62 thoughts on “The Lonely Trees

    1. Brother Barnabas

      in all fairness, bodger, and in the interests of fairness and integrity, if you’re not going to permit a comment that’s *slightly* critical or mocking of one of your contributors, it would be preferable to delete the entire comment – rather than paring it down to effectively alter the meaning. Just saying, like.

        1. Brother Barnabas

          OK. ..I don’t think it was either, but fair enough – and thanks for your response. (And I suppose he does buy them easter eggs. And then photograph them with the easter eggs. But I suppose that’s cool).

          1. No more mr nice guy

            My comments are silly? You’re the guy who posted some nasty crap here about a previous subject Donal tackled where his interpretation wasn’t to your taste. Rather than address this piece as a new piece of work by Donal instead you made some juvenile and puerile jab against him that is completely irrelevant to this new piece of work. Try growing a pair of testicles. If you can

          2. Teresa

            You’re obviously a weird delusional fool Jungletroll. Keep up the stalking/bullying or whatever one it is you seem to do best.

  1. Digs

    They’re the works digital images I’ve seen so far this year. Really poor digital imagist that guy, he should try doing
    some photography. He might enjoy t

    1. Compassion Cash

      Take it easy chap. Are you a photographer? Send one of yours in and I’m sure they will feature it.

    1. dunphied

      As if by magic Donal’s biggest stalker arrives. It’s Digs, Broadsheets resident genius and lord of gloom.

    2. No more mr nice guy

      You’re really being very unreasonable and showing yourself in the worst possible light. Try lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness.

  2. Bruncvik

    As someone who’s also been spending his fair share of the last five years taking photos in Phoenix Park, I cannot even begin to understand how these have been made. I’m using the super-saturated Fuji Velvia slides, and even when I underexpose and/or use Flash (or torch for light-painting), I can’t achieve colours like these. Kudos to the photographer who has far more patience to wait for the perfect shot than me.

    1. Teresa

      Totally agree Bruncvik. I’m a keen amateur and everyone seems to be a photographer these days. Many know the techniques etc involved in achieving a good shot but a lot actually find it difficult to put into practice and take it a little further. This guy knows how and obviously works hard at it.

    2. Spaghetti Hoop

      But they are heavily Light-roomed. I grew up beside the Park for years and took shots at different lights, but refused to over-process; because every local knows that the sky is never that dramatic and the foliage not that lit up. The rucks are believable, though. In an international photographic way, Donal’s pictures are stunning. But these are not the Park for me.

      1. No more mr nice guy

        Fair enough- I mean at least in the sense it’s an honest opinion and expressed in a civil way. Here’s the thing though:

        “Flowers are red. Green leaves are green.
        There’s no need to paint flowers any other way.
        Than the way they always have been seen.”

        The essence of artistry is that a person brings their own unique point of view to a scene. You prefer Perot realist work? Great. Other people like drama.

          1. Spaghetti Hoop

            Yup, I understand. Artistic freedom is a wonderful thing.
            I am somewhat cynical about over-exaggerating the Irish light, because, it is quite unique and watery without too much photographic hoo-haa required and I feel that Donal always goes too far.

          2. Teresa

            Photography is so subjective and because everyone now knows something about photography, everyone’s an expert. I’d hate to be a pro photographer. They not only have to battle with their counterparts for business but with the hobbyists too.
            I’d sooner look at something more unique than the usual snap. There’s barely a single photograph in a newspaper, magazine or poster than hasn’t been enhanced. I doubt Donal has the power to change light but enhance it. That’s all part of modern day photography that the masters would be all over if it was available back in the day. I’m obviously an admirer of his work.

          3. Jesus Wept

            Could you give me an example of a ‘master’ that would have benefited from a digital platform? or digital post-processing?

          4. Teresa

            Every single one of them would have benefitted from modern retouching. Their photoshop was their darkroom. Almost all their images were manipulated either by being processed in various developers(with various times) and manipulated in the darkroom but using various degrees of burning, dodging and an array of graded papers and textures. That was their image manipulation. Different year same desire.

          5. Teresa

            No, it was as I said. Ok, I’ll play your game a little more because there’s no way you cannot understand my previous post(unless you know very little about photography).
            Do you really think Ansel Adams could have achieved the tones etc without the endless hours in the darkroom. Taking the shot and waiting for the light was only half his job. The other half was in the darkroom using various grades of paper, burning and dodging etc. His darkroom was our photoshop.

            I’m curious but are you a pro or amateur photographer?

          6. Jesus Wept

            Do you think Ansel Adams would have chosen a digital sensor over an 8×10 negative? This topic is extremely interesting to me,so lets not get tetchy.

          7. Jesus Wept

            Also you seem to think Photoshop & an darkroom are interchangeable.My opinion is they are not.

          8. Teresa

            You assume incorrectly although strictly speaking they can be(Negatives can be scanned and used in photoshop).

          9. Teresa

            Let’s not indeed but are you not going to offer some opinion in some technical way? Most certainly he would have preferred a sensor. The larger the sensor the better. Even a 10×8 neg has it’s own limitations, not to mention the chances of dust and limitations to the number of frames. I spent a few years shooting on 5×4 and as beautiful as it is, there’s nothing I cannot achieve then that I cannot achieve now with a sensor. The camera is only half the job done. The post processing is where the reality is cheated, whether that be in the darkroom or photoshop. Both great fun, both crafty but more chance of failure in the darkroom and much more time consuming. Ansel would be in post processing heaven had he had a sensor and photoshop back in the day.

          10. Jesus Wept

            According to one of AA’s assistants whom I suppose would actually be entitled to make cocksure presumptions, has said “I think he would also very likely regard current capture technology to still fall something short of what he could do with film. I’m sure he would have a digital camera of some sort but regard it as an intriguing work-in-progress. I can easily see him using it for some portrait work but think it would be left neglected in the car if he encountered a Moonrise, Hernandez, or Clearing Winter Storm”.
            I wouldn’t be so sure about how the masters would employ a digital workflow Teresa.Maybe a hybrid of some sort.But choosing a digital sensor over an 8×10 negative looks doubtful to me.

          11. Teresa

            Adams assistants are all very loyal and obviously very old school but it’s nice to see that he most likely would have embraced the digital age to some degree. It’s an interesting debate but he never had the opportunity or advantage to sample both mediums unlike we have today.
            Adams was all about Dynamic range. The dynamic range of a photo is a complicated matter but digital is superior to film. Most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. A regular digital camera has an average dynamic range of around 14 stops and the higher end ones even more range.
            Adams was an intelligent man. Had he the choice without being reared in the film format, I’ve little doubt he would go straight for the large sensor. I’ve not seen anything in print that cannot be achieved with a sensor and photoshop. It’s only the tools that are different. Imho, the only real advantage of film is that it teaches the student the basics of photography in a more theoretical and educational way. It’s also more hip nowadays.
            I spent about 10 years shooting film and mucking about in a darkroom. If I never see a darkroom again it will be too soon.

Comments are closed.