm certainly not anti-PP, but I think some are making too little of the hard work and talent that is going into these shots. He has maybe a 20 minute window each day when the light is right and everything has to be perfect.

TF

He uses a range of ND (Neutral Density) filters, mostly from Cokin (it's marked in the comments). Part of the filter is clear and part is dark, with a gradual transition between the two. You set the camera up on a tripod (as for any serious landscape photography) put the filter in the holder and move it up and down and rotate the holder till you get just the effect that you want seen through the viewfinder. Usually you darken the sky but in one case he used the filter upside down to darken the water.

Graded ND filters used to be very common with landscapes on slide film. I've got some for my Hasselblad.

And there is my point. If he is using graduated neutral density filters, bragging that he is not doing HDR is like bragging that he is building his house with a hammer and nails rather than a nail gun. There really is no difference in principle between GDRs and HDRs in my opinion, except for the fact that what he is doing is obviously way hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daq7

And there is my point. If he is using graduated neutral density filters, bragging that he is not doing HDR is like bragging that he is building his house with a hammer and nails rather than a nail gun. There really is no difference in principle between GDRs and HDRs in my opinion, except for the fact that what he is doing is obviously way hard.

---

His images say "No HDR". Yours say "HDR". Why is he wrong? - TF

HDR and graduated neutral density filters are basically the same thing. One is just more modern and more flexible.

The problem with nice even exposures whether achieved using hdr or filters or post processing is that they often appear flat as I find many of his yosemate shots to be.
Haven't looked at all of them so can't comment on the others.

Oldclicker, the thing to remember is that he is quite good and I suck. What he is doing is trying to increase the dynamic range of his shots through traditional methods. By traditional of course I mean like less than 100 years or so. But he will make better pictures than I if he chooses to go back to daugerotypes (how do you spell that?) of that I am sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daq7

Oldclicker, the thing to remember is that he is quite good and I suck. What he is doing is trying to increase the dynamic range of his shots through traditional methods. By traditional of course I mean like less than 100 years or so. But he will make better pictures than I if he chooses to go back to daugerotypes (how do you spell that?) of that I am sure...

---

"What he is doing is trying to increase the dynamic range of his shots through traditional methods."
No, what he is doing is succeeding, not just trying. I prefer most of these to most of the HDR images from stuckincustoms.com and certainly they don't suck. - TF

Nothing I said should be interpreted as suggesting his shots aren't fantastic. It also occurred to me that I missed your point. There would be very little difference if in fact I labeled every shot I take as HDR. I don't believe I do that, but it really does not matter. The only reason I even commented on it is that I really don't understand the prejudice that exists against the tool. But I do not know that this guy even has a prejudice. He may just get tired of being asked if it is HDR. I don't think it is worth belaboring the subject any more. I think I am just being a jerk about the whole thing. Sorry.

LOL! seems like talking about HDR is like talking about politics....it always turn some way or another into a polarized talk, which is not bad at all.
What I do admire from this chap is that he masters the use of filters, exposure, time and even weather. Most of the shots I saw are in those precious minutes where the light is perfect....and if he is shooting in some normal or awkward light condition he know what filter with how many seconds exposure to get things right. Hope I can some day be that skilled with my camera and forget about the intense PP work.

I certainly agree with that. His skill is amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueRob

LOL! seems like talking about HDR is like talking about politics....it always turn some way or another into a polarized talk, which is not bad at all.
What I do admire from this chap is that he masters the use of filters, exposure, time and even weather. Most of the shots I saw are in those precious minutes where the light is perfect....and if he is shooting in some normal or awkward light condition he know what filter with how many seconds exposure to get things right. Hope I can some day be that skilled with my camera and forget about the intense PP work.

---

I don't want to forget about the PP work, I want to start with the excellent in camera shot and then apply PP! - TF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I don't want to forget about the PP work, I want to start with the excellent in camera shot and then apply PP! - TF

---

Yeah I here ya´ OC...starting with a a good pick I think would make the difference.