Quote from: Rinderart on March 11, 2016, 01:17
That is true. Came across this fellows work the other day. simply stunning.

https://500px.com/photo/143509577/little-hunter-by-jakkree-thampitakkul

Nice, although heavily processed. 

Quote from: stockastic on March 11, 2016, 02:03

Quote from: Rinderart on March 11, 2016, 01:17
That is true. Came across this fellows work the other day. simply stunning.

https://500px.com/photo/143509577/little-hunter-by-jakkree-thampitakkul

Nice, although heavily processed.

Sour grapes? 

Peter Lik sells his prints for $4000 and up

I see much nicer work on 500 px, from virtual unknowns
Some of the photos there are simply stunning

Quote from: Rinderart on March 11, 2016, 01:17
That is true. Came across this fellows work the other day. simply stunning.

https://500px.com/photo/143509577/little-hunter-by-jakkree-thampitakkul

AMAZING work! Love how he uses the sun with his subjects. There are some great photographers on 500px that certainly deserve a higher "rank" or "section". I sure hope the site doesn't get bombarded with "tomato isolated on white" photos."

When will they fix the little bitty watermark!

Why do so many people believe that artists that supply generic stock images are not capable of producing beautiful artwork?

Don´t bring yourselves down people, there are so many successful artists that do both.

You simply don´t send stuff like that to the micros, the sales don´t justify it.

But there is no rule that says you can only create either beautiful art or generic stock

Quote from: angelawaye on March 11, 2016, 03:25

Quote from: Rinderart on March 11, 2016, 01:17
That is true. Came across this fellows work the other day. simply stunning.

https://500px.com/photo/143509577/little-hunter-by-jakkree-thampitakkul

AMAZING work! Love how he uses the sun with his subjects. There are some great photographers on 500px that certainly deserve a higher "rank" or "section". I sure hope the site doesn't get bombarded with "tomato isolated on white" photos."

When will they fix the little bitty watermark!

This is not a "lucky" shot. Check the light. He has two light sources, not just the sun.
I belive the photographer put a more complex setup in place, and then asked the children to play their fishing game.
Freezing those water drops in the air required 1/800, difficult to achieve, without strobes, in a forest, even at 500 iso, f/2.8
I bet he had to be patient for quite some time before capuring this decisif moment.

PS. Some morons (eg poisonflynpe) cannot refrain themselves from leaving racist comments, even on such epic images.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Beautiful image without doubt.

Same boys, same fish presumably, different photographer name
https://500px.com/photo/143956409/boys-fisherman-by-santi-foto

Quote from: douglas on March 11, 2016, 15:43
Beautiful image without doubt.

Same boys, same fish presumably, different photographer name
https://500px.com/photo/143956409/boys-fisherman-by-santi-foto

It is most likely a different photographer.
When you own a 70-200mm f/2.8 (used for the first photo), you probably don't need a 70-200mm f/4 (used for the second photo). Probably, both photographers were part of an organised photo-trip with model releases, proper light setup pre-arranged, etc.

Quote from: Rinderart on March 11, 2016, 01:17
That is true. Came across this fellows work the other day. simply stunning.

https://500px.com/photo/143509577/little-hunter-by-jakkree-thampitakkul

This is so cheesy lol

Edit: I mean the processing. Why? because of the obvious vignette, cyan/orange complementaries, exposure differnce between the two boys etc. It's easily digestible, like pop music, so everyone can see how "pretty" it is. It's simple and not stunning at all. But that's just my opinion, man.

Some time ago I put 5 photos on 500px; later on I decided not to continue.   I just looked at those photos and 3 of them are in the "Marketplace" under the heading of "Core Collection".   I never did figure 500px out so I don't know what this means - if anything.  Did these 3 actually get chosen for something?