Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
Oh man, that's some sweet sunset light. I love when you get the orange on the clouds and the crisp reds on the land.joe bartels wrote:Reminded me of the clean light I found on Squaw years ago with my Canon 16-35 I (photos 6-8)
I've got to disagree that the quality of photography has gone downhill. AZ Highways photos are still top-notch in my opinion. In fact, I would challenge you to pick up a couple issues from a few years ago... The core photographers will be mostly the same- Jack Dykinga, Robert MacDonald, Randy Prentice, etc. If their styles have changed in the past few years its not much.azbackpackr wrote:Well haven't seen that issue yet, but for my money AZ hwys photos have gone downhill over the past few years. Too much red where red isn't the right color. The Catalinas aren't red--they are not really all that red even at sunset. It just looks ugly to me. Too many fuzzy waterfalls and creeks, an effect gets so very redundant, issue after issue. One wants to see freeze-frame water once in awhile, ya know? I know, that fuzzy effect is supposed to make it look like it's flowing, but to me it just looks out of focus, and plus, I'm tired of seeing it. It gets boring.
So if they want to try something new once in awhile, I say, go for it! Even if it is kind of artsy fartsy, better than boring.
Yaa! Like that cowboy when asked by a tourist how often it rained in Arizona and responded by saying:Tortoise Hiker wrote:I want the corny joke page back too.
I love soft water effects but it seems AZ Highways will through in any old shot. All of my soft water shots I thought were going to be great but I got them home and found them to be bland. It's easy to get hung up on soft water, when in reality it's like any other type of photo: you still need a great composition and unique characteristics to make it stand out from the average shot.azbackpackr wrote:Ok, maybe so, maybe not about the red. I lived two miles from Pusch ridge for 13 years, I sure don't recall seeing everything looking that red. But I wish they would lose the fuzzy water. That gets old. I have talked to a lot of people about it, and it seems most agree with me on the fuzzy water effect.
Yeah, well, last I heard the magazine is on its last legs. (Heard that from one of its contributors.) Of course I doubt that fuzzy water is the problem here...it's our legislature that will kill the magazine whenever they get around to it. I mean, perfectly logical, if we have no state parks then we don't need a magazine full of pictures taken in the state parks...desertgirl wrote:Joel Grimes does some amazing work with light.
Soft water images that hold the detail in the other areas work quite well. At the end of the day its a magazine & they have to put in what sells -- soft flowing water sells, sharp clear focus on water does not.
That's what keeps it interestingJamesLyding wrote:The enjoyment of photographic art is so subjective.
I think we've all been thereJamesLyding wrote:Conversely, I've posted a lot of pics that I thought were masterpieces that didn't get much attention.