Stunning

August 26, 2003 1:13 PM

Stunning photographs by Kurt Ross.
These glorious images have lifted my spirit today. A website worth exploring.
posted by essexjan (39 comments total)

Stunning is right. Not to derail the thread, but is it possible to tell, in general, if a photograph like the first one linked is sunrise or sunset?
posted by euphorb at 1:50 PM on August 26, 2003

looks like sunset. the sky doesn't get as purple at sunrise, i thought?

great link, essexjan. i think i needed this today. superb photos.
posted by christian at 1:53 PM on August 26, 2003

think he's related to bob?
posted by condour75 at 1:58 PM on August 26, 2003

actually, after looking at the site, it's apparently sunrise:

"LOCATION: Gabriels, NY. In the minutes before sunrise.
ABOUT THE MOMENT: A very simple foreground design to emphasize one of the most magnificent morning skies I have ever experienced."

show what i know.
posted by christian at 1:59 PM on August 26, 2003

Outstanding. I generally hate pretentious artsy talk but he has the talent to back it up so he is forgiven.
posted by Ynoxas at 2:06 PM on August 26, 2003

I wouldn't call these stunning, but his technique is nice nonetheless - some are very well done. With the amount of self-promotion that he's doing, though, he might not be a pleasant person to meet.
posted by azazello at 2:12 PM on August 26, 2003

What a nice break from news articles today!

[this is good]
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:15 PM on August 26, 2003

I hate to disagree, but, well don't you find these images clichéd? I know I do, sort of an attempt at photographic impressionism, if such a thing exists. The images are gorgeous, no doubt, but hardly awe inspiring, they lack the unique spark of individuality and isolated vision that I seek in photography. Just my 2cents though.
posted by Grod at 2:15 PM on August 26, 2003

Yeah, Grod, many definitely reminded me of a lot of stuff I've seen before. His visuals are definitely not original.
posted by azazello at 2:18 PM on August 26, 2003

His visuals are definitely not original.

Nope, they're as old as the sun.

I too was put off by the overly pretentious presentation, but these are very, very beautiful photos. It's a genre, fer chrissake, and Kurt Ross does it very well.
posted by soyjoy at 2:42 PM on August 26, 2003

These would go great with life-affirming, business-friendly, love-thy-neighbor messages running along the bottom. He should look into puppy and kitten portraiture, as well.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 2:58 PM on August 26, 2003

[this is very good]

I can see how you would consider these to be cliched subjects, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they are extremely well done.
posted by bshort at 3:00 PM on August 26, 2003

you guys who are defending the photographer don't seem to understand that unless a photograph has the propensity to make the viewer have an orgasm, there's no satisfying the jaded majority on metafilter.

Don't bother trying to convince them otherwise.
posted by crunchland at 3:05 PM on August 26, 2003

I think I agree with the naysayers in feeling as though these are the photographic equivalent of still life paintings...as pretty as they are, it's still a vase and fruit.

I'm curious to know, however what kinds of photography other people who don't like nature scenes so much tend to be wowed by...personally, I like the work of Supersnail, but that site curiously seems to be down.
posted by amandaudoff at 3:19 PM on August 26, 2003

Flawless execution in nature photography (a la Ansel Adams)
brings an extra dimension to the right-place/right-time/right-inspiration space. In order to appreciate the work, one would have to experience a large print under the right light from the right distance.

That being said, I don't find the tones very natural and the
settings somewhat cheesy (a la {de}motivational posters -- prejudice, prejudice.)

On the other hand, I wouldn't be able get anywhere close to what this person does...
posted by NewBornHippy at 3:33 PM on August 26, 2003

the photographic equivalent of still life paintings

Whoa there. Still lifes are not any less capable of greatness than any other kind of painting; take a look at the ones reproduced here—I'd rather have that Julien Landa on my wall than any recent painting I've seen in a long time. The reason I'm not impressed with Ross's stuff is not that he does landscapes but that they're too glossy and unreal-looking for my taste. And for photographs that impress me, go here and here; whatever Janet Powell aims her camera at, she sees freshly and reproduces gorgeously.
posted by languagehat at 3:36 PM on August 26, 2003

as another jaded metafilter user, and person with a photolog/journal or whatever, I don't really like seeing majestic photographs overly-sharpened, like most of those photographs are. I'm sure the prints aren't as bad, but most of this stuff, ...man that sharpening filter is a turnoff regardless of the photo's merit.
posted by thisisdrew at 3:46 PM on August 26, 2003

On a different note, a site definitely worth mentioning, and a personal favorite of mine as of late, is Sensitive Light.

Digital has come a long way.
posted by thisisdrew at 3:52 PM on August 26, 2003

Still lifes are not any less capable of greatness than any other kind of painting

Honestly, I still don't like them. But then my favorite painter is Jackson Pollock and many people think he's just a hack.

Note: this doesn't mean I can't appreciate still life-esque art. It just doesn't affect me.

Thanks for the Janet Powell link...that, I like on an emotional level. A lot.
posted by amandaudoff at 5:00 PM on August 26, 2003

Thanks, it brightened my day as well.
posted by sierray at 6:00 PM on August 26, 2003

When I look at the photos, I get the feeling he has spent more time in Photoshop than on location shooting those images.

Quite a few of his photos are so oversaturated with color that they look fake and not true to life. That's not how I rememeber a hazy harbor or a sunset over mountains.

Ansel Adams is what people should be looking at for realistic and beautyful nature photography.

Witold
www.witold.org
posted by Witold at 7:08 PM on August 26, 2003

i dunno.

i found them average. reminded me of the place holder photographs one finds in department store frames.

heres a nice one i saw posted today (via newstoday)

and a couple additional favorites:

yookando

rober lewis smith
posted by specialk420 at 7:38 PM on August 26, 2003

amandaudoff: I like JP too. There was a great retrospective at MOMA a few years ago; did you get to see it? And I'm glad you like Powell!
posted by languagehat at 7:45 PM on August 26, 2003

Oops: just realized "JP" could equally well refer to Janet Powell -- I meant Jackson!
posted by languagehat at 7:46 PM on August 26, 2003

These are not digital photos. He states his exposure time next to each one. He doesn't say but I'm guessing that he used a "Vibrant Color" film such as Provia or Velvia. If he used Velvia then it's a transparency and they tend to be very vibrant anyway.

Landscape photos are sometimes cliched, but these are beautiful. Landscapes are especially fun if you have some funky film and just want to see what you'll get. Also if he was using a 4x5 camera you have to give him credit for lugging the thing around.
posted by bas67 at 8:17 PM on August 26, 2003

Ansel Adams is what people should be looking at for realistic and beautyful nature photography.

Ansel Adams is one of my favourite photographers.

But what most people don't know is that Adams dodged and burned the crap out of his images in the darkroom, the pre-Photoshop technique of presenting his vision to the world.

That he did so does not lessen his presentation in any way. His photographs are stunning, and take the breath away. And I'm glad he took them.
posted by bwg at 8:42 PM on August 26, 2003

Quite a few of his photos are so oversaturated with color that they look fake and not true to life. That's not how I rememeber a hazy harbor or a sunset over mountains.

I don't agree that realism is necessarily the paramount consideration when looking at photography. I don't agree that a picture looking "not true to life" automatically negates its artistic merit. I love that oversaturated look, and I think it can be extremely effective if used well. That said, I like these pictures, but they don't really speak to me, except for this one.
posted by biscotti at 9:22 PM on August 26, 2003

Some films (e.g. Velvia) are valued precisely because they provide oversaturated (vivid) colors.
posted by kindall at 9:49 PM on August 26, 2003

Some films (e.g. Velvia) are valued precisely because they provide oversaturated (vivid) colors.

Exactly. I wish Agfa hadn't stopped making my beloved Ultra 50, skies so hypersaturated blue they could put your eye out. Ultra 100 is nice, but not the same thing at all..
posted by biscotti at 9:55 PM on August 26, 2003

These are not digital photos. He states his exposure time next to each one

not to nitpick, but why would you think you couldn't mess around with exposure times on a digital camera? I can set mine for up to 16 seconds.

for all those wondering what he uses though, his bio page lists his cameras and that he photographs onto "transparency film".

and I really liked these photos, thanks
posted by GeekAnimator at 10:12 PM on August 26, 2003

why would you think you couldn't mess around with exposure times on a digital camera

Yeah, I thought that too, then I assumed that bas67 was talking about printing exposure times, but upon looking at the site, it's the actual picture exposure time that he's talking about, which says nothing about whether it's digital or film (the fact that he mentions that he uses slide film is, however, a good hint that these aren't digital). You can change both exposure time and aperture on most digital cameras, and even on those cameras you can't, there's still an exposure time involved, there has to be, for the CCD to record the image.
posted by biscotti at 10:41 PM on August 26, 2003

Well, I like them too. Thanks essexjan.
posted by plep at 12:43 AM on August 27, 2003

Most of these just don't do anything for me I'm afraid, but that's just a matter of taste I guess. Some of the more abstract photos are really good though.
When it comes to landscape photography I am a huge fan of the work of Joe Cornish. He seems to be able to tease out every last bit of beauty from a scene, although the impact is lessened somewhat when viewed on a computer monitor.
posted by chill at 3:18 AM on August 27, 2003

for all those wondering what he uses though, his bio page lists his cameras and that he photographs onto "transparency film".

For those who don't know, "transparency film" is the same thing as slide film, i.e. the film has a positive image of the subject.

I play around with photography quite a bit and if you want to instantly impress yourself with your photographic prowess perform the following steps:

1. Buy a cheap SLR. I prefer Pentax because they're cheap and there are a ton of second-hand lenses out there that can be had for a pittance. Avoid getting a zoom lens. You could buy a cheap car for what a good one costs, whereas a good prime (non-zoom) is going to take better pictures and will cost you 50-100$ for a 50mm. If you're tempted to spend more on your camera body (which is basically a light-tight box that you put film into) than on your lens (which is made of several moveable chunks of the finest-quality glass), then stop and read this.
2. Buy a roll of slide film and a slide film mailer. I like using Velvia for outdoor landscapes and such (although it's often described as "lurid"), and Scala for black and whites.
3. Take some pictures and get them developed by sending them off in the mailer to get developed.
4. Note that you've only spent $3 on the film and $4 on the mailer.
5. Wait to get the film back in the mail, which usually takes a week or two.
6. Look at the slides through a loupe, a magnifying glass or a old 50mm lens on a light table or x-ray viewer.
7. You should be sitting down for this.
8. Your photos will look so amazing, especially in contrast to the prints your normally get from your cheap-ass point and click, that you'll want to quit your job.
9. Scan any slides that you want to print, put on the web, etc.

with apologies to Phillip
posted by bshort at 6:54 AM on August 27, 2003

Can't argue with much of that bshort, although in my case 9 would be replaced with...

9. Decide upon which slides/negs you want printing and then post them off to be hand printed.

OK, it's more expensive that way (I pay around £1.50 for a 7*5 B&W print for example) but IMO it's better to have a few good quality pictures of a subject than lots of bad pictures (and I have not scene a set of prints from high street printers that are anything other than bad).
posted by chill at 7:05 AM on August 27, 2003

chill: yep, I absolutely agree. I have a handful of slides that I'd like to get blown up for wall mounting (16x20).

I'm continually amazed that people keep buying shitty point and clicks with really slow zoom lenses that take terrible pictures. I guess that's the power of marketing, though.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of system do you use?
posted by bshort at 8:10 AM on August 27, 2003

I have a Nikon F80. For day to day use, it simply has a 50mm prime on it. For landscape an 18-35 zoom (I'm too lazy to carry around a bunch of prime lenses and it's great quality) and an 80-200 zoom that gets little use, mainly due to it's weight.
Velvia for landscape (Just getting my first batch of Velvia 100 processed) and various Ilford films for B&W.

All that gear and the yet best pictures I have taken, the ones that I have blown up to 16*20 and put on display around the house, were all taken on a Praktica MTL3 that cost £40 including the 50mm prime lens.
posted by chill at 9:58 AM on August 27, 2003

I have a Pentax ZX-M that I usually use a 50/1.4 on, although I also have a lovely 28mm shift that I use more often than I should and a 200/4 that is too big and too slow to really be useful.

I also picked up an old sigma 17mm that is nifty, but which really makes me want to get a wide angle lens that doesn't suck.

I love velvia as well, and I highly highly recommend trying scala if you're into black and white. Its sort of expensive and you have to use mailers, but the slides are simply stunning. Seriously.

The Nikon line has always impressed me and I'll probably jump systems at some point and get a FM3A.
posted by bshort at 10:26 AM on August 27, 2003

Avoid getting a zoom lens. You could buy a cheap car for what a good one costs,

Not entirely true. The Tamron 28-300 XR is a fabulous lens. Inexpensive (around $400 US if you shop around), bright, pretty sharp, minimal distortion, and the very wide zoom range makes it more than a little useful. After I started using the older, larger version of this lens with my Nikon F3, I rarely used another lens for location work, and if I hadn't been completely won over by my digital camera, I'd be purchasing the new XR, which is even better.
posted by biscotti at 11:11 AM on August 27, 2003