'Made in England'

[Sutton Warrior]

I have just watched the most stunning photography program on the BBC 10.40pm. featuring; Harry Cory Wright. I dont know his work, but he produced 2 photos that make me go weak at the knees in their simplicity. He used a simple 10x8 plate camera, no fancy 'gizmo's' simply aperture and shutter speed, not a filter or fancy lens in sight, he trusted what he saw.

 

OK, I know its film and if you compare the JPEG shots to the large film shots there is no comparison . . . I want a 10x8 film plate camera??? but it ain't practical. However, it demonstrated to me, 'trust your eye' and let the camera do its thing?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/madeinengland/harryco...ght/index.shtml

 

 

SW

Edited April 23, 2008 by Sutton Warrior

[Colin Brett]

Most enjoyable!

Reminded me of my childhood days spent around the Norfolk coast on holidays with my parents. My dad, being a Norfolk man, knew Norfolk like the back of his hand and we were often taken to those out of the way places such as Brancaster and Thornham. I was always fearful of those saltwater creeks after seeing them fill so quickly on the incoming tide.

 

Question?

How come my moody images never look as good?

Could it be they need to be printed BIG to get that something special?

 

Sometimes I find looking at a photograph in a frame is better than the real thing!! :wacko: Anyone else think the same??

 

Colin

[poledark]

I had a lok at those two pics SW..are they the ones used?

 

Now I don't want to sound bitchy or anything, but what is the fuss about?

 

I have been aware for some time that I don't have quite "the eye" for a picture; when I look on the Belgium digital site each week, I gaze in wonder and envy at most of the shots.

 

So, to help me to improve, can someone please explain just why those two pics are considered special?

 

Den

[Sutton Warrior]

I had a lok at those two pics SW..are they the ones used?

 

Now I don't want to sound bitchy or anything, but what is the fuss about?

 

I have been aware for some time that I don't have quite "the eye" for a picture; when I look on the Belgium digital site each week, I gaze in wonder and envy at most of the shots.

 

So, to help me to improve, can someone please explain just why those two pics are considered special?

 

Den

 

 

For me it was the program that made the pictures. I agree, they may not be 'every ones cup of tea', but, if one has to explain, then the Norfolk shot is about the 'light', and no need to resort to anything fancy to get it looking perfect, well, right at least, for the skeptic? I'm not so impressed with the Bristol shot, although I would love to be able to put my name to it. Again, the program emphasized the simplicity of the shot set up, in both cases, preparation, 'days of' were the key.

 

Digital pictures these days, so often over processed, even if its well don, one still has ones suspicions? Harry Cory Wright, used nothing other than good planing and I suspect some top glass, perhaps that the rub?

 

By the way, if you have not down loaded the 'large file version' of the pictures, especially the Norfolk one, its a revelation.

 

SW

[Colin Brett]

I have been aware for some time that I don't have quite "the eye" for a picture; when I look on the Belgium digital site each week, I gaze in wonder and envy at most of the shots.

Den

 

Especially this one here :D

 

Colin

[Peter Sharpe]

I had a lok at those two pics SW..are they the ones used?

 

Now I don't want to sound bitchy or anything, but what is the fuss about?

 

I have been aware for some time that I don't have quite "the eye" for a picture; when I look on the Belgium digital site each week, I gaze in wonder and envy at most of the shots.

 

So, to help me to improve, can someone please explain just why those two pics are considered special?

 

Den

Same here I'm afraid. Looking at the east tif, I think I would probably have discarded that one. If you're in the right place at the right time I think any camera can capture a good shot. I think most modern cameras would have come up with something better. Hate to be a spoilsport.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Peter Sharpe

[Clifftop]

Earlier today i read the above posts then tonight i was looking at a photographers work and came on this.

 

http://www.bradleyesau.com/

 

look in the left hand column ( about my images ).

 

Whilst i am still very much a beginner, i tend to agree with what he says.

[poledark]

Horses for courses Cliff, I use a scope and video camera to allow me to catch that fleeting moment not possible with a still camera.

 

If I had the money, then I could buy the latest Nikon which fires a burst of about 15 frames a second at 12mpx. One well known bird photographer has gone down that road already.

 

Others sit in hides close to where birds perch/feed/drink, ( I do this myself). I also often take a shot knowing I will have to post process it...camera already does some of the work!

 

No, it is about the actual images I am puzzled, the Norfolk one was totally drab, did not begin to capture the loneliness of a Norfolk mudflat. The Bristol one was just a mess of lights and shapes.........and to think he travelled halfway across England to capture them!!

 

Den