I understand the point about them not taking original pictures, but sometimes, recreating something someone else has done is a great way to learn. It's not like Apple posts Focal Length, ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed with the photos they use, or mention if filters were dropped in front of the lens. Experimenting with your own gear to try and replicate another picture might get you to understand some of those things and learn from that (even the pictures that didn't end up looking similar, you might find settings your preferred, or techniques you didn't know about before, or other ways to achieve the same effect that you could use in a different scenario)
I ask where is the originality, as mentioned there are near infinite methods to get a similar result. In nature as it is dynamic and random I doubt anyone can acquire the same results, even the smallest variable changes the picture that is why everyone is unique and beautiful in its own way.
What next recreate Windows wallpaper? This seems like unoriginal work. I get the experience and excitement component we have all been there done that, what I don’t get is what is the point other than to take someone else’s creativity and recreate it in a 100% unattainable natural way.
[automerge]1573865059[/automerge]
If they did something original, they wouldn't have gotten a free Macrumors article. You could argue that this isn't photographically creative (though admittedly far more difficult than being original), but it does seem like pretty creative marketing
Maybe I missed it, but what are they marketing they skill, business of photography, services, what are they selling other than nature’s beauty that is ever changing every millisecond of our lives. Don’t misunderstand me the pictures are beautiful as I love nature anyone can take our similar one and would be just as beautiful, my question is why other than the obvious and lack of creativity.
[automerge]1573865268[/automerge]
I thought that too but maybe there was money to be made. Perhaps ad revenue from having something so unusual that is clickable from the heading. When I saw this article, I was instantly interested in learning more for some reason. I could use my time for much better things but here I am.
What would have been cool that this trio produced would be dynamic wallpaper for macOS that did not support at the time. It would have had a nostalgic feel and have added value to recreate previous OS default wallpaper with the revision of the present. That is what I would have called creative and worth the MR article. Lost oppprtunity.
[automerge]1573865558[/automerge]
Uhhh because recreating wallpapers got them exposure on Apple news sites that they otherwise would not have gotten if they only took other photos...
This was a fun adventure for them and a challenge they decided to take up and they executed it extremely well. Maybe Apple will notice too and get them for the next wallpaper photo shoot.
It’s amazing that just because you can’t see why someone would do something, it means that they shouldn’t do it.
Apple has at its disposals a multitude of professional photographers. Sure it may have the it’s now cool factor to get some semi-pro photographers and some 15 mins of fame but how is this original. In another post I mentioned was that if this trio recreated prior wallpaper that was dynamic that would have been cool and original. This is just shameful advertising with a lost opportunity. What next I take out a bunch of pictures of California landmarks and hope Apple takes a similar pic.
[automerge]1573865666[/automerge]
This is where dreams go to die.
I have had the misfortune to work in said place a very very long time ago, I would not recommend it

