What is Digg?210 Comments
- gummih, on 10/27/2007, -3/+54You just HAD to sneak it in - didn't you!
(dugg though, brilliant photos) - Dweller99, on 10/24/2007, -6/+46There is definitely some Photoshop work going on, but that does not at all detract from the quality of his photos.
- carnage, on 10/30/2007, -1/+39post processing is as much a part of modern photography as actually taking the picture. Just cause something is post processed, doesn't mean its a bad picture.
photoshopping a shark into a helicopter rescue = bad
taking 2 pictures, 1 exposed for the sky and 1 exposed for the foreground, then photoshopping them together = good
its just the best way to get the best pictures - gordonf238, on 10/29/2007, -0/+29These photos are monochromatic because the photographer attempts to draw attention by his composition and form. There is plenty of value and texture to appreciate. I don't think he meant to challenge a typical full-color Nat. Geographic wildlife series. This is more of an abstract, timeless perspective.
BTW, "photoshoppping" is today's version of a darkroom. They dodged and burned photos long before computers were invented, so quit your whining. - feeman4life, on 10/26/2007, -0/+25Honestly, I don't see what's the big deal with "photoshopping" a picture. It's post processing! In a darkroom, you use all sorts of techniques to develop and accentuate a photograph, creating a "fine art print".
Now with digital using more or less the techniques, (albeit with a LOT more creative freedom) apparently cheapens the art? Get over it! It is part of the workflow.
With that being said, those photos are brilliant. Dugg. - miles01110, on 10/24/2007, -1/+14Great post-processing in addition to great photos.
- triskele, on 10/24/2007, -1/+14And that's not post-process how?
- digitaloxygen, on 10/23/2007, -1/+14You're correct, there is a very heavy use of post processing in a lot of these photos. Many of them have had completely or partially replace the background to make it look like a posed portrait (the chimp for example: http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/brand ...
A lot of good photographs these days are often due to excellent post processing techniques. It's amazing how you can take an otherwise boring or plain photograph and make it look like something special. That being said most of these photographs are well done to begin with. - JonRohan, on 10/24/2007, -1/+14Thanks for the mirror, with a domain name like younggalleryphoto.com, it's blocked as porn at my workplace. STUPID AT&T
- MattB123, on 10/23/2007, -0/+10Yeah, but not in a faked kind of way, in an artistic kind of way. I digg!
- inactive, on 10/24/2007, -0/+9yeah who cares about using photoshop for post-processing, it all comes from the creators mind. I wonder if artists who painted portraits complained when cameras were invented "FAKE totally dark roomed!"
- jmkiii, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9Looks like a lot of infrared stuff... very nice
- spargett, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8Even if he didn't use photoshop to digitally process the images, I guarantee you he spent quite a bit of time a technique to develop these images in the dark room. Analog dodging and burning with shadows, etc.
Images just don't come off of cameras looking like this, especially that consistently without a very skilled hand playing a part in post processing. - ophello, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8 elephants are capable of throwing dust on themselves. they do it to cool off. what kind of idiot would throw dust on a wild elephant?
- ophello, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7my bad: he does dodging and burning in photoshop:
http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf - HelloNavi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Yes they are. Furthermore, he probably did these with digital post-processing. While all of those effects are possible with darkroom, they're very difficult. Not to mention time consuming. Plus, a few of the pictures, at least to my eyes, seem to lean more toward bloom than any darkroom effect.
That would actually be my criticism here. MOST of them are beautiful, but a few of them are a little over-processed. Being a nature photographer means taking something beautiful and making it presentable. Not taking something presentable and making it beautiful.
But I digress, most of these are spectacular. - Cougaboy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7dugg down for linking to your blog
- sdloveless, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8Nick Brandt shoots black and white film, and some IR film, with primarily a Pentax 67 camera. Once the film is developed it is scanned and digitally manipulated.
- Raingwc, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9These are from a serie of photographs and video/music called Ashes and Snow I believe.
http://www.ashesandsnow.org/ - EssPii, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6I take it you don't know what a tilt shift lens is. Not saying he used one, just saying that things the same distance from the lens don't have to have the same sharpness.
http://esspea-photography.com/blog/ - krets, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6I don't think he was trying to pass off any of those effects as being honest you jackass.
- inactive, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6That's what she said.
- NoBatmanNo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7Just so you guys know, Nick Brandt uses a film camera and does not doctor his photos in photoshop. I recently visited one of the galleries which represent him (http://www.photoeye.com/) and asked them about it. They said he uses a medium format camera and gets as close as possible to the animals without using a telephoto lens. Very impressive stuff. It is understandable, that with the increasing availability of digital alternatives, the possibilities of the darkroom are no longer fathomable.
- ophello, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7darkroom. not photoshop.
- stillasleep00, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7I think you've missed the point here...
- umilmi81, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5All of those fantastic wildlife photos, and not one half wet elephant.
- bagelpirate, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Most photographers use *Photo*shop to touch up/post-process their pictures. They are bringing out detail, changing the lighting, etc, etc.
You don't yell "photoshop!" when its an artist working on his photographs, of course they do, thats what its for.
You can yell it when you see a chick with 5 boobies. - maxien78, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5no i think them being in color would ruin them, it wouldnt have the same effect.
- unearth, on 10/24/2007, -5/+101. That's what she said
2. If something has photography in the title, I'm pretty sure that everyone is able to figure out that the link contains photos without the word (PICS) - grumpy1377, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6wow.
best set of wildlife pics ive seen for along time(love the group of cheetahs).
dugg. - xt0ph3r, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5He says he uses Photoshop here though: http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf Page 4 of the PDF, far right column.
- ahawks, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Those really are amazing. The first one that came up (elephant) got a verbal "woah" from me.
- xt0ph3r, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5You owe someone $100. He mentions using Photoshop AND darkroom techniques in http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf (which you linked above).
- MikeHuntisDirty, on 10/24/2007, -4/+9I think you have said that it was done in a darkroom like 10 times to different people just shut the ***** up
- 560Benz, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5"Amazing"
- ophello, on 10/24/2007, -6/+11oh my god, stop saying photoshop. its a ***** darkroom.
- kamel, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/brand ... - Giraffes flashing gang signs.
- Sparky47, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4The man sure knows ho to dodge and burn. Beautiful work!
- gamalkik, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Here's an astonishing photographer
the "Elephant with Exploding Dust" is truly amazing - wondertwins, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4ya think? read the title and subtitles dumbass
- hobbers, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Hey moron, photoshop is today's darkroom. You can do everything you used to do in a darkroom in photoshop, do it better, and do more.
- Cougaboy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4No, I believe not. The title and bottom of the page both say these are by Nick Brandt, and the exhibition you linked is by Gregory Colbert.
These photos focus on wildlife alone, while Ashes and Snow depicts wild animals side-by-side with humans. - inactive, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Maybe I'm retarded, but sneak what in?
- hansning, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4if you only knew how to take photos. or anything about photography really.
- melllvar37, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5really nice, how does he achieve this classic look?
- MicrosoftBob, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4You have to be *very* patient to photograph wildlife. Sometimes hundreds of hours of sitting in a blind = one good shot.
- MrSlumberjack, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3...wish I had some of that 'exploding dust'. Must be something new.
***** sweeeet pics by the way - inactive, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Mine was blocked too and I work in HELL
- ophello, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4i wish you had taste in b&w photography
- ophello, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf
This explains his technique. -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is .){kind=link}
