A Guy Called Thomas


Fletcher8

Link Posted 20/07/2011 - 09:51
Whilst searching for some lighting Modifiers on the web, I stumbled on a Youtube video of a guy called Thomas Shahan, some amazing macro photography and a very talented and interesting guy. Anyway some of you may have seen his work before? but for those that haven't his images and website are well worth a look. I think the thing that really stands out apart from the images, is the basic kit that he uses, and how he exploits the equipment to the max to get great images.


http://thomasshahan.com/press

Gareth
Fletcher8.

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 20/07/2011 - 18:27
You'll find him in the Articles section too as he is a Pentax user. He does do some pretty awesome stuff and you can follow him on Flickr.
My Flickr link

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)

Dodge69

Link Posted 20/07/2011 - 19:06
Great link, cheers!
Pentax pour des images riches en détails!

Smeggypants

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 01:12
http://thomasshahan.com/photos

don't like these at all. I think the pics have been ruined by the sickly post processing. remind me of those hideous prints you see for sale in front of Tescos

Shame, as looking natural they would have been fantastic pics
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Fletcher8

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 06:35
Smeggypants, we all have our opinions but I have to disagree with your above comment, but if you find any images that look natural can you please post some links please.
Fletcher8.

thoramay

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 08:34
As a macro person, these pics are amazing technically, yet, somehow for me they have a bizarre quality.

Macro allows us to see what we cannot with the naked eye, even close up and so appreciate the wonder and beauty of living things.

Highlighting the more challenging aspects of creatures is not for me. That is not to put down the achievements of this photographer, just my take on things.

japers45

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 10:29
I think the images have a science-fiction quality.

Interesting - the PP is overblown undoubtedly on purpose.

I understand Smeggypants view- but there are plenty of great natural macro shots already though.

Not sure if I could claim to "like" them but i have never seen anything quite like them.

It is a real challenge to produce something original so plaudits for that.

I'm sure there is a market for this kind of thing- the colours remind me of those "Magic Eye" pictures from 20 years ago.

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 13:03
I think a lot of the colour comes from his choice of shooting against colourful backgrounds, although I don't doubt he ups the saturation too. Overall I think the treatment is appropriate. I think it's wonderful what he does with fairly basic/cheap equipment.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Smeggypants

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 14:12
Fletcher8 wrote:
Smeggypants, we all have our opinions but I have to disagree with your above comment, but if you find any images that look natural can you please post some links please.

Of course, not difficult ....

here's a natural looking one

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wmsL2FJHn7c/TBVW7sl_-LI/AAAAAAAAAv0/Nbgt-Qbr3ms/s400/Tabanus+sp+13jun10+%287%29.jpg

compared to the painted version by this chap

http://thomasshahan.com/images/Tabanusfemale.jpg





...
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Last Edited by Smeggypants on 21/07/2011 - 14:13

Smeggypants

Link Posted 21/07/2011 - 14:13
Don't get me wrong, I think the standard of photography is superb. I just feel the PP is a little tacky.

Each to their own though!
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Smeggypants

Link Posted 22/07/2011 - 17:15
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/damsel----in-no-distress-29304

Much better
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 22/07/2011 - 17:56
Smeggypants wrote:
Of course, not difficult ....

here's a natural looking one

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wmsL2FJHn7c/TBVW7sl_-LI/AAAAAAAAAv0/Nbgt-Qbr3ms/s400/Tabanus+sp+13jun10+%287%29.jpg

compared to the painted version by this chap

http://thomasshahan.com/images/Tabanusfemale.jpg

It must be a 'taste' thing because I find Thomas's version about a million times better... the other one is just a boring macro with nothing much to please my eye, Thomas's shot describes so much more about the structure of the creature's mouthparts and and eyes

I'm surprised you don't like his shots Smeggy, as his verging-on-HDR-ish post processing resembles your own in some ways, like the shot of the chap in sunglasses you just posted on the other thread, in terms of super-sharp detail and contrast.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Smeggypants

Link Posted 22/07/2011 - 19:30
Pentaxophile wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Of course, not difficult ....

here's a natural looking one

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wmsL2FJHn7c/TBVW7sl_-LI/AAAAAAAAAv0/Nbgt-Qbr3ms/s400/Tabanus+sp+13jun10+%287%29.jpg

compared to the painted version by this chap

http://thomasshahan.com/images/Tabanusfemale.jpg

It must be a 'taste' thing because I find Thomas's version about a million times better... the other one is just a boring macro with nothing much to please my eye, Thomas's shot describes so much more about the structure of the creature's mouthparts and and eyes

I'm surprised you don't like his shots Smeggy, as his verging-on-HDR-ish post processing resembles your own in some ways, like the shot of the chap in sunglasses you just posted on the other thread, in terms of super-sharp detail and contrast.

They just look too yuccy to me. And yup it's definitely a taste thing

I like the detail on his shots, just the OTT colours lopok like an acid trip.

Mike's pic linked to above is much better IMO
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

coker

Link Posted 22/07/2011 - 20:20
Have to agree with Smeggy & Thoramay, above.

Thomas's is like a technical illustration, Mike's has a touch of art about it &, I think, is more natural.

Roger.
The more I look, the more there is to see!
Last Edited by coker on 22/07/2011 - 20:20

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 22/07/2011 - 20:42
The great thing about photography is it's subjective, so there's room for everyone to have their own opinions.

No matter how misguided and *just plain wrong* they might be
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.