TalkBaja.com » Baja Mexico Forums » Baja Photo Uploads / Trip Reports

Can you just imagine where the photographer was when he took these pictures? This is just a sample of what he does.

Clark Little's Bio
Waimea Bay surfing pioneer, husband, and father of two, Clark Little has gained nationwide recognition for his photography with appearances on Good Morning America, Inside Edition, and many local news stations across the U.S.

These beautiful images of waves were taken by Clark Little, Whom many consider the premier photographer of surf. He has dedicated his life to photographing waves and has published a selection of the best images of his career.

Below he captures magical moments "inside the tube", as surfers say. The last photo is really my favorite as it appears he captured a glass seashell. I hope you enjoy these as much as I do...

Feels like home in there.

Breathtaking!!

Those are amazing!! Thanks for posting them.

WOW!

absolutely AWESOME! the Pics and the Vid!

thanks!

when I saw still picture #4 with the wave on the left and all the sand, my first thought was....'someone's gonna get a LOT of sand in uncomfortable places............."


been there, had that happen...



Beautiful pictures.....

Wow! Awesome pics! And "hi all!" - this is my first post on the forums.

Hi Kauinca - welcome to the forum. Why not start a thread in the introductions subforum and tell us about yourself...

Those are great photos. A few issues ago the Surfers Journal had a pretty good article about the guy who takes them

Incredible pictures!

Photoshop strikes again. A variation of an old saying, "If it looks too good to be real, it probably isn't."

Originally Posted by DENNIS

Photoshop strikes again. A variation of an old saying, "If it looks too good to be real, it probably isn't."

My thoughts exactly.

Originally Posted by DENNIS

Photoshop strikes again. A variation of an old saying, "If it looks too good to be real, it probably isn't."

Which photo don't you believe s real? Clark Little has a pretty solid reputation as a photographer...

It's difficult for a lot of people to believe some of the surf that has come to light in the last few years.

Google Image Search Shipstern's

, Ours(+ surfing), Ghost Tree,

Cyclops(+ surfing)

, Teahupoo, Cortez Bank, Dungeons(+ surfing)...

I agree that some of the surf photos I have seen in places do seem a bit unrealistic / exaggerated but the stuff Clark Little puts out seems pretty good. I wouldn't doubt though that he "might" do a "bit" of color enhancement.

But you don't need photoshop for that...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

Which photo don't you believe s real? Clark Little has a pretty solid reputation as a photographer...

They're all real or, at least, they started out that way. Heavy manipulation on every one. Water just doesn't look like that in real life. There's blistering light where it couldn't possibly be and the "texture" looks like molded acrylic. There are saturated colors that are out of the realm of nature. What started as real has been turned to surreal.
If this shooter is trying to peddle this stuff as representative of nature, he needs to be questioned and he brings question upon his entire portfolio.
The man is high talent, for sure. Photo manipulation isn't talent if it's meant to deceive. He has to be forthcoming with his technique.

One that is particularly disturbing has a person looking up at what would surely be the last wave of his life. If anyone believes that shore-break is real, they would do well learning from funny books.
Just my opinion.

Come on Dennis - don't hold back. Tell us what you really think...



I do agree with your observations on the lighting/color properties of the photos.. "Accentuating/enhancing/manipulating" those two factors is a very common practice by anyone involved in professional digital photography today and is considered one of the benefits of this new age of capturing images. Why do you think the photo they take at the DMV never looks nearly as good as the one taken by the photographer at your kids wedding?

The DMV just prints the photo as the lens sees it. Photographers "help" us out a little bit before you get to see the prints.

When someone says a photo is "photoshopped",my mind always envisions cutting and pasting, stretching, erasing and blending.

But that's just me...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

Come on Dennis - don't hold back. Tell us what you really think...



When someone says a photo is "photoshopped",my mind always envisions cutting and pasting, stretching, erasing and blending.

To erase a facial blemish in portraiture would be considered manipulation if the blemish was a permanant mark. That would be deceiving.
To erase a temporary mark, a characteristic of adolescence or whatever, isn't, in my opinion, manipulation. It's more an act of thoughtful kindness.

Even commercial photography is subject to guidelines of "truth in advertising." A Big Mac can't be made to look the size of a catchers mitt. There are severe penalties if it does.

Is Mr. Little's work considered commercial? Yes, of course. I'm sure his work is for sale but, more to the point, he's selling himself and if he isn't giving full disclosure as to his methods, that's deceiving. Does he present his work as "art?" Or does he present it as reality? Picasso might say the fotos are true but, I don't.

I've been through this topic on Nomad recently and it leaves me feeling that pure photography is all but lost. The sad and dangerous thing about this is that we will never again be able to know if the picture we see is reality or fantasy.

Originally Posted by DENNIS

I've been through this topic on Nomad recently and it leaves me feeling that pure photography is all but lost. The sad and dangerous thing about this is that we will never again be able to know if the picture we see is reality or fantasy.

And there we agree my friend. I was an avid film photographer in both color and black and white going back into my early teens when I worked on the Long Beach junior press club as a cartoonist and photographer. So much has changed from that world long ago since we went digital.

This may sound strange but I even miss (a bit) the anticipation of waiting to see how my images would come out looking in print. Now everything in photography is instantaneous.

Like most everything else consumers seem to expect today...

So does everyone pretty much agree that all photos are manipulated in some form or other? whether it be the simple enhance the contrast to who-knows-what?

I remember my mom being upset because my eldest brother's graduation photo was retouched by the professional photographer. The photographer retouched the graduation photos to remove my brother's smiling dimples. This was early 1972-ish! No digital! The touch-ups were done with paint on the original print.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the photographer's efforts of "improving" a photo, may not be what the viewer's see as good and necessary.

And then again, the viewer's just may not understand the artist's vision........
For a graduation photo, I would consider removing a zit a cosmetic enhancement, while removing dimples or a mole manipulation.

How this relates to surfing shots, I'm not sure! But I like the shots! I believe they were originally taken in the places as depicted in the photos......

How they were enhanced.....I'm not going to worry about it because I know it's been happening to photography for as long as photography has been around! I think they're cool pics!