Is this possible?

[anthp 0]

I came across John Hyde's website and was very impressed by many of the images. However, when I came to some, I began to suspect a level of photoshopping beyond the norm...

 

Would appreciate advice from knowledgable types about whether my skills underwater just aren't up to snuff, or whether skills on the computer would be more applicable.

 

It is definitely worth going over to the site to check out the images - they are superb. The two I have posted are from Whales and Wild Lands portfolios.

[anthp 0]

Wow - just discovered another one.

 

This guy is good!

[Rocha 0]

Great photos indeed. They look possible to me, you just have to be on the right place at the right time.

 

Luiz

[Lndr 0]

nah! I don't buy it

 

[edit: How is the sun in the sky and the dappled light on the front of the orca?]

[okuma 64]

Naw - Not real. A similar one to the ice berg was floating around several years ago. To get the bottom in a view finder you must be a long way off. This would require vis in the renge of a mile!

 

The salmon and bear are a composition!

[JoelD 0]

The Salmon photo might be possible, but over-under with the bear, that would basically require a trained bear, because even in a bucket of water, you'd have to wait on the fish to frame up just right. Or maybe a bear-proof suit...

http://www.improbable.com/news/2002/may/troy-new-suit.html

 

 

The iceberg would require stadium lighting underwater, and the lightning...again not very bloody likely...

 

 

They are great art though...

[loftus 42]

The menisci just don't look quite right to me; particularly the iceberg shot. This is obviously his transition zone between shots.

[dmoss 0]

The salmon and bear shot is not only possible, it would be rather easy at the right time of the year. The sockeye salmon is obviously in his spawning colors. Several years back I was fishing on the Russian River in the Kenai peninsula. The sockeye come in to spawn by the hundreds. They are stacked in shoulder to shoulder (do fish have shoulders ?) Every bear in the area is aware of the spawning run and come in to feed. Wait for a bear to come to the river, pick any fish you want, and fire away. Then get out of the river before the grizzly thinks you look tastier than the fish !

[kriptap 0]

Why don't you email him and ask! I think the pics are true and real, people always put down a great photo these days due to photoshop.. Photoshop you have a lot to answer to!!

[Kasey 0]

Not much to ask about. If any one image is impossible, the others can't be credible. Is it possible to hold a camera perfectly still with an open shutter waiting for a bolt of lightning in 34 degree water? Even in a severe lightning storm that shot would have to have a ss of at least 5s, yet there is no blur, and a perfectly straight over/under transition. I suspect that this is 3 shots blended together.

[kriptap 0]

I think you'll find your wrong the guy has an incredible talent:

 

http://www.wildthingsphotography.com

[jcfig 4]

No doubt about the photographer's talent. However, at least one of the shots is a composite. If you go to the site there's two different shots of the Orca underwater. One under the "Whales" portfolio has a cloudy sky with sun background. Then under the "New Work" portfolio the same shot has a mountain background.

 

But hey, I wish I was half as good as this guy with either a camera or Photoshop.

[ChrisJ 0]

I wish I was half as good as this guy with either a camera or Photoshop. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

my sentiments exactly.

[kriptap 0]

Your right, don't like him now!

[photovan 0]

Some of the straight images are spectacular, and some of what I think are comps are excellent; some of the comps are a little "wacky" - different perspectives within the same pic, depth of field issues within the final comp.

 

I think the photoshop work is a legitimate form of expression, it certainly adds a new way of communicating a message. I use it at certain times in the work I do.

 

I think that the issue is probably not whether "to photoshop or not to photoshop" but more about ensuring the viewer knows what they are looking at. If you really want your great images to be admired for being single images, you should label them as an "original photograph".

 

Active labelling of single images is probably easier than expecting (most) compositors to label their stuff as "composites".

[wchen 1]

I belong to a dive club in Santa Barbara. During our meeting this week the underwater photography instructor of Brooks Institute of Photography did a slideshow for us. His first picture was an iceberg composite very similar to those above.

 

He went thru details of how he shot each component. It was preplanned, and each piece still needs to be shot well.

 

I don't think it's a matter of credible or not, it's art. Anyways, that single image put his daughter through college and it's beautiful.

[anthp 0]

I think that the issue is probably not whether "to photoshop or not to photoshop" but more about ensuring the viewer knows what they are looking at. If you really want your great images to be admired for being single images, you should label them as an "original photograph".

Active labelling of single images is probably easier than expecting (most) compositors to label their stuff as "composites".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree with photovan's sentiments and echo Kasey's idea that it casts a credibility shadow on the methodology behind all his work.

 

However, viewing his work for what it is - art - rather than pure documentary, I find it stunning and enjoy going back and looking at each of the images. His combined PS and photographic skills make all the images compelling and beautiful to look at.

 

As people have mentioned, even though some of the images are clearly composites, they still require planning and forethought and a high degree of photographic/PS skill. I really enjoy the website and have found the discussion fascinating.

 

Thanks for joining in folks.

[anthp 0]

It would appear that elsewhere on the web, John labels some images as composites:

 

See here

[drsteve 6]

I belong to a dive club in Santa Barbara. During our meeting this week the underwater photography instructor of Brooks Institute of Photography did a slideshow for us. His first picture was an iceberg composite very similar to those above.

 

He went thru details of how he shot each component. It was preplanned, and each piece still needs to be shot well.

 

I don't think it's a matter of credible or not, it's art. Anyways, that single image put his daughter through college and it's beautiful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The professor Will is referring to is Ralph Clevinger and his iconic iceberg image can be found at iceberg photo. My first impression was "woah!? How the hell did he light something the size of a football field underwater!?" Then he let on that it was a composite from the days before Photoshop.

[anthp 0]

Thanks Steve - I'd always wondered who was behind that iceberg photo.

[dawktah 0]

Pretty cool composite images. Icebergs are, as we know, much greater in size under the water than above. So immediate tip off for me. If labeled as composites and not real photographs more power to him.