« Whadja Git? | Main | Tom Haig Loses His Tail »

Friday, 28 December 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e54fc9147d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jim Reed on '20/20':

Comments

Thank you for the heads up.

Thanks for reminding us of this Mike. I will be sure to check it out.

Wes

FYI, here is another storm/weather-chaser
http://www.extremeinstability.com/

I've seen a lot of shots of mesocyclones and have even caught a couple in person, but that first shot with the mailbox in the foreground has to be one of the most artistic representations I've seen. Absolutely stunning shot!

I even like the name on the mailbox: "Noble Smith."

Mike J.

Yesterday, I had a chance to look at this while browsing at a Borders. Many of the images are visually gripping, even stunning in some cases. I did not have much time to read the text, but my impression was the author focused on his storm chasing experiences rather than the details of photography. This is just a comment, not a critique, but I was hoping for some insights on his methods. (Then again, when faced with a roaring tornado, I suppose "Matrix metering and be there!" is sufficient.)

One other thing did strike me as I looked at some of the older images, i.e. they did not have level of micro-contrast that one often now sees in magazines. I do not know enough about the technical relationships between film scanning methods and book printing, so here as well I do not mean this as a criticism.

However, this perception did get me thinking. Given the pervasive presence of photoshopped pictures, HD TV, and other forms of enhanced imagery, I began to wonder whether I have been pre-programmed to take hyper-acuity and hyper-lighting for granted. Once I considered this, I came to appreciate Reed's images for the quality of their light, color, and content.

"they zoom in and out or pan across still images as if they have to add some motion at any cost. It's unnecessary, but perhaps unavoidable."

I know many photographers don't like that. But I think it's necessary due to the low resolution of a TV screen. You just can't get a whole photograph on it while at the same time get a good impression of important details like faces.

The comments to this entry are closed.