digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at younggalleryphoto.com

Incredible Wildlife Photography by Nick Brandt (PICS)

younggalleryphoto.com — Amazing

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gummih, on 10/27/2007, -3/+54You just HAD to sneak it in - didn't you!
    (dugg though, brilliant photos)
    • miles01110, on 10/24/2007, -1/+14Great post-processing in addition to great photos.
      • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -9/+2im willing to bet that hes not doing any "post processing" but is in fact working in a darkroom and simply dodging and burning.
        • triskele, on 10/24/2007, -1/+14And that's not post-process how?
        • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4post-processing sounds like "digital". darkroom techniques arent called "post-processing"
        • HelloNavi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Yes they are. Furthermore, he probably did these with digital post-processing. While all of those effects are possible with darkroom, they're very difficult. Not to mention time consuming. Plus, a few of the pictures, at least to my eyes, seem to lean more toward bloom than any darkroom effect.

          That would actually be my criticism here. MOST of them are beautiful, but a few of them are a little over-processed. Being a nature photographer means taking something beautiful and making it presentable. Not taking something presentable and making it beautiful.

          But I digress, most of these are spectacular.
      • sacherjj, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1He shoots some with far too little depth of field. It works sometimes, but not always. This is a problem I also have when trying to shoot existing light. Wonderful collection. Bet he has over 1000 shots for each of the ones shown. That is how it goes.
      • UbIwerks, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1A lot of these are shot in infrared. :) It looks great! Our photographer, Joe Buissink, used infrared at my wedding. Very cool, indeed!
        • neognostic, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2First off, wonderful stuff, but yes, he did use infared film, but great use of the film.
    • ophello, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2for anyone who is interested: http://www.nickbrandt.com/
      Look at the Press page for PDF's and articles. He does indeed use photoshop, but not for blurring. Just for dodging and burning.
    • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf
      This explains his technique.
    • unearth, on 10/24/2007, -5/+101. That's what she said
      2. If something has photography in the title, I'm pretty sure that everyone is able to figure out that the link contains photos without the word (PICS)
    • bluezinc, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Maybe I'm retarded, but sneak what in?
    • blackbelt88, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1lmao!
  • Raingwc, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9These are from a serie of photographs and video/music called Ashes and Snow I believe.
    http://www.ashesandsnow.org/
    • Cougaboy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4No, I believe not. The title and bottom of the page both say these are by Nick Brandt, and the exhibition you linked is by Gregory Colbert.

      These photos focus on wildlife alone, while Ashes and Snow depicts wild animals side-by-side with humans.
    • afdlips, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0You are quite wrong. However Gregory Colbert is very talented as well.
  • andrew47, on 10/24/2007, -16/+3this is feaking awesome, but some of them look photoshoped
    • Dweller99, on 10/24/2007, -6/+46There is definitely some Photoshop work going on, but that does not at all detract from the quality of his photos.
      • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3not photoshop. darkroom.
        • sacherjj, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Must be a cool darkroom to upload everything to the web without using Photoshop for unsharp masking or anything. My enlarger never had an integrated scanner.
    • MattB123, on 10/23/2007, -0/+10Yeah, but not in a faked kind of way, in an artistic kind of way. I digg!
    • jmkiii, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4So?
    • digitaloxygen, on 10/23/2007, -1/+14You're correct, there is a very heavy use of post processing in a lot of these photos. Many of them have had completely or partially replace the background to make it look like a posed portrait (the chimp for example: http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/brand ...

      A lot of good photographs these days are often due to excellent post processing techniques. It's amazing how you can take an otherwise boring or plain photograph and make it look like something special. That being said most of these photographs are well done to begin with.
      • EssPii, on 10/23/2007, -5/+4"A lot of good photographs these days are often due to excellent post processing techniques."
        Hhahahaahahahaha... you think Ansel Adams' shots looked like they did straight from the camera? Post processing, whether in a darkroom or digitally, is and always will be a part of photography. These shots are processed tastefully and can easily be distinguished from some amateur using a cracked copy of cs3 and following a tutorial online.
        http://esspea-photography.com/blog/
        • Cougaboy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7dugg down for linking to your blog
        • digitaloxygen, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1You make some good points, but you need to chill out.

          I fully agree that the shots are tasteful and well done. I even recognized that they were shot well and probably look great before any post processing. In fact I was giving him credit for the great post processing work he did do.
    • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3these are probably done in a darkroom, not photoshop.
    • bagelpirate, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Most photographers use *Photo*shop to touch up/post-process their pictures. They are bringing out detail, changing the lighting, etc, etc.
      You don't yell "photoshop!" when its an artist working on his photographs, of course they do, thats what its for.
      You can yell it when you see a chick with 5 boobies.
    • stillasleep00, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2That's why programs like Lightroom and Aperture were made, post processing tools built specifically for photographers. Yes, he changed the tone curve for contrast, added some different color effects, and maybe a texture, but nothing considered out of the traditional range for photography.
    • blackeagle613, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1photoshop is not exclusively used for the things you will see on worth1000.com... it can also be used to touch up photos, tweak them a little etc. These pictures are still amazing
  • JonRohan, on 10/24/2007, -1/+14Thanks for the mirror, with a domain name like younggalleryphoto.com, it's blocked as porn at my workplace. STUPID AT&T
    • powaking, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0Worked for me
    • unravelled, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Mine was blocked too and I work in HELL
      • infinityplus1, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2Do you get good dental benefits there?
        • neognostic, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Free tooth extractions with no pain killers. Of course, they pull from the root side.
      • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Funny, I work in Hell and I've never seen you around the office. Maybe you work at a different branch.
  • kaju19, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Great Stuff!
  • melllvar37, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5really nice, how does he achieve this classic look?
    • MattB123, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2Filters, like an IR filter plus some post work in Photoshop.
      • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7darkroom. not photoshop.
        • MattB123, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2How do you know? It could be done either way as far as I can tell.
    • Sippi, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3Infrared film, a very low ISO, and a little bit of photoshop work post production.
    • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -6/+11oh my god, stop saying photoshop. its a ***** darkroom.
      • MikeHuntisDirty, on 10/24/2007, -4/+9I think you have said that it was done in a darkroom like 10 times to different people just shut the ***** up
      • hobbers, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Hey moron, photoshop is today's darkroom. You can do everything you used to do in a darkroom in photoshop, do it better, and do more.
    • sdloveless, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8Nick Brandt shoots black and white film, and some IR film, with primarily a Pentax 67 camera. Once the film is developed it is scanned and digitally manipulated.
  • Modestexcuse, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1Nothing funny to say here....Very impressive work!
  • jmkiii, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9Looks like a lot of infrared stuff... very nice
  • corvandy, on 10/24/2007, -13/+3photoshop hint: when something is soft that should be just as close to the lens as something sharp, it's been doctored (see male lion's mane/face). some beautiful work, but if you're going to cheat, make that an honest part of it.
    • krets, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6I don't think he was trying to pass off any of those effects as being honest you jackass.
    • carnage, on 10/30/2007, -1/+39post processing is as much a part of modern photography as actually taking the picture. Just cause something is post processed, doesn't mean its a bad picture.
      photoshopping a shark into a helicopter rescue = bad
      taking 2 pictures, 1 exposed for the sky and 1 exposed for the foreground, then photoshopping them together = good
      its just the best way to get the best pictures
    • EssPii, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6I take it you don't know what a tilt shift lens is. Not saying he used one, just saying that things the same distance from the lens don't have to have the same sharpness.
      http://esspea-photography.com/blog/
    • ophello, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2photoshop hint: its not doctored. hes using a view camera and tilting the frame. its a normal photography technique that photoshop can mimic.
    • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1first of all, its art - so there is no such thing as cheating.
      Secondly, you would be amazed what you can do with a film camera - if you know what you're doing.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/24/2007, -4/+7I wanted to see Incredible Wife Photography... in the title. looked again and was disappointed.
  • deivys, on 10/24/2007, -9/+4what happened to the colors? Great set of pics. I just wish they where really colorful like nature is.
  • mongoloidplease, on 10/24/2007, -13/+2Elephant with Exploding Dust? Looks like the photographer just threw a bucket of sand at him.
    • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8 elephants are capable of throwing dust on themselves. they do it to cool off. what kind of idiot would throw dust on a wild elephant?
    • neognostic, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2You name fits you.
  • yojiffyskippy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Great work!
  • Treshnell, on 10/24/2007, -12/+1Photoshopped.
    • EssPii, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Uhhh, of course they were. You ever heard of someone called Ansel Adams?
      • ophello, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1ansel adams used a darkroom. do some research.
        • EssPii, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I was implying that all photo's are post processed, some in the darkroom, some in photoshop. Digital or film they don't come out of the camera looking like that.
    • Sucka27, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Duh.

      That's like pointing out that a book was edited before being published. You just let everyone know you're a photography newb.
    • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1It doesn't matter. Its art. Evidently that's something you can't comprehend.
  • grumpy1377, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6wow.
    best set of wildlife pics ive seen for along time(love the group of cheetahs).

    dugg.
  • tamareesoeres, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Brilliant texture, the color is amazing. I love the giraffes and the eyes of all the animals. Anyone know what kind of camera this is? I also know its not the camera alone that does the pics, its the artist as well so spare me the noob answers....
    • JonTheGoose, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1from the looks of many of the prints it seems he's using a larger format camera with 120 or 220 IR film, maybe a Mamiya of some sort.
      • jaggermyster, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Just a note - 120 and 220 is medium format
    • hansning, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2i don't think it's IR. could simply be filters and alternative developement techniques. i'm quite certain this isn't digital.
    • jaggermyster, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Hey,

      He use a medium format camera (120 mm film). Here is some more information on his setup.

      http://www.bowhaus.com/news/brandt.php4
  • ahawks, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Those really are amazing. The first one that came up (elephant) got a verbal "woah" from me.
  • syllabub, on 10/24/2007, -17/+0They are amazing, but also not terribly natural... here are my more humble efforts... http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=17585&id=567 ...
    • unravelled, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3it's not natural to compete on a social bookmarking website
    • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1dug down and reported as spam.
  • feeman4life, on 10/26/2007, -0/+25Honestly, I don't see what's the big deal with "photoshopping" a picture. It's post processing! In a darkroom, you use all sorts of techniques to develop and accentuate a photograph, creating a "fine art print".

    Now with digital using more or less the techniques, (albeit with a LOT more creative freedom) apparently cheapens the art? Get over it! It is part of the workflow.

    With that being said, those photos are brilliant. Dugg.
    • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3who says hes using a computer? ill bet $100 hes just using darkroom techniques.
    • unravelled, on 10/24/2007, -0/+9yeah who cares about using photoshop for post-processing, it all comes from the creators mind. I wonder if artists who painted portraits complained when cameras were invented "FAKE totally dark roomed!"
      • ophello, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1haha
      • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2They did with moving pictures. Took a bit of film history in college.
    • hansning, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2too bad it isn't photoshopped tho. i'm quite sure this is from a view camera with negatives that are 4 X 5 (inches) or larger. this kind of composition requires that of a view camera.
      • joegibes, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1He said in his book that he uses a medium-format camera.
        http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf
      • jaggermyster, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Oh and we all know that you could never scan a medium format image and then adjust in photoshop. That never happens (rolls eyes). Why do you think that no one scans and adjusts medium format images. Alos, Nick says it hinmslf in hois book and interviews. Pleas etry to stay informned.
    • jaggermyster, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Shoped - 1Digg. Just kidding.

      I totally agree. The whole its photo shop so its not 'Real photography' is ridiculous. These comments usually come from people who are ignorant (in the non derogatory sense) to photography. ALL fine art photography is manipulated in some way after the image is taken - digital or film. Ansel Adams once said 'the negative is the score, the print is the performance.' Many of his prints vary greatly depending on how he chose to interpret and print them.

      In the olden times (read 1995) fine art prints were manipulated by paper choice, global and local contrast adjustment, chemicals used and development time etc. Today we have replaced all of this with computing and added the ability to do other things. Even com-positing can be done manually with wet chemistry.

      I am satisfied that Ansel Adams would be proud of where we are today. In his time he made use of all the technology available to him. For example, he would us an analog densimoter to manually put together a histogram.

      So if its good enough for him it is good enough for me.
  • kamel, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/brand ... - Giraffes flashing gang signs.
  • gamalkik, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Here's an astonishing photographer
    the "Elephant with Exploding Dust" is truly amazing
  • gordonf238, on 10/29/2007, -0/+29These photos are monochromatic because the photographer attempts to draw attention by his composition and form. There is plenty of value and texture to appreciate. I don't think he meant to challenge a typical full-color Nat. Geographic wildlife series. This is more of an abstract, timeless perspective.

    BTW, "photoshoppping" is today's version of a darkroom. They dodged and burned photos long before computers were invented, so quit your whining.
    • obxjdt, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I'm with ya'. Some people just assume what they see published is what the camera saw. If they only knew about all the touch-ups in their favorite magazines....
  • yorch, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Any wallpapers around?
    • ophello, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1google the artist. his webpage has pdfs with higher quality images.
  • sonydog, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3The life this photographer lives must be amazing. I'm sure it beats the cube.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4You have to be *very* patient to photograph wildlife. Sometimes hundreds of hours of sitting in a blind = one good shot.
      • joegibes, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Still, it's better than hours of being asked to redo your TPS reports.
  • kendra82, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1These are pretty cool too!
    http://www.buckmanager.com/2007/10/21/strange-wild ...
  • greatgazoo, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Breathtaking! Black & White is such an art form.
  • shamos, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1i wonder how much photoshopping it takes for a photograph to be considered a painting.. I don't think these can be considered photographs anymore.
    • ophello, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1darkroom. not photoshop. DARKROOM.
    • hansning, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4if you only knew how to take photos. or anything about photography really.
  • Sparky47, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4The man sure knows ho to dodge and burn. Beautiful work!
  • DangerStepp, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Great shots, though I was weary of my boss walking around and seeing "YOUNG GALLERY" plastered at the top of my browser window.
    • mailman-zero, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Were you weary or leery?
      • DeathRay2K, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure he means wary... It's just a typo.
  • maxien78, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Amazing. The one with Zebras crossing made me chuckle though. not the picture just the description.
  • vincrap, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1photoshopped or not, these are absolutely stunning shots
  • almayng, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Amazing work, was i the only one that felt like crying?... come on now... you can tell me...
    • founderofpork, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1My wife did when she was going through them. Not me though, and not you either if you're a man! j/k
  • Callaway7, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2Nick Brandt appears to be the photographer.
    http://www.artnet.com/artist/424196968/nick-brandt ...
    • MicrosoftBob, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Yes, his profile is at the bottom of the page.
    • wondertwins, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4ya think? read the title and subtitles dumbass
  • urbannomad23, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1fantastic!
  • NoBatmanNo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7Just so you guys know, Nick Brandt uses a film camera and does not doctor his photos in photoshop. I recently visited one of the galleries which represent him (http://www.photoeye.com/) and asked them about it. They said he uses a medium format camera and gets as close as possible to the animals without using a telephoto lens. Very impressive stuff. It is understandable, that with the increasing availability of digital alternatives, the possibilities of the darkroom are no longer fathomable.
    • spargett, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8Even if he didn't use photoshop to digitally process the images, I guarantee you he spent quite a bit of time a technique to develop these images in the dark room. Analog dodging and burning with shadows, etc.

      Images just don't come off of cameras looking like this, especially that consistently without a very skilled hand playing a part in post processing.
    • hansning, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1i thought for sure it was a view camera
    • xt0ph3r, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5He says he uses Photoshop here though: http://www.nickbrandt.com/pdf/LensWork_Nov_05.pdf Page 4 of the PDF, far right column.
    • clafleche, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1He most certainly uses Photoshop (which is fine). It's most obvious in how the focal planes in individual images are inconsistent and implausible, even at extremely wide apertures. He's recreated a very 19th century look in the portraits, which is essentially impossible with modern-day lenses.
      • DeathRay2K, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1He denies doing any sort of blurring in Photoshop.
    • joegibes, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2He uses photoshop, but only as an extension of a darkroom. You can do most of the things he did (with light range and dodging and burning) in a real darkroom, but it's difficult and time-consuming. In photoshop you have instant and cheap results, and it's more versatile.
  • umilmi81, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5All of those fantastic wildlife photos, and not one half wet elephant.
  • spargett, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3I've seen this guy before. I'd love to see a case study on the evolution of his images.
  • doublsh0t, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2very artistically done, sorta reminds me of 300 a little bit like the skies and lighting and shadowing
  • octophobic, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Yup... that's about as close as I would want to get to a bunch of hippos.
  • Nick519, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2his photos of lions (particularly the first one of the lioness, and the one of the lion looking into the wind) made me gasp. beautiful work. dugg.
  • Tezdoll, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1I did like the photos, some looked touched up (lion before the storm #2) the hair of the lion's main just look "blured". Theres more but i did like the photos a lot.

    edit
    by spargett
    Even if he didn't use photoshop to digitally process the images, I guarantee you he spent quite a bit of time a technique to develop these images in the dark room. Analog dodging and burning with shadows, etc.

    Images just don't come off of cameras looking like this, especially that consistently without a very skilled hand playing a part in post processing.
  • andrgo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1If I could take pictures like that I'd be a friggen millionaire.
    • Thumper13, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1No, you wouldn't. Sadly, photography doesn't pay that well. I'm sure he's not hurting, but it doesn't pay that well.
  • MrSlumberjack, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3...wish I had some of that 'exploding dust'. Must be something new.

    ***** sweeeet pics by the way
    • obxjdt, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1That's always been a big draw back to smuggling dope with your elephants....One sneeze and poof.... $5,000,000 gone, just like that.
      LOL
  • porkstacker, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Those are great photographs. Brings back memories of our (wife and I) honeymoon in Kenya. We took a safari in the Masaai Mara game preserve, but had just missed the main migration across the river Mara by two days. But it was still pretty damn cool!
  • numberneal, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2great postcards, lol.

    nick brandt has iron set of balls takin' em without the telephoto lens; hats off.
  • NotreDameIrish, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2does anyone have a tutorial or anything on how you would retouch photos like this on photoshop?
    • bbqsalad, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2try pixel2life.com
    • fredpwatson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I would start with learning how to use layer masks and adjustment layers. (photoshop docs) That will allow you to easily use adjustment layers to create the vignette effect he uses around the edges and also the areas of blurring etc. As far as making photos look old and worn, it's as simple as getting some pictures of some old worn white or off-color paper and then overlaying (see layer blend modes) it over your photo.
  • jessem19, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2They have so much depth to them. Great photography and editing.
  • bbqsalad, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Those are amazing.
  • SyntraFTW, on 10/23/2007, -5/+1Look at how shopped they are! This is not the way Photography should be. ***** Digital, Bring back Film!
  • kiwimonk, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1I guess he took these in the 1930s when there were still animals, and we didn't have color cameras?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.