couple of sites I came across:

[robc]

http://www.davidfokos.net/

in the mould of Kenna

and

http://andrzejdragan.com/

[Frank Petronio]

What is interesting about Dragan is he claims he started photographing in 2003, which makes him very bright in my book. Kind of dark and depressing tho, It has a very 80s British feel, like David Bailey and those guys without the pretty girls. If I had a Converse campaign from J. Walter Thompson under my belt I wouldn't keep playing up the "poor Pole" bit and ask for PayPal donations.

Fokos is scary. I suspect that technically his prints may be even better than Kenna's but my goodness, it looks like he must stalk the poor guy. Still, taken individually he has some pretty stuff.

It is "mold" not "mould" ;)

If you want to see moody but positive pictures that are "all his own," see Simon Larbalestier's work and read his back story: http://www.simon-larbalestier.co.uk/

[robc]

It is "mold" not "mould" ;)


Not on my side of the Atlantic it isn't! :p

[SAShruby]

What you guys think of Fokos celestial portfolio? Is it double exposure? Or twighlight picture with stand delevopment to compensate for very high SBR?

[Frank Petronio]

Does the quaint British "mould" mean both a male-female recepticle for a casting AND the strange green organism growing in my refridgerator? Or are they spelled differently?

My bet is the Fokos images are heavily Photoshopped, and maybe some of the moons came from other shots.

[robc]

What you guys think of Fokos celestial portfolio? Is it double exposure? Or twighlight picture with stand delevopment to compensate for very high SBR?

Moonrise
has some lighting in it but because the moon is not blurred over time I would suggest there is some beach lighting on the right but it could be two negs combined or as for Shark tooth cliff below, there has been some manipulation.

New moon
looks like a straight image.

Shark tooth cliff
some jiggery pokery going here because the extended exposure to get the water movement would have blurred the moon which moves real fast.

Solar eclipse
Easy to do. Just expose for the highlights and let the shadows go and combine with some burning in. But since the clouds are very blurred looks like there has been more manipulation because when the moon only covers that much of the sun it would still be bright daylight so you wouldn't get cloud movement like that.

Solar Eclpse2.
Again easy to do by exposing for the highlights and less burning in.

Note that the eclipse shots are done in bright daylight but exposing for the highlights instead of shadows gives that effect when the hightlight is the sun and clouds.

[robc]

Does the quaint British "mould" mean both a male-female recepticle for a casting AND the strange green organism growing in my refridgerator? Or are they spelled differently?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=mould

UK and US two nations separated by a common language...

[Paul Coppin]

re:mould/mold - its that quaint American E Pluribus unum thing - they keep taking the "you" out of everything...;) :)

Dragan gets my attention on a whole bunch of levels. Very slick website. Dark, yes. His bio is equally interesting. We may see a lot from him, or nothing more at all....

[Marko]

re:mould/mold - its that quaint American E Pluribus unum thing - they keep taking the "you" out of everything...;) :)

Spoken like a true neighbo(u)r!

:)

[Gordon Moat]

David Fokos has an e-mail at his site. You could simply ask what he does, rather than speculate. Since I know some of the San Diego and La Jolla spots from where he took some of those shots, and I have seen some of his framed works at a local gallery (oddly not listed on his site), I don't think there is digital magic involved. A simple double exposure would solve some problems like clear moon in a time exposure, while other shots should not be that tough to duplicate; I state that merely because I have some similar colour shots of the ocean on transparency films, so I don't see anything too unusual here. In fact, about the only thing I did find unusual about his prints is that the ones I saw were C-prints. His new framing is pretty cool, definitely recommend a look at his stuff in person. Whomever is doing his C-prints is getting a result that is B/W without any colour cast, and really excellent tone and contrast.

Sort of humorous that a time exposure could be a tourist eraser. I have not seen the other photographers work in person, though it seems interesting. There definitely is a huge difference in seeing images on a computer monitor, and viewing large prints in person.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I have always liked Fokos's work, I never really thought his work was so much like Kenna, but I think Rolfe Horn is a carbon copy of Kenna ( wasn't Horn an assistant to Kenna?) - so what do I know.

[cyrus]

Hmmm....on Dragan's site, made in Flash, I seem to have a problem in navigation - once you select and click on an image in the "personal" portfolio, you can't go back to viewing the full set.

If this guy who has a phd in quantum physics has problems with flash, I feed much better myself.

Now, how exactly does one associate a sound with a hover?