advertisement


Phonography

39862997104_845e1c02af_b.jpg
 
This book arrived in the post today. Full of absolutely stunning landscape images taken by Julian Calverley with an iPhone 4s / 5s and edited on his phone in Snapseed only.

41384601565_0ded31703c_c.jpg


Lefty
 
why is the phone brand so important here? it makes it almost impossible to believe the full story.

I have listed the phone model and brand so that it gives people an idea of the technical capabilities of the camera that was used to make these images (i.e. not very good by modern standards).

Hope this clears things up :)

Lefty
 
I have listed the phone model and brand so that it gives people an idea of the technical capabilities of the camera that was used to make these images (i.e. not very good by modern standards).

Hope this clears things up :)

Lefty

the title of his book refers to an "iphone". that's what i meant.
 
the title of his book refers to an "iphone". that's what i meant.

Ah - I don't think there's anything sinister in the title. I believe it was a popular hashtag on Instagram for phone images at the time this book was originally published. Given this, the use of a hashtag seems a fitting title for the book.

It's true that 'iphone' has become synonymous with smartphone which is a bit unfortunate. (But no different to how 'Hoover' was once synonymous with vacuum cleaner)

Lefty
 
lefty.

you may want to watch this...


...in which he discusses some of the picture taking.

i have to confess, it would be nice to have the money and freedom to travel to nice places and shoot landscapes. i think the camera is the least important bit.
 
This book arrived in the post today. Full of absolutely stunning landscape images taken by Julian Calverley with an iPhone 4s / 5s and edited on his phone in Snapseed only.

41384601565_0ded31703c_c.jpg


Lefty

I've stumbled into this fellow before. I think he uses one of those 100mp cameras for his commercial work, can't think of the name now. He is brilliant with a phone camera, that's for sure.
 
lefty.

you may want to watch this...


...in which he discusses some of the picture taking.

i have to confess, it would be nice to have the money and freedom to travel to nice places and shoot landscapes. i think the camera is the least important bit.

Thanks for the link Vuk - I hadn't seen that talk before. Very interesting and as you say, it would be fantastic to have the money and freedom to pursue such a life. On a related note, Mark Littlejohn who used to post in this very room and who famously won the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition in 2014 also spoke at that conference. Here is talk which I found very interesting and entertaining. An incredibly nice and talented guy :)


Incidentally, he also published a limited edition book of phone images called 'Cellular' of which I have a copy. Needless to say, the images are absolutely top notch.

https://www.kozubooks.com/books-new/landscape-editions-volume-thirteen-mark-littlejohn-cellular

I've stumbled into this fellow before. I think he uses one of those 100mp cameras for his commercial work, can't think of the name now. He is brilliant with a phone camera, that's for sure.

Yes, he's pretty well known on the industry and is also involved with the judging of he Outdoor Photographer of the Year competition I believe. He's clearly another very talented landscape photographer. I wish my 'big camera' images were half as good as his phone images!

Lefty
 
On a related note, Mark Littlejohn who used to post in this very room and who famously won the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition in 2014

i guess i missed that period -- probably good as i would have been likely to get into an argument with him ;-)
 
lefty.

i let quite a bit of time go by to digest this and the conclusion hasn't really changed much. we've got some pretty pictures here, but it 's ultimately a fast-food equivalent, although a touch more in tune with pop aesthetics of the time. julian calverley has internalized the values of his commercial shoot patrons or, perhaps more simply, doesn't see beyond the imagery of what's aimed at the masses. cozy, de-saturated, and misted-up apocalypse minus jeniffer lawrence smeared with a bit of coal-like make-up on her face, i would have serious trouble picking him out of a line-up featuring the top 500 flikr landscape photographers, actually, most of them are probably more talented, but don't have the same budget.

the other chap is a bit better, but i'd still wager on our very own paulicus in the same spot to take a picture..

in the bigger scheme of things, landscape photography (post ansel adams), ranks only slightly above wedding photography and should mainly be done for personal/touristic reasons. in terms of public exposure, current landscape photography is a middle-class coffee table book exercise. it's also not particularly difficult, once you've secured the patronage to get you in the right location.

that said, i'd really be up for a proper competition of 'top landscape photographer of the year' in which the contestants were given 3 rolls of slide film, a pair of lenses and a cheap tripod for a weekend (no computer). i'd gladly take on this pair of photo-shoppers on my own in a contest like that, but i'd trust you to do equally well.
 
Vuk,

Debate and difference of opinion is good. Here are my thoughts.

lefty.

i let quite a bit of time go by to digest this and the conclusion hasn't really changed much. we've got some pretty pictures here, but it 's ultimately a fast-food equivalent, although a touch more in tune with pop aesthetics of the time. julian calverley has internalized the values of his commercial shoot patrons or, perhaps more simply, doesn't see beyond the imagery of what's aimed at the masses. cozy, de-saturated, and misted-up apocalypse minus jeniffer lawrence smeared with a bit of coal-like make-up on her face, i would have serious trouble picking him out of a line-up featuring the top 500 flikr landscape photographers, actually, most of them are probably more talented, but don't have the same budget.

I agree about his commercial work (of which I am not a big fan). However, I think we have to remember that it's just that (work) and he has to produce what the client likes, not necessarily what his inner artist likes. Sure they hire him because of his gritty, apocalyptic aesthetic, but then the art director takes over and that's when the end result is out of his control. Judging by the book I have here in front of me, when he is fully in control, the results are different (better).

in the bigger scheme of things, landscape photography (post ansel adams), ranks only slightly above wedding photography and should mainly be done for personal/touristic reasons. in terms of public exposure, current landscape photography is a middle-class coffee table book exercise. it's also not particularly difficult, once you've secured the patronage to get you in the right location.

I STRONGLY disagree with this. (Good) landscape photography is not easy in the slightest. I agree that there is a lot of bad landscape photography out there and that we are oversaturated (pun intended) with examples of it everywhere we look. However, that doesn't make it an invalid artistic pursuit. When done well, it still has the capacity to inspire awe and take one's breath away (IMHO). I agree that a large part of landscape photography is being in the right place at the right time but there's much more to it at the top level. As ou say, anyone can take a decent shot of a stunning location if they are plonked there at the right time. However, as Mark LJ says in his talk, not everyone can communicate the emotion and atmosphere that goes along with being there. That (IMHO) is the diffeence between simply capturing a pretty picture and making a work of art.

From the sounds of it, landscape photography doesn't really do it for you (which is perfectly fine - we are all entitled to our opinions).

i'd really be up for a proper competition of 'top landscape photographer of the year' in which the contestants were given 3 rolls of slide film, a pair of lenses and a cheap tripod for a weekend (no computer). i'd gladly take on this pair of photo-shoppers on my own in a contest like that, but i'd trust you to do equally well.

Vuk, I don't understand your aversion to technology and so called 'purist' outlook. I have shot (and enjoyed) film. It's capable of producing fantastic results and there are many active landscape photographers today who still shoot it. (See Bruce Percy - one of my favourite photographers. an amazing minimalist landscape photographer who is a Hasselblad + Velvia 50 man. https://www.brucepercy.co.uk/). However, the fact that someone shoots film does not automatically make them a better photographer than someone who doesn't shoot film. IMHO, it's all about the final image, irrespective of how it was made. If someone has processed the living daylights out of something, it usually shows, and the end result isn't good. However, if someone is good at post processing, then that is a valid skill in its own right. After all, Ansel Adams who you rightly cite as a fantastic landscape photographer, was a famous dark room fiend (the photoshop of his day). I'd wager that if he was alive today, he would be all over photoshop :D

Again, none of this is personal. Difference of opinion is good and I like debate :)

Best,

Amar (aka Lefty)
 
A phonograph that maybe sits on the fence of being low fidelity due to being so, but extant only because of the same.

Got a thumbs up when I shouted up that I liked the picture still on the wall.

40510580560_20bff9fb55_c.jpg
 
in the bigger scheme of things, landscape photography (post ansel adams), ranks only slightly above wedding photography and should mainly be done for personal/touristic reasons. in terms of public exposure, current landscape photography is a middle-class coffee table book exercise. it's also not particularly difficult, once you've secured the patronage to get you in the right location.

Vuk,

I STRONGLY disagree with this. (Good) landscape photography is not easy in the slightest. I agree that there is a lot of bad landscape photography out there and that we are oversaturated (pun intended) with examples of it everywhere we look. However, that doesn't make it an invalid artistic pursuit. When done well, it still has the capacity to inspire awe and take one's breath away (IMHO). I agree that a large part of landscape photography is being in the right place at the right time but there's much more to it at the top level. As ou say, anyone can take a decent shot of a stunning location if they are plonked there at the right time. However, as Mark LJ says in his talk, not everyone can communicate the emotion and atmosphere that goes along with being there. That (IMHO) is the diffeence between simply capturing a pretty picture and making a work of art.

From the sounds of it, landscape photography doesn't really do it for you (which is perfectly fine - we are all entitled to our opinions).

I bristled a bit at Vuk's sweeping generalisation there too, and certainly at placing Landscape along with Wedding photography at the very foot of the aesthetic/skill pile. Both 'genres' certainly suffer from an element of rote, but both also require great skill and patience to get right and to rise above the average. I've only ever photographed casually at family weddings, so have suffered none of the stress, yet still found it fiendishly difficult, beyond which I can't comment, but landscape photography can be like hitting your head against a wall. The thing that grates for me is the masses of photographers with all the right photoshop skills who travel to all of the same uber-dramatic, highly photogenic locations, then simply tick it off and move onto the next one, without ever getting a feel for the soul of the place - its almost like collecting train numbers - wide angle lenses, 'foreground interest' (a boulder), milky long-exposure waterfalls, filtered/split tone skies etc, etc. Landscape photography for me has to be about a narrative, the story that the location has to tell. In my photographs I set myself a doubly difficult task in that I am often trying to tell the stories of some fairly undramatic locations, and you really need to get under the skin of a place to be able to stand any chance of success. As for Mark LJ, sure, he has some beautiful landscapes at his beck and call, but he knows them intimately, and I think his photographs go way, way deeper than any 'touristic' snap.

It is one that does very little for me, but I find that the genre which is most casually abused is 'street' photography. The decisive moment is very, very hard to capture, and the vast majority of street photography out there on the internet is mindless rubbish in which absolutely no thought, dexterity, talent or skill has played any part whatsoever. Some of the very worst offenders are wannabe Cartier-Bressons who believe that taking snaps on the street using silver film excuses them absolutely any old tosh in the name of art. The internet is stuffed with it.
 
what i am seeing in all genres, including "street" photography is laborious computer post-editing and the out-of-camera process is defining the person who made the capture. most of the time it's defining them as somebody indistinguishable from somebody else. that could be OK. if we step back a bit, why do we need the fetish of a photographer personality attached to a picture? i have been tempted recently to start a little bansky-like collective here in toronto and present the work of 5 of us as a unit.

as for landscape photography succeeding when it conveys an accuracy or correct feel about the place of capture, although noble as an idea, it's a mix of cliche and wishful thinking. it's especially absurd to argue for that criterion when simultaneously advocating for artistic freedom to mess around. to me, an image simply works in the end or it does not. what may have caused some confusion is that i do like to differentiate between a photograph and something that goes well beyond what you would actually see on sensor or film. it's OK to do whatever you like, but it's deceptive to present a montage as a photo -- maybe it won't be in the future when AI makes it available to the masses, but it is right now and i'm clinging on to it for dear life -- i have some agfa scala shots that i trot out from time to time and to mark my territory (it still works).

another factor that may not be obvious and is causing differences of interpretation or value is that i am firmly rooted in a tradition of art. that doesn't mean everything i shoot or appreciate is in that vein, but when we are going to hold people up as model and give them awards, then i feel like a higher standard needs to be applied. although i won't deny the prettiness and skill involved in the landscape photography amar has linked to, even the little gallery down the street from me would laugh at the idea of exhibiting any of it. it's more coffee table book fare, but i do enjoy looking through a coffee table book as much as the next guy, maybe even more.


if you really, really want apocalyptic...
instant photography, just add jennifer lawrence:

just_add_jennifer_lawrence.DSC02209.jpg
 
having just processed that picture and seen the effect, despite having very little talent at it (i can only imagine what somebody else could do), i want to run away and live as a farmer as far away from computers and modern society as possible.
 
...as a "real" counterpoint to restore my sanity (shot an hour later not far away)...

puffy_cloud_factiory.DSC02212.jpg
 
Just a reminder, this thread is about photos taken using a smartphone.There's no point railing against that. The fact they are a serious photographic instrument might offend the luddites amongst us, but should be welcomed.

Personally, I find my iPhone 6 not merely a useful backup, but, when I broke the Leica, essential as it was the only means of taking photos. I even went as far as (blasphemy, o blasphemy) buying cheap some clip-on lenses for it. The results with smartphone cameras can be spectacular, as many have discovered. The question now is not whether expensive SLRs are necessary -they never really were - but whether they and the compact camera market can survive. Certainly most of the camera shops I visited in SE Asia when looking for a compact would indicate deep-seated problems with the latter: they stocked few models which most admitted they had trouble selling because of smartphones.

Mind you, I'll never forgive phones and Australia for the selfie revolution.
 


advertisement


Back
Top