So much packed in this video Ed! 1. I love the picture of the church and the emptiness. 2. People forget about tonality when they shoot colour. When I was in the print design industry, it was drummed into us that tonality matters. 3. A good tripod is somewhat hard to find (affordable at least). I've been using a cheap Zomeii travel (I think it's the 666C), which has been amazing. I've just upgraded to the Artcise 91C, which I bought for height (taller than my 6'4" frame). I've yet to test it out, but it feels sturdy enough to last a lifetime. Both very good Chinese brands. As always, you've given me pause for thought. Cheers.
I've heard those Artcise tripods are pretty good for the money, it should serve you well. The Church photo is one of my favorites. Thanks! Tonality is so overlooked these days, among other things. 🙂
The epic location is only an excuse to get out and about. I have long ago figured out that the keepers will be those images one stumbles upon along the way.
Interesting video. I have never understood going to places, (Iceland, mesa arch, Moulton barn, lake district, etc.) to take the same photo as everyone else. Go find and make your own compositions. Within 50 miles of my house there is more to photography than I will every have time. I am fortunate to live in a place with a lot of colors in the rocks and soils. IMO, making color photography work, is all about understanding the seasonality of the light, which requires that you make repeated visits during the year to a particular location. To my way of thinking, that is the challenge of traveling far away. It's hard to know when the peak time for that location occurs, so your photo looks like everyone else's. I shoot B&W only when the light isn't great for color. However, shooting B&W might change for me. My new Panasonic S5ii X will be here Tuesday and it has several B&W picture styles, which combined with the 65:24 aspect ratio can make some phenomenal panoramas. Pretty excited about that. Thanks for the video.
I totally agree. And I don't know why more cameras don't have the 65:24 aspect ratio. The megapixels are high enough now. Panasonic makes great cameras with a great interface. They should be more popular than they are.
100% agreement. I'm not particularly mobile myself. I don't have a car and I walk a lot. My catchment area is villages, fields and a fair amount of forest, which is not particularly attractive. Sometimes the trips leave me sad because of the lack of motivation. Then I think, I already know everything here. But it happens regularly that I then see things that weren't there before or weren't interesting. Light, time, the turn of the year, perspective all have an influence.
Really nice set if images Ed! In my experience my own color landscape photos tend to become stale and boring quickly but the black and whites have more lasting power. I am sort of stuck in the middle where I still enjoy taking colour photos but I am beginning to shift more to B&W, especially for pure landscapes. Landscapes with human elements can work better though e.g. Alexander Gronsky.
Agree with your point about the magic of BW, but the real nugget that you touched on is great locations don’t necessarily translate to great images. My mantra is that there is a thin line between iconic and cliche!
I bought the Artcise AS80C carbon fiber set of legs with the bowl mount about 5 years ago for 180.00 on Amazon and it's been the best (bigger type) of tripod I've ever owned. I put a Sirui pan an tilt head on it for 100 bucks and its my main "serious" tripod. It's been through the ringer and has held up great. I actually bought a second one just to keep in my van after using the original one for about a year. I seriously and highly recommend these legs, no sense of spending several hundred dollars on some carbon fiber legs when these are just as good or better for 180.00. I've even had them in creeks and streams several times and the twist locks still work great. I use a smaller Sirui tripod for my smaller setups which I love too. Happy shooting
I feel like a good chunk of my favorite photos didn't seem all that interesting when I was there shooting them. Obviously something in me was telling me to snap the photo, but it didn't really stand out until I was back home editing. All that being said, I just bought my first decent travel tripod (not $1000, but it works for me). All my landscapes were handheld up to this point and some of my favorite images are ones that I would love to print, but I can't go as big as I would like. Just a little too much shake. I still do a good mix of color and B&W. Whenever I'm doing landscapes though, a larger portion end up going the B&W route than with my other subjects (cars and people).
20 years ago a decent Tripod was $600 and ball head was $350. Not today. A pro tripod and head is under $300. Which considering how little the money is worth today is really inexpensive.
Steve O'nions said this about epic locations - sure the images from these locations have initial impact, but over time we become used to them and then just find them boring. I tend to agree. I would add that they encourage an over dramatic image which is not necessarily restful to look at for too long. Add in the problem that for any given epic location there are very few compositional choices and so many people take basically the same small range of photos, and the problem is exacerbated. If one can find a good picture in the more mundane, the images may not have that impact, but they grow on one over time, I find at least. Having said all that I certainly would not turn down the chance to go to some of these places:-) Your picture of the small church against the landscape and sky is superb BTW.
Most of my photography has always been b&w and I almost always take the shot assuming it will be b&w. On iconic/stereotypical shots, I have no problem with people taking those - I do it too and while it might be a boring copy, it is my boring copy and it would be odd to me if I didn’t have it just because lots of other people did! Of course, the aim is always to look beyond that.
I agree. The iconic places usually have more going for them than the 3 holes where everybody's tripod goes... And that's what I'm looking for these days.
Nah. It's a one hit wonder. I can get that tonality with any digital camera. The claim to fame is shooting noise free at iso 25000, which I have no use for. The K3 itself is very clunky. The UI isn't as good as the K1. Too much Ricoh and not enough Pentax left. Now Fuji comes out with a Monochrome Xpro4, all bets are off....
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography The more I play with my X100VI, I am getting very good B&W out of it using the Acros preset. As good as Plus-X? No, but nothing is...as good as the K-3 Monochrome? I've never used it, but I'm happy. My biggest issue is I don't have a good way to print these files. I don't want to maintain a pigment printer.
I've had a Gitzo G80 for over 25 years, which is currently being repaired. The center column always slips. I'm conflicted about my little Sirui. On the one hand, it is small and light; on the other hand, the tightness of the individual segments does not inspire confidence. Give a feather over the Gitzo. I replaced the Gitzo's magnesium head with a Tinkteek Jumbo. My question is: Which material do you think has better decay behavior, magnesiun (Gitzo) or carbon (sirui)? I tried to measure it but somehow couldn't tell any difference. Does carbon have any advantages over aluminum? I love your videos, keep it up. Many greetings from Germany.
Carbon fiber is a more rigid material than aluminum. So for equal weights, the carbon tripod will stabilize the camera more. In other words a smaller carbon tripod will be as steady as a bigger aluminum tripod.
For sure. It is beautiful, and I would shoot it, but only because I was there but I wouldn't show it or include it in a portfolio. Unless of course a meteorite or something was crashing into half dome....
I too have Gitzo tripods for my 4x5 cameras but when I use my Nikon D500 with the 200-500 I use the wimberley system with a sirui monopod. It make is like to carry and easier than hauling a tripod. th-cam.com/video/Fgj8bMviZOw/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Here's a landscape photographer (pro I think) that does not use a tripod: www.youtube.com/@WilliamPatinoPhotography. Not many around, but maybe a future Pentax k1mk3 with IS will make a tripod obsolete??? LOL
This man talks sense.....The church and the clouds...love it!
@rossmansell5877 Thanks! 👍
So much packed in this video Ed!
1. I love the picture of the church and the emptiness.
2. People forget about tonality when they shoot colour. When I was in the print design industry, it was drummed into us that tonality matters.
3. A good tripod is somewhat hard to find (affordable at least). I've been using a cheap Zomeii travel (I think it's the 666C), which has been amazing. I've just upgraded to the Artcise 91C, which I bought for height (taller than my 6'4" frame). I've yet to test it out, but it feels sturdy enough to last a lifetime. Both very good Chinese brands.
As always, you've given me pause for thought. Cheers.
I've heard those Artcise tripods are pretty good for the money, it should serve you well. The Church photo is one of my favorites. Thanks! Tonality is so overlooked these days, among other things. 🙂
Good points. Black and white is so much more expressive.
The epic location is only an excuse to get out and about. I have long ago figured out that the keepers will be those images one stumbles upon along the way.
Totally agreed. 👍👍
Interesting video. I have never understood going to places, (Iceland, mesa arch, Moulton barn, lake district, etc.) to take the same photo as everyone else. Go find and make your own compositions. Within 50 miles of my house there is more to photography than I will every have time. I am fortunate to live in a place with a lot of colors in the rocks and soils. IMO, making color photography work, is all about understanding the seasonality of the light, which requires that you make repeated visits during the year to a particular location. To my way of thinking, that is the challenge of traveling far away. It's hard to know when the peak time for that location occurs, so your photo looks like everyone else's. I shoot B&W only when the light isn't great for color. However, shooting B&W might change for me. My new Panasonic S5ii X will be here Tuesday and it has several B&W picture styles, which combined with the 65:24 aspect ratio can make some phenomenal panoramas. Pretty excited about that. Thanks for the video.
I totally agree. And I don't know why more cameras don't have the 65:24 aspect ratio. The megapixels are high enough now. Panasonic makes great cameras with a great interface. They should be more popular than they are.
100% agreement. I'm not particularly mobile myself. I don't have a car and I walk a lot. My catchment area is villages, fields and a fair amount of forest, which is not particularly attractive. Sometimes the trips leave me sad because of the lack of motivation. Then I think, I already know everything here. But it happens regularly
that I then see things that weren't there before or weren't interesting. Light, time, the turn of the year, perspective all have an influence.
Really nice set if images Ed! In my experience my own color landscape photos tend to become stale and boring quickly but the black and whites have more lasting power. I am sort of stuck in the middle where I still enjoy taking colour photos but I am beginning to shift more to B&W, especially for pure landscapes. Landscapes with human elements can work better though e.g. Alexander Gronsky.
Ed, I'm always happy when I see you have put out a new video ! I get a mug of coffee and set back and enjoy your work ! Keep um' coming ! Roger - Ohio
Thanks!
Agree with your point about the magic of BW, but the real nugget that you touched on is great locations don’t necessarily translate to great images. My mantra is that there is a thin line between iconic and cliche!
Very true.
I bought the Artcise AS80C carbon fiber set of legs with the bowl mount about 5 years ago for 180.00 on Amazon and it's been the best (bigger type) of tripod I've ever owned. I put a Sirui pan an tilt head on it for 100 bucks and its my main "serious" tripod. It's been through the ringer and has held up great. I actually bought a second one just to keep in my van after using the original one for about a year. I seriously and highly recommend these legs, no sense of spending several hundred dollars on some carbon fiber legs when these are just as good or better for 180.00. I've even had them in creeks and streams several times and the twist locks still work great. I use a smaller Sirui tripod for my smaller setups which I love too.
Happy shooting
Yes, the prices for decent tripod gear has really come down over the years. I wouldn't buy the expensive ones today for sure!
Black and White the original photography
My first guess what they all have was contrast
I feel like a good chunk of my favorite photos didn't seem all that interesting when I was there shooting them. Obviously something in me was telling me to snap the photo, but it didn't really stand out until I was back home editing.
All that being said, I just bought my first decent travel tripod (not $1000, but it works for me). All my landscapes were handheld up to this point and some of my favorite images are ones that I would love to print, but I can't go as big as I would like. Just a little too much shake.
I still do a good mix of color and B&W. Whenever I'm doing landscapes though, a larger portion end up going the B&W route than with my other subjects (cars and people).
20 years ago a decent Tripod was $600 and ball head was $350. Not today. A pro tripod and head is under $300. Which considering how little the money is worth today is really inexpensive.
Have a great weekend!
Raining and cloudy on the coast, don't know if I'll make it that far though. :)
Steve O'nions said this about epic locations - sure the images from these locations have initial impact, but over time we become used to them and then just find them boring. I tend to agree. I would add that they encourage an over dramatic image which is not necessarily restful to look at for too long. Add in the problem that for any given epic location there are very few compositional choices and so many people take basically the same small range of photos, and the problem is exacerbated. If one can find a good picture in the more mundane, the images may not have that impact, but they grow on one over time, I find at least.
Having said all that I certainly would not turn down the chance to go to some of these places:-)
Your picture of the small church against the landscape and sky is superb BTW.
I agree. And the Church is one of my favorites as well! Thanks!
Thank you Ed very interesting video have a good weekend
Thanks, you too!
Most of my photography has always been b&w and I almost always take the shot assuming it will be b&w. On iconic/stereotypical shots, I have no problem with people taking those - I do it too and while it might be a boring copy, it is my boring copy and it would be odd to me if I didn’t have it just because lots of other people did! Of course, the aim is always to look beyond that.
I agree. The iconic places usually have more going for them than the 3 holes where everybody's tripod goes... And that's what I'm looking for these days.
You really should have kept that K-3 Monochrome man.
Nah. It's a one hit wonder. I can get that tonality with any digital camera. The claim to fame is shooting noise free at iso 25000, which I have no use for. The K3 itself is very clunky. The UI isn't as good as the K1. Too much Ricoh and not enough Pentax left. Now Fuji comes out with a Monochrome Xpro4, all bets are off....
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography The more I play with my X100VI, I am getting very good B&W out of it using the Acros preset. As good as Plus-X? No, but nothing is...as good as the K-3 Monochrome? I've never used it, but I'm happy. My biggest issue is I don't have a good way to print these files. I don't want to maintain a pigment printer.
I've had a Gitzo G80 for over 25 years, which is currently being repaired. The center column always slips. I'm conflicted about my little Sirui. On the one hand, it is small and light; on the other hand, the tightness of the individual segments does not inspire confidence. Give a feather over the Gitzo.
I replaced the Gitzo's magnesium head with a Tinkteek Jumbo. My question is: Which material do you think has better decay behavior, magnesiun (Gitzo) or carbon (sirui)? I tried to measure it but somehow couldn't tell any difference.
Does carbon have any advantages over aluminum? I love your videos, keep it up. Many greetings from Germany.
Carbon fiber is a more rigid material than aluminum. So for equal weights, the carbon tripod will stabilize the camera more. In other words a smaller carbon tripod will be as steady as a bigger aluminum tripod.
Ed
The photograph from Tunnel View of Yosemite Valley , and the surrounding water falls and hill sides are way over photographed
For sure. It is beautiful, and I would shoot it, but only because I was there but I wouldn't show it or include it in a portfolio. Unless of course a meteorite or something was crashing into half dome....
I too have Gitzo tripods for my 4x5 cameras but when I use my Nikon D500 with the 200-500 I use the wimberley system with a sirui monopod. It make is like to carry and easier than hauling a tripod. th-cam.com/video/Fgj8bMviZOw/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Here's a landscape photographer (pro I think) that does not use a tripod: www.youtube.com/@WilliamPatinoPhotography. Not many around, but maybe a future Pentax k1mk3 with IS will make a tripod obsolete??? LOL
There's always 1... kinda hard to use a 10 stop ND without a tripod regardless of ibis. But it's always nice to get improvements.
Color sunset photos are not my thing- cliché.
Agree totally.