Lovely set of clouds / skies on both prints Matt.
For me, if I cover them up, the end results seem like 'unfinished' pictures.
Terry S
Last edited:
What have you got against clouds?
View attachment 195149 View attachment 195150
No filters involved, but they were printed judiciously.
No one has mentioned Alfred Stieglitz's series Equivalents series. (until now)
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
Actually, pentaxuser, the skies in New Mexico are far more dramatic than here in Southern California where we currently have mostly cloudless, relentlessly clear blue skies and no rain!
zactly true
I do not add clouds. I do not remove clouds. At the end of the 19th century and early 20th century there was a photographer [I forgot the unworthy's name] who removed tails from hunting dogs on the prints. The original and tailless prints were displayed at the Getty Museum. The original with the tails was better. I am sure the dogs were happier with their tails.
Are you losing your mind?
A blank sky can say as much if not more about a place than unusual sky conditions (clouds, etc). But going thru my images I notice that 98% of my printed images do not have any sky in them.
Clouds have always been big parts of landscape photographs. Some landscape photographers had stock negs that they would use in composite prints for when the skies weren't right.
Today, most manipulations of clouds seem overly dramatized to me, either with filters, especially with gradient ND filters or excessive burning in. It is as if every day the end of world storm was rolling in ...
For example? Actually -- it looks better inverted and upside down...
No. Is yours still intact? I do not remove or add objects after the photograph is taken. If I do not want something in the photograph I change the composition. [Still having problems following? <<wink>> <<wink>>
Sirius and where I live often have similar skies, white/grey, but for different reasons. Where he lives, there is smog. Where I live there is high humidity. The only filter that works here in B&W or color is a polarizer. When I have been in Northern New Mexico, the air is usually dry, the sky is blue and if there are any, clouds. Glorius clouds that this flatlander always enjoys and, cheap shot or not, will photograph as many times as I can. Most AA pictures with clouds would look downright "sterile" without them......Regards!Well he lives in New Mexico which I would have thought is part of your world in terms of figures of speech and a lot of the time I'd imagine his skies in New Mexico are pretty much the same as yours in Southern California.
Mind you things may vary quite a lot in what we Brits regard as the same hot, arid corner of the U.S. I recall Sam McCloud came from New Mexico, like the OP and he was always at pains to correct those who introduced him as being from Arizona
pentaxuser
Most AA pictures with clouds would look downright "sterile" without them......Regards![/QUOTE said:In NM we do have spectacular clouds sometimes...right now the sky is essentially flat. Many here enjoy using graduated neutral density filters to darken sky from the top, but a certain famous software does that brilliantly without forcing fiddling with polarizers or making it hard to shoot hand-held in low light.
...Most AA pictures with clouds would look downright "sterile" without them......Regards!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?