Must watch video for "everyone"? Stephen Wilkes "Day to Night" photographs

Messages
3,243
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I have seen these photographs before and ashamed to say I passed them over as just having some sort of weird filter effects applied. I now think these are some of the most interesting photographs I've ever seen.

I'm not sure I actually "like" them, but it's difficult not to be impressed by the vision, execution and images produced.

The video seems particularly relevant to some recent threads on here as the photographs rely completely on post processing (blending 60 -70 files in Photoshop) and certainly for me, needed to be explained before I could understand/appreciate what they were about.

It's an hour long and part of four videos where Stephen Wilkes is interviewed by photoPXL . For me, the second half of this video was the most interesting as this was about wildlife photography, but you really need to watch all the video to understand what is going on.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUZL1BGUOLQ
 
Quite a long watch but fascinating and definitely an art form. The detail is phenomenal.
 
Quite a long watch but fascinating and definitely an art form. The detail is phenomenal.
Well, I've now watched all four videos but it was worth it. As well as the photographs there was a lot of other interesting chat from the participants, which you might expect, given how well known they are. I found it a wonderful blend of the technical with the creative.

Not sure which video he mentions it in, but the prints are printed very large (several feet) and he likes the viewer to be able to walk up to the print and still be able to see the fine detail. He uses 150mp phase one backs on the rather sweet 6x9 Arca Swiss camera, with I'm guessing, from the brief glimpse I got, the "designed for digital" Rodenstock or/and Schneider lenses.
 
Thanks for that Graham (y) Fascinating blend of art and science. It's a shame that the final images only really come to life when you know what's going on, and happen to be standing in front of a twelve-foot wide print!
 
It's a shame that the final images only really come to life when you know what's going on, and happen to be standing in front of a twelve-foot wide print!

I've been thinking about, and lots of photographs rely on an explanation before you can fully understand their meaning, e.g documentary photographs where you really need to know the circumstances of the photograph to fully appreciate them.

The book is 35.9 x 5 x 49.3 cm so I suspect this would still provided a pretty good experience, even it isn't exactly 12 feet (some are going to be close to 2m long). But maybe we have to accept that seeing them full size in real life is simply an intrinsic part of the photographers vision.
 
I've been thinking about, and lots of photographs rely on an explanation before you can fully understand their meaning, e.g documentary photographs where you really need to know the circumstances of the photograph to fully appreciate them.

The book is 35.9 x 5 x 49.3 cm so I suspect this would still provided a pretty good experience, even it isn't exactly 12 feet (some are going to be close to 2m long). But maybe we have to accept that seeing them full size in real life is simply an intrinsic part of the photographers vision.

The requirement for large/huge size doesn't really diminish them IMHO, and surely makes for a great exhibition experience (a bit like viewing sculpture perhaps) but difficult to have a go at yourself. On the other hand, in the intro he cites Hockney's 'Joiner' technique as early inspiration, and that was originally just a stack of Polaroids quite crudely montaged together on a board. The extra dimension of 'time' is basically the same.

I think you need the large sensor as well, unfortunately:-(
edit: and the vision :)

I don't think you need a large sensor, it just reduces the number of individual images required and makes things easier. His early efforts we done with a regular DSLR weren't they? Once you've sorted it all out (no small task) Photoshop does the rest.
 
Once you've sorted it all out (no small task) Photoshop does the rest.
And in his case someone else to do the 'retouching'. ;)

The pictures are impressive, but I find them superficial.
 
The requirement for large/huge size doesn't really diminish them IMHO, and surely makes for a great exhibition experience (a bit like viewing sculpture perhaps) but difficult to have a go at yourself. On the other hand, in the intro he cites Hockney's 'Joiner' technique as early inspiration, and that was originally just a stack of Polaroids quite crudely montaged together on a board. The extra dimension of 'time' is basically the same.[/QUOTE

I agree. I thought it was you who were being critical of it when you said "It's a shame that the final images only really come to life when you know what's going on, and happen to be standing in front of a twelve-foot wide print!"

He does mention Hockney, but none of the day to night images are montages, it’s the same image photographed thousands of times.

I don't think you need a large sensor, it just reduces the number of individual images required and makes things easier. His early efforts we done with a regular DSLR weren't they? Once you've sorted it all out (no small task) Photoshop does the rest.

The sensor size won't make any difference to the number of images required as the angle of view will be determined by the lens used, and extreme wide angle lenses are available for Phase One backs, it's the size of the photosites on medium format sensors that give you the quality and detail needed for these large prints.

I didn't pick up on him using a DSLR for his early images, but his other landscape work was done on 5x4 film. You need the Phase One 53.4mm x 40mm sensor to match the level of detail you get from 5x4 film (from the tests done by Tim Parkin) so regardless of megapixels a FF sensor won't match the detail he is getting from a Phase One back.

I may be reading too much into "photoshop does the rest" but it reads like you underestimate how much skill will be needed to successfully blend the multiple images into a single image, that is going to be printed extremely large and inspected from inches away.
 
And in his case someone else to do the 'retouching'. ;)

The pictures are impressive, but I find them superficial.

Even if someone else is doing the retouching, its still his vision, and it’s a retoucher he works very closely with, so its not as if he is just "handing it over" to some one else to finish. I suspect that given the size of the prints, and the complexity of the blending, its something only a professional retoucher would have the skills to do.

My comment on not being sure whether I liked them or not, was because I had an uneasy feeling about them being a bit 'contrived" (not sure if that's the same as superficial), even if overall I was very impressed. Superficial sounds more insulting :)
 
Even if someone else is doing the retouching, its still his vision, and it’s a retoucher he works very closely with, so its not as if he is just "handing it over" to some one else to finish. I suspect that given the size of the prints, and the complexity of the blending, its something only a professional retoucher would have the skills to do.

My comment on not being sure whether I liked them or not, was because I had an uneasy feeling about them being a bit 'contrived" (not sure if that's the same as superficial), even if overall I was very impressed. Superficial sounds more insulting :)
Him having a retoucher wasn't a criticism, it's no different to Damien Hirst having someone else doing the actual painting of his dot paintings. It's a time honoured tradition for artists to have minions do the donkey work - if they can afford minions. ;)

I think the technique in thse digital creations is more impressive, and interesting, than the pictures. And it's pictures which interest me. Hence superficial.
 
I agree. I thought it was you who were being critical of it when you said "It's a shame that the final images only really come to life when you know what's going on, and happen to be standing in front of a twelve-foot wide print!"

It was meant to be a comment rather than a criticism. A lot of excellent art needs to be experienced in the flesh, so to speak, eg The Angel of the North.

He does mention Hockney, but none of the day to night images are montages, it’s the same image photographed thousands of times.

The sensor size won't make any difference to the number of images required as the angle of view will be determined by the lens used, and extreme wide angle lenses are available for Phase One backs, it's the size of the photosites on medium format sensors that give you the quality and detail needed for these large prints.

I didn't pick up on him using a DSLR for his early images, but his other landscape work was done on 5x4 film. You need the Phase One 53.4mm x 40mm sensor to match the level of detail you get from 5x4 film (from the tests done by Tim Parkin) so regardless of megapixels a FF sensor won't match the detail he is getting from a Phase One back.

I've misunderstood that. I thought he was using the GigaPixel technique of digitally montaging multiple frames, all taken with a long lens. He could potentially get even better image quality that way. Same difference really, and neither is easy.

I may be reading too much into "photoshop does the rest" but it reads like you underestimate how much skill will be needed to successfully blend the multiple images into a single image, that is going to be printed extremely large and inspected from inches away.

I'm not sure the Photoshopping is particularly difficult as such - just a heck of a lot of painstaking work, with a very powerful PC.
 
Him having a retoucher wasn't a criticism, it's no different to Damien Hirst having someone else doing the actual painting of his dot paintings. It's a time honoured tradition for artists to have minions do the donkey work - if they can afford minions. ;)

I think the technique in thse digital creations is more impressive, and interesting, than the pictures. And it's pictures which interest me. Hence superficial.

OK, sorry, I made an incorrect assumption when you referred to retouchers, and yes given that I admitted in my first post that I had passed these pictures over, until reading about the story behind them, then I think I agree that the story (technical and creative) is more interesting than the pictures.
 
It was meant to be a comment rather than a criticism. A lot of excellent art needs to be experienced in the flesh, so to speak, eg The Angel of the North.

Good, we agree :)

I've misunderstood that. I thought he was using the GigaPixel technique of digitally montaging multiple frames, all taken with a long lens. He could potentially get even better image quality that way. Same difference really, and neither is easy.

In the pictures where you can see him taking the photographs he is using a wide angle, and a set up that looks pretty static. And he mentions using binoculars at one point, and the "impression" I got was that the camera was fixed and he was constantly scanned the scene and pressing the shutter whenever he picked up on something interesting happening. He did say that he would also sometimes have a DSLR doing time lapse of the scene so they could use that as a time reference, and sometimes another DSLR with a long lens (I think he mentioned a 500mm) to grab details, but the main approach seems to be a fixed wide angle.


I'm not sure the Photoshopping is particularly difficult as such - just a heck of a lot of painstaking work, with a very powerful PC.

I will bough to your experience on this, I've taken a couple of courses on blending and found the mechanics relatively simple but the successful execution difficult. But then I am finding digital processing much more difficult than maybe I should be :-([/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
That's interesting - I had thought it was a montage, rather than multiple shots, in which case even more need for resolution.
 
That's interesting - I had thought it was a montage, rather than multiple shots, in which case even more need for resolution.
Well, you and Richard are now casting doubts in my mind :-(

I'm not sure I'm interested enough to watch it again, but feel I should.
 
That's interesting - I had thought it was a montage, rather than multiple shots, in which case even more need for resolution.
Well, I have skimmed through this and...

For the few shots where you can see what he is doing, he is using an Arca Swiss with an extreme wide angle lens (wide angle bellows on camera and the shape of the lens gives this away)

He takes a total of between 1200 and 2200 pictures over a period of up to 36 hours. Only 50 to 60 are used per print.

For me that doesn't suggest he is using montage, but is using a series of the full size wide angle images, that he selects parts of to blend through.
 
Well, I have skimmed through this and...

For the few shots where you can see what he is doing, he is using an Arca Swiss with an extreme wide angle lens (wide angle bellows on camera and the shape of the lens gives this away)

He takes a total of between 1200 and 2200 pictures over a period of up to 36 hours. Only 50 to 60 are used per print.

For me that doesn't suggest he is using montage, but is using a series of the full size wide angle images, that he selects parts of to blend through.

I think you're right. And given the complexity of his scenes with so much happening randomly over the day, montaging together probably thousands of images dotted about all over the place would be a mind-boggling task. He must have tried that because it's fairly obvious and would potentially yield even higher image quality, but passed it over.

The downside of his technique is that you really need some very expensive equipment to even have a go, and that rules it out for most. However, the montage method with relatively ordinary equipment is still very viable for simpler subjects, and that's been done often enough. Basically an elaborate stitched panorama of maybe half a dozen frames covering the scene, taken with the added dimension of time. And I have an idea for that :naughty:
 
These do look spectacular but I think it's something I could tire of rather quickly. They are impressive and beautiful even but I just for whatever reason feel that I could soon come to think I've seen enough.

I only skimmed the video so sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick but this does look both time consuming and difficult. I wouldn't begin to know how to do this or how much it'd cost, if the costs could be quantified.

Thinking about that reminded me about years ago when I used to frequent a forum on which a guy who was married to a photographer posted. She seemed to get some pretty high end commissions and occasionally he posted some shots one of which a team had worked on in post for weeks. I dread to think what that cost. In that case they were specific commissions or projects mostly in advertising so I can imagine the costs being high but it still being financially worthwhile, taking art out of it for a moment. But with the above vid, striking though the pictures are, I wonder how it's all viable. Good luck to the guy though, he's certainly achieved something with these pictures.
 
The downside of his technique is that you really need some very expensive equipment to even have a go,

I suspect it depends on how you define expensive. Well beyond my means, but the quality from Phase One backs is ridiculously high, and if you were looking at smaller prints, I would have thought that "mini" medium format (eg Fuji GFX) or top end FF, together with high end lenses, would be perfectly useable to get the "overall" effect.

Just don't print them 12 ft wide and encourage people to study them from 10 inches away.
 
I suspect it depends on how you define expensive. Well beyond my means, but the quality from Phase One backs is ridiculously high, and if you were looking at smaller prints, I would have thought that "mini" medium format (eg Fuji GFX) or top end FF, together with high end lenses, would be perfectly useable to get the "overall" effect.

Just don't print them 12 ft wide and encourage people to study them from 10 inches away.

The photographer I mentioned above only had pretty ordinary kit and hired the expensive stuff as and when the job required it. I suppose that could keep the costs down and bring the camera and lens at least within reach of more ordinary people, like us.
 
These do look spectacular but I think it's something I could tire of rather quickly. They are impressive and beautiful even but I just for whatever reason feel that I could soon come to think I've seen enough.

I only skimmed the video so sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick but this does look both time consuming and difficult. I wouldn't begin to know how to do this or how much it'd cost, if the costs could be quantified.

I suspect they work best when they have a story to tell, like the Sandhill Crane picture where you see the Cranes roosting and then taking off to feed and then returning to the roost.

I can see in my head a spot where I used to do monthly counts of greylag geese that roosted at night in a loch, took off to feed on the fields nearby during the day and then returned to the loch for the night. If the gods were with you, the geese might use a field adjacent to the loch for feeding, and the loch often had spectacular lighting both in the morning and evening.

But the chances of getting everything coming together at the same time is remote, and he said that just sorting through the images after the shoot to decide and mark up the images to be included in the final print was a months work !!

I suspect the costs can be quantified as some of these at least, were commissioned work. I think one was for a Bank and some were for National Geographic.
 
I suspect they work best when they have a story to tell, like the Sandhill Crane picture where you see the Cranes roosting and then taking off to feed and then returning to the roost.

I can see in my head a spot where I used to do monthly counts of greylag geese that roosted at night in a loch, took off to feed on the fields nearby during the day and then returned to the loch for the night. If the gods were with you, the geese might use a field adjacent to the loch for feeding, and the loch often had spectacular lighting both in the morning and evening.

But the chances of getting everything coming together at the same time is remote, and he said that just sorting through the images after the shoot to decide and mark up the images to be included in the final print was a months work !!

I suspect the costs can be quantified as some of these at least, were commissioned work. I think one was for a Bank and some were for National Geographic.

Back in the day, Nat Geo (and a few others) paid generous commissions to a few lucky photographers - tens of thousands of dollars for a set, plus expenses. Images like these, published as double-page spreads with gate-fold-outs suited them perfectly and would no doubt shift a ton of sales for a big international magazine. At its peak, Nat Geo sold around 12m copies a month... way less than that now, like all print media, but still struggling by.

To state the obvious, I think the key to these pictures is the subject - as always. And some are of fairly mundane scenes. If you sit in a public park all day, you'll see plenty of things - like kids playing ball, a family having a picnic, couples sunbathing etc etc - but it's all pretty unremarkable and commonplace. But change the view to a watering hole in a safari park and there's some real wow-factor in the comings and goings day through night.
 
The photographer I mentioned above only had pretty ordinary kit and hired the expensive stuff as and when the job required it. I suppose that could keep the costs down and bring the camera and lens at least within reach of more ordinary people, like us.

A Phase one back is still going to cost you £400 a day to hire, plus camera and lens, so way out of the league of this "ordinary people", but obviously a possibility if you are passing on costs to a client.
 
A Phase one back is still going to cost you £400 a day to hire, plus camera and lens, so way out of the league of this "ordinary people", but obviously a possibility if you are passing on costs to a client.

You think so? I think for even a special interest project rather than one that could potentially make money or further a career £400 a day for even a week is for sure within the reach of many pro and keen amateur photographers who would recoil at the thought of buying the kit given it could go into five figures. Just look at the number of people on this site buying expensive bodies and lenses in these hard times.

It's not something I'm going to do but I don't think hiring the camera gear is project endingly prohibitive for the committed.
 
You think so?

Well, I did specifically say it was out of "my" league, and I fully understand why professionals and amateurs with the money would spend it on developing their skills, and not sure I suggested it would be "prohibitively" expensive, except for me. The costs of course are going to quickly mount up, as the back hire is just part of the cost.
 
I've misunderstood that. I thought he was using the GigaPixel technique of digitally montaging multiple frames, all taken with a long lens. He could potentially get even better image quality that way. Same difference really, and neither is easy.

I had a look at that picture, very impressive, a few errors in there though.

London80g.jpg
 
Back
Top