Ilya Varivchenko
OM-D EM5, M.ZUIKO 45/1.8
1) You can share your pics by using the message box on our 43rumors Facebook page (Click here).
2) All 43rumors readers pictures can be seen here: facebook.com/43rumors/photos. Like the pictures you like and chat with the authors if you want to know how they took the shot!
3) The most liked pictures and some pics selected by myself will be posted weekly on 43rumors
This is the weekly selection:
Michel Mayerle
Olympus OM-D E-M5, Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro
Ferd Isaac
Shot with: Olympus EM-1, 75mm, f1.8
REPUBLIC311 PHOTOGRAPHY
Matt Krumins
A juvenile Weedy Seadragon from Flinders Pier in Victoria Australia.
Shot on the OM-D E-M5 with 12-40mm PRO lens in Olympus housing.
Full collection & UW Photography courses at:
www.deeperthandiving.com
フラン だ
Panasonic LUMIX GX7, Lumix 20mm f1.7
Thomas G.
EP5 and 9-18mm. Mystic, CT.
53 Responses
The portraits, while being very good photos, look totally artificial – retouching taken to the extreme – it looks like zombie painting.
I agree – but, have you seen a fashion magazine lately? it’s entirely part of the genre.
Yes. But have you seen how fashion has been negatively talked in few years (again) how falsified and fake are most those fashion photographs?
It is ridiculous to discuss “deep retouching” on pictures 1000px in size.
If you fix a picture on pixel level, then CGI it belongs to. Oh well, these days it’s hard to tell if it’s photography or CGI.
But photography isn’t just about documenting reality as it is. It can also be used as the starting point for creating a work of art, a fantasy vision, just like a slab of marble can be worked into a sculpture. The photo is the raw material that the artist has chosen to work with.
These two ways of looking at the purpose of photography need not be opposed to each other. They are both equally valid.
The only photography that can be called ‘fake’ is when someone claims to document reality, when in fact the picture has been manipulated. But fashion and glamour photography does not fall into that category, because we are all aware of the fact that they show us idealized versions of reality.
Likewise, many landscape photographers try to achieve a result that is as striking and dramatic as possible without claiming to document the scene as the eyes saw them.
We’ll said,I’m not against post processing, but people should be careful when using the processed pictures, especially commercially . Today a dull landscape can be processed to have a striking look and of course the tourism ads. don’t put a note like “processed image, it could be not possible to see the same landscape in your tour.” Same thing in fashions, the processed faces and bodies do have a huge impact in our lives, they set a standard of beauty that is hard to achieve, and of course they don’t say “stop struggling, you won’t look like the model when you wear the same suit.”. In Sweden there were cases of ads. companies using real life bodies and minimal post process in fashion ads. and I say it’s a good start.
They aren’t falsified and fake, because they aren’t supposed to show us reality. It’s a fantasy, an idealized picture to entice the viewer, just like the old pinup paintings by Gil Elvgren.
It’s all a formula, like pop music.
Those shots are like greasy cakes. I’d stick to hard breads most of the time.
The sea horse is great, and the landscape that follows it is my fav of the bunch. The more I look at it the more I like. The rest of this batch aren’t up to the same standard as those 2 imo.
Thats no run of the mill sea horse, its a sea dragon
OMG is that first portrait stunning!!! Absolutely awesome work!
Just shows again what the system is capable of. I just got a few nice lenses and a cheap body. Now a good photography course and looking forward to enjoying photography
I don’t like the HDR-ish of the last pic.
My favs here are the seadragon and the landscape (though the position of the person kinda disturbs me ahah).
Looking forward to get a 45mm 1.8 🙂
1st pic, too much PS, I did the same when I discovered the “digital powder” 😉 but all pics show that the system is professional.
Yep, first picture is too much PS, but a nice eye catcher.
the portrait is 70% editing and 30% light. you could have shoot that with any camera.
if you show reader photos why not unedited images that show the camera quality not the editing skills of its users?
im more interested to see OOC pics here then images that are so edited that you cant make a guess about how able teh camera is to capture good images.
Perhaps because this is not supposed to be a pixel peeping review and noone is taking pictures at test charts for passion?
I don’t think people posting their photos at 43rumors need to tell the world “hey, look at how great this gear is”.
It’s just passion, sometimes work, and gear will always be gear while a photo is a photo.
+1 the lack of the replies here and the content of some of them shows that many dont bother to go into the photo aspects of each shot. Even a remark like too much processed or PS shows a poor attempt coming up with something. For me I like Ilya’s portrait alot because his choice for a square format ala 6×6 makes it shine. His lightning style with the dominant shadowing makes it very moodful.
Good comment except that it’s a 645 format image which is a straight 4/3 format.
thanks for the correction
Hi Ulli, I like your comment though, as I think shooting square is a very good way to go, yes you can call it easy as you then have all the options to edit but it is also good practice to square frame the shot first off.
There is a difference between photography and gear porn etc. I have many friends that don’t have an ounce of creativity. For some reason photography is the only creative process where uncreative people seem to venture into.
Picture if you will someone painting a plein air landscape without any artistic ability. Then picture that person arguing about their choice of paint and how it is far superior because it’s pigment is suspended in walnut oil.
There are those that value the art of photography and there are those that just want what is deemed the best.
Old saying – you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
And silk is made out of larvae’s secretion.
No, silk IS a larvae’s secretion. It is of extremely high quality to start with. It isn’t something of low quality which is transformed into something of high quality. The quality is there from the beginning.
No, you couldn’t have done that with any camera. If you could, a lot of fashion, beauty, glamour and pinup photographers would be shooting with point-and-shoots.
Sure, skillful use of lighting can to some extent compensate for a bad camera, but really successful post-processing and retouching is only possible if the image is of a high quality to begin with. The images from small sensor cameras often look really bad at the pixel level, making them unsuitable for the kind of retouch work that portrait photographers often do.
It’s a myth that you can do just about anything in post-processing, regardless of the quality of the image. Any artist needs good material to work with.
in that small resolution and with that amount of editing any camera coudl have shoot it. look at flickr and you see such images shoot with P&S cameras.
the editiing is hiding most flaws anyway.
The more editing you do, the more important it is to have good image quality to begin with. One of the most important differences between large and small sensor cameras, is that the images produced by the former don’t fall apart as easily under heavy post-processing. Any professional retoucher can tell you that.
Totally agree with you
The quality of the source is very important
it´s not a myth it´s a fact as you can see on devian art etc.
with the right skils you can make smartphone images look fantastic.
see my face as reaction
they are painters, this is another skill. Some time they don’t even need a picture to paint over just a blank canvas. Look at my avatar. No sensor needed. The artist just draw me.
These roundups aren’t supposed to showcase the technical qualities of the cameras, they are supposed to give photographers an opportunity to show their works.
Personally, I’m interested in photographic art, not camera sensors.
Me too just not on GEEK websites like these.
There are better places for that.
It will be good if this site could have a weekly roundup of SOOC photos from m43 cameras since the cameras are capable of taking stunning pictures without post process.
admin,on 2 oct, that u told next the special info about LX100,GM5
and week go by no more infomation , hopefully not disclose more info on official release date,
because i can read many site review that not rumors but it is real specificates.
This forum ( Weekly photos ) badly need photos especially Pro standard to make it shine .
Actually, this forum badly needs more Pro comments.
Let’s see it….let’s see your “pro” work. I hope I’m ready to be dazzled.
Exactly!
Well done Ilya Varivchenko! My favorite setup is also OM-D EM5, M.ZUIKO 45/1.8
OK it’s my turn to sound all arrogant and condescending like most of you on this site 😉
Those of you who are complaining that its too much photoshop have obviously never shot with studio strobes and have no clue how it works deuh..I am not saying the retouching couldn’t have been better to preserve more texture, but honestly that sort of directional lighting will make every single pore pop up (I know coz I often use it too ). You cannot get that “look” without some sort of retouching, and it needs a lot of skill to get it right. That is one part, the other being it could have just been an aesthetic decision also…..
So please dont compare street photography to fashion portraits (apple- oranges thingy).
I’m just jealous I don’t have those retouching skills 🙂
Can’t “pre-order” knowledge and skill.
Nice photos
The “Modern Woman” photo grabbed my attention. For these heavily-processed photos, it would be interesting to have both the original photo and re-touched photo side-by-side, to compare.
Modern Woman?
She looks like a shop window mannequin from the 80s. Awful!
Technically the pics are fine though, except for too much pp.
To much photoshop…I don’t like HDR…yada yada. So many complainers on here. These are all solid photo’s….although I’m seriously digging that Matt Krumins photo. Just get out and shoot.
Those portraits are NOT solid photos. That is the problem. Why not just paint the portrait from photograph and call it as “solid photo”?
There is too much image manipulation that renders most photographs in fashion to fake ones. There are moral rules what can be done and what not.
Do you really believe that both girls in those photos would look like that in real life? Like their face is flat without any cheekbones or facial structure that would bring them some 3D? Now the eyes, nose and lips have been taken to spotlight and make face look just flat surface.
And image manipulation isn’t promoting the make-up artists skills or hairstylist skills or light engineer skills or costume stylists skills.
Fixing and small editing is allowed, but when it goes to manipulation then it is slippery slope.
Neverless, they are talented work and does carry some impact to viewer but whiners whiners should stop defending when photographs has been turned to art instead being photographs.
Photography is art, as it should be. Some artists work with paint, others work with pixels, nothing strange about that. A digital photo is basically computer graphics anyway, since it’s made up of pixels. It’s just an approximation of reality to begin with, so there is no point in complaining about it being ‘fake’ or ‘inauthentic’. It never was ‘real’ or ‘authentic’.
And no one believes that the models look like that in real life. Fashion photography isn’t supposed to show us real life, it’s supposed to show us a fantasy vision.
“stop defending when photographs has been turned to art instead being photographs.”
I take it you don’t like art, then? An artist has the right to work in any medium he prefers, and why can’t a photo be used to create a work of art?
You seem to have a very limited view of the purpose of photography. It’s not just about documenting reality. That is only one among many reasons for taking a photo.
It took 20 minutes for me to post-process this picture. “too much image manipulation”? I don’t think so. 🙂
1 ps or not, great looking portrait; wonder what the complainers actually see.
2 nicely done b&w wedding/landscape.
4 cool! You can just imagine the awkward way this sea dragon is paddling away from the viewer.
not sure why but i can’t see any pictures on the fb page