Your favourite photographers

Why is that? Photography has many purposes aside from the capture of pretty scenes.

There wasn't a cloud in the sky that day. Framing wasn't a choice, as I couldn't control where the plane went and moving myself at waking speed would make no difference compared to a 250 knot jet.

Besides, I generally hate B&W.

Hard to do with one plane in the sky at a time. I didn't have this option that day.

www.ralphburnsphotography.com/

bluespiral1.com/artist/929-ralph-burns

Any sort action or wildlife photos with telephoto lens is really hard. I'd never be able to do that. Lots of skill required, but lots of artistic decisions to be made. You want it super sharp or do want it blurred to emphasize the motion? A plane so far away and travelling that fast but captured so sharp with so much detail? Sorry but that is unreal. The human eye cannot see that. Only you the photographer with your camera can see that and show that to us. And maybe there are other photographers who try to show people what they cannot normally see.

Full scale airplanes are easy. Fast R/C airplanes are way, way harder because they are smaller and relatively way faster and more maneuverable.

Can we stop feeding the troll and return the discussion to photographers that inspire us?
Not every thread should be about @LeeJay's view on photography.

So you know there's more to photography than one purpose and yet you're gonna stick with not seeing it as an art.......I only needed to play tennis against a wall once to learn this lesson. Have a nice week.

I think the first (Thunderbirds) aircraft photo, which is very good technically, would be nicer to look at if there was more sky around the subject. To me, it looks crowded -- packed into too small a space. If the original image has not been cropped, you could still improve (in my opinion) by adding more sky in Photoshop.

Don

I like a lot of Annie Leibovitz's work, though I don't try to emulate it since that's not really what I do.

Navajoland images taken by LeRoy DeJolie

Thanks for the explanation. I think I get part of the feeling you've got about it. Still, I think there are lots of ways to show dedication and appreciation for the craft, technical achievements and history.

What would you say about someone shooting 100% digital, but with 40-100 year old adapted lenses, some of which require quite a bit of care and consideration, unique adapters and solutions to function properly. Doing research on those lenses along the way, trying to uncover their real makers and to shoutout unknown (genius) lens designers of underappreciated gems or technical breakthoughs, hidden from the public, because the real inventions often happen in some industrial setting nobody cared about?

Just saying... because the reasons, I don't shoot film have nothing to do with a lack of appreciation for the craft or with being lazy.

While I agree that a discussion like that is probably misplaced and in part off-topic, I wouldn't call anything @LeeJay has written or shared here "trolling" though, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Back to topic:

While I often find images which really appeal to me or that I find outstanding on some level, it's quite rare that I find a photographer I appreciate for a consistent style or unique view on multiple occasions. I looked at the website of Alan Schaller (mentioned by @Geoff777 at the start of the thread) and I find many of those images very beautiful and appealing, and that's saying something from someone who has a hard time with B&W usually. So, thanks for that and some other mentions here as well - I'm always eager to broaden my horizon when it comes to photography.

It's not trolling, I'm just trying to understand why anyone cares about other people's photography, since I never have and can't find any reason to.

People have bought me photography books, which I flipped through for a couple minutes and then put on the shelf, where they've sat ever since.

I suspect that seeing photography as a way to document my experiences so I can recall them better later is what leads me to not care about the photography of others. It doesn't serve the purpose of helping me recall my experiences so I can't see a purpose for it.

It sometimes brings me new ideas. New ways to look at something. New things to think about, all of which can improve my own photography, at least as far as I can internalize them. In almost any field you improve by study and practice, and you study the work of those who have done what you have not yet done. And sometimes it's just rewarding to appreciate and enjoy a particularly nice image. You're not interested in any of those things, so - okay. You do you.

Lots of lively debates going on! Perhaps it would have been better to avoid the term "emulate".... inspire might have been better. Having said that, if I could create images like Alan Schaller's, I would quit my day-job! 😊

Alan Schaller certainly has some very good work.

Don

It's just an opinion.

Regarding the older lens...eh...I've had to explain the benefits of old glass to dozens of people by now. Now if you're rocking something worth a few bucks, ok, that certainly says something, but overall, it doesn't tell me much. Still, I appreciate the fact you use it. Watching people dismiss old glass is just weird, but I've encountered it.

Now I'm confused... are you saying your level of respect for someone using old lenses depends on how much those lenses are worth? I really hope, I'm misunderstanding something here... 😅

Yes - I'd agree. I think emulating something is very valuable in terms of learning, but it has to be a step on the way, if your intention is to find your own style of shooting. Unless you're happy emulating something - of course then that's fine as well. When I see or hear something that deeply inspires me, I usually want to create something myself right then and there... sometimes (at concerts) to a point that I would actually prefer to go home and make music, instead of staying there. 😂

So there's a stark difference in my case, if I find something interesting (in terms of worth learning or emulating) or deeply inspiring. I'm not sure the latter has ever truly happened to me with photography, but I'm sure it can.

Oh god no. Sorry if it seemed that way. When you've got expensive glass, it says something whether you want to or not, the same as driving fancy cars or wearing expensive watches. What it is regarding lenses varies, but maybe it's something like you've got money to burn, maybe it's you've got a lot of respect in quality and that's why you're using it, maybe you've been in the game a long time, maybe it's grand pappy's. It's just when you've got something like that and you're using it, there's usually some sorta story there. You don't just go down to the local Best Buy and snag a Zeiss Distagon off the shelf like a Canon RF lens. Like how often do you just run into people shooting with Lecia lenses when you're just walking about? I think I've seen it twice. I don't think I've ever seen anyone not on a film set using an Angenieux, but if I saw you out and about with one, I'd probably start a conversation with you because it's clear something about photography interests you more than most, just like me.

Thanks a lot for the clarification - that's great! You certainly got a point there. I'm not sure if anyone would recognize my Angenieux lens as such (given it's a tiny enlarging lens, none of the big-name cine lenses) and if anyone with some knowledge would see how I mainly use my (only big-name) Leica lens (without its focusing mechanism on a tilt/shift bellows), they might even have a bit of a meltdown... 😅

A meltdown... through my lens! by simple.joy, on Flickr