# Gee Ess Elle



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Good looking sky tonight at the GSL.


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

my god in heaven!


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Awesome, Those look like oil paintings.


----------



## Ryfly (Sep 13, 2007)

Those are awesome in the true sense of the word. What a beautiful world we live in.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dude, your photography skills are amazing! Do you every try and sale any of your prints, I bet you would do well at art festivals and such.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

How did you do that? I guess the good Lord made up for your lack of good looks with talents like this.


----------



## Texscala (Sep 8, 2007)

Are you doing a lot of tweaking after the shot or leaving them as they are? I am not criticizing just wondering as I am trying to get better at my photography skills.

Those shots are truly amazing.


----------



## bugleboy (Sep 25, 2007)

Texscala said:


> Are you doing a lot of tweaking after the shot or leaving them as they are? I am not criticizing just wondering as I am trying to get better at my photography skills.
> 
> Those shots are truly amazing.


A LOT of photoshop work on those...

But amazing images! When it gets to that point I wouldn't call them photos, more like images.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Nice HDR photo's.

What software are you using...Photomatrix?


----------



## troutwhisperer (Jan 1, 2009)

:shock:


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for all the kind words everyone, even ProBackDoor included a short prop before the subsequent disparaging remark! Impressive.



jahan said:


> Do you every try and sale any of your prints?


Danka Jahan, I have sold some of my work here and there, and was a featured artist at this year's Wasatch Fly Fishing Expo too. Mainly just a hobby though.



Texscala said:


> Are you doing a lot of tweaking after the shot or leaving them as they are?


I've always been a straight out of the camera guy, and I think that helped me learn the important stuff (composition and exposure). Recently I decided that post processing was a gap in my abilities and decided to learn something new. I had hardly touched Photoshop or any other such tools until Feb of this year. No amount of post processing can make up for getting the image you want on the camera. There's nothing magical about the software and a lot of people use tools as crutches. I like these shots plain, but I used a technique called HDR just to do something different. Basically you overlay underexposed and overexposed images on top of each other to increase the contrast.

Here is one of the above shots, without HDR or editing:












bugleboy said:


> A LOT of photoshop work on those...


Actually those photos never saw an ounce of Photoshop. They are actual photographs at different exposure levels overlayed with Photomatix. Takes about 10 seconds, and the output is only as good as the input.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Very impressive. Why you got to hurt me so? 

Seriously, I would love to be so talented. 8)


----------



## Dangerfowl (Dec 6, 2007)

Pretty sweet! I love all three.
probably a stupid question, but do you use a tripod and remote to get the exact same pic w/two different exposures, or is there another way?


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

ProBackDoor said:


> Why you got to hurt me so?


They say we only hurt the ones we love.



Dangerfowl said:


> Do you use a tripod and remote to get the exact same pic w/two different exposures?


The tripod/remote is the best way. Similar to photo stitching, the software can attempt to align hand-held shots for you. It's hit and miss using that method, because sometimes you end up with weird-looking lines or defects where there is a mismatch. This technique requires some planning and forethought, because you want exactly the right composition right out of the camera and a series of images as identical as possible at the different f/stop levels.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

threshershark said:


> ProBackDoor said:
> 
> 
> > Why you got to hurt me so?
> ...


You love me!!! *(())*


----------



## FishMogul (Sep 8, 2007)

awesome Photos !!! what kind of equipment are you using? Camera that is....


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

FishMogul said:


> what kind of equipment are you using?


Took these with a Nikon SLR but anything will rock this type of stuff. My little Canon SD700 point & shoot would have spanked this scene equally well.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I swear you are Yoda behind the lens.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Wicked cool. Excellent shots.

I'm on the "straight from the camera" wagon, myself. I've only messed with a few shots a couple of years ago and that was just exposure. Though they may have helped the image look more like what I personally saw when my original pic didn't turn out the way I wanted it to. 

I agree with you 100% about the importance of the composition.


----------



## aperture (Apr 17, 2009)

> Here is one of the above shots, without HDR or editing:


That is what some might call good old fashion "raw" Talent! Great work it really is breath taking.


----------



## waltny (Sep 8, 2007)

This is heavily laced with facts and my opinions. I couldnt help but put this out there....

Thres, you shouldnt go on making photoshop sound dirty or get offended by the photoshop accusations. The subject of photo manipulation has been an on going argument in the field for years. If your asking me, photo manipulation begins with lens choice and back in the day the film you shot. As for the lens, if you have a fast prime you could get a shallow DOF(which isnt how the scene REALLY is) or you can stop down to get a greater DOF(thus two different renderings). Each film, weather it be back and white or color had a distinct footprint(grain and ISO) that along with a filter(on camera) and what chemicals used, and for how long; along with fliters in the darkroom so on and so forth. This is where Adam Ansel excelled, he was a master manipulator and understood light. So from the very begining, the best ALWAYS altered their shots, no shame in it. In todays age, we can now crop, adjust exposure, change white balance, ramp up contrast, saturate, levels, curves and all this is manipulation. Some of this is necessary to over come the AA and IR filters that are places over the camera sensor.
Speaking of in camea, you have in camera settings that alter the way the sensor will capture the image the senor sees. There are (color profiles) of vivid modes, landscape, portrait, sharpen and custom. So to me the notion of photoshop being cheating is a moot point. I believe that photoshop just another tool in the workflow and while some recieve more than others my basic raw work flow is just WB, levels, curves, contrast and sharpening these days if it needs it. 

BTW, great work as always


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

waltny said:


> Thres, you shouldnt go on making photoshop sound dirty or get offended by the photoshop accusations.


Thanks for the comments Waltny. I certainly wasn't offended, and did not intend to make Photoshop sound like anything other than a great tool. For some reason, many people think that if they only had an expensive camera and photoshop, that they would get outstanding results. It's all about composition and exposure, the tools are much less significant.

There is a whole group of anti-Photoshop types around. The individuals that I know who take this stance either lack skills in this area or feel that digital photo manipulation is graphic design and not photography.

Anyone who knows even a little bit about the history of photography knows that post processing has been an integral part of the medium since the very beginning. Ansel Adams, for example, was world renowned for his abilities to post process his work. He used a wide assortment of papers, dark room techniques, developing chemicals, and tints to achieve the artistic look he wanted in a finished print. Then, as now, photographers used all means available to them in order to get the desired result.

Anyone who sees Photoshop as cheating literally doesn't understand photography at all. Most of what you see online or in any of today's publications is digitally manipulated in one form or another. Post processing and photography are inseparable, and always have been.


----------



## waltny (Sep 8, 2007)

threshershark said:


> waltny said:
> 
> 
> > Thres, you shouldnt go on making photoshop sound dirty or get offended by the photoshop accusations.
> ...


Nothing but a bunch of "amens" and "thats right!" to respond with.
It just seems as soon as anyone brings up photoshop when laymen is invovled they instantly want to call fraud or fake. It was funny, I would go out with guys when I was over in Japan recently and everyone would be showing off their images come Monday morning and I would get stuff like," I was there and that is way better than what I saw" "Your photos are better than real life" and it went down hill from there. I was nothing but a graphic designer. After that they started peeping at my LCD when I would chimp and they would still be like wow, so it was all the camera now, with a little PS on the side.... :roll:

I got some pics up on my 52 week thread at the nikoncafe if you want to see.


----------

