Ever heard of Cole Barash? Well now you have.

Cole Barash is a young American sports photographer who started at the early age of 14 (aprox). Getting picked up super fast by snowboarding industry he immediately proved himself with amazing, dynamic film photography(that's right, film, not digital).He has started using digital for convenience. His day is like: wake up > hang out with sports stars and take pictures > surf > go to airport.

DreaM)XeRO

Korea (South)4667 Posts

March 23 2010 19:39 GMT

siiick photos.
where does he usually shoot at?

Park City im assuming?
That last pic kinda looks like Tanner.

SchOOl_VicTIm

Greece2394 Posts

March 23 2010 19:44 GMT

what does "dynamic" mean? does he do any kind of editing after taking the shot?

first and 4th photos are so sick

omfghi2u2

United States831 Posts

March 23 2010 19:47 GMT

Cool photos.

Can someone explain to a noob what the difference between digital and film is?

SchOOl_VicTIm

Greece2394 Posts

March 23 2010 19:52 GMT

film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +

and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..)
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +

I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p

phosphorylation

United States2935 Posts

March 23 2010 19:54 GMT

the photos are stylish but nothing much more than that

iSiN

United States1075 Posts

March 23 2010 19:57 GMT

On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:
film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +

and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..)
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +

I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p

You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet...

probably looks more like this
+ Show Spoiler +

ilovejonn

Canada2548 Posts

March 23 2010 20:11 GMT

Are you saying his photo-taking skills are genius? Or do you mean he's a genius because he has a sick job? Or maybe both?

VTArlock

United States1763 Posts

March 23 2010 20:18 GMT

Wow his pictures look great! Whenever I try to do cool angled artsy photography they always look like crap...

Nal_rAwr

United States2611 Posts

March 23 2010 20:23 GMT

#10

On March 24 2010 05:11 ilovejonn wrote:
Are you saying his photo-taking skills are genius? Or do you mean he's a genius because he has a sick job? Or maybe both?

maybe "prodigy"

Terrakin

United States1440 Posts

March 23 2010 22:11 GMT

#11

lol, I don't think it's possible to be a photography genius. Maybe good with lighting?

also b&w= instant art

Sadistx

Zimbabwe5568 Posts

March 23 2010 23:17 GMT

#12

Weird angle - check
Blur every goddamn photo - check
Apply sepia/black&white/old photo filters in photoshop for no reason at all - check

Realize that underneath all that the photos are nothing special - priceless.

minus_human

4784 Posts

March 23 2010 23:17 GMT

#13

On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:

Show nested quote +

You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet...

probably looks more like this
+ Show Spoiler +

actually more like this

while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke

BalloonFight

United States2007 Posts

March 23 2010 23:54 GMT

#14

On March 24 2010 08:17 Sadistx wrote:
Weird angle - check
Blur every goddamn photo - check
Apply sepia/black&white/old photo filters in photoshop for no reason at all - check

Realize that underneath all that the photos are nothing special - priceless.

The priceless part would be that a little kid is making more money than you (probably) despite the fact that you are so high brow and artistically advanced that you can see right through his kitsch garbage

phosphorylation

United States2935 Posts

March 23 2010 23:56 GMT

#15

On March 24 2010 08:54 BalloonFight wrote:

Show nested quote +

no, that's not priceless
that's just a sad reality
something akin to a talentless, screaming hack on the guitar making way much more money than a talented and disciplined classical pianist

minus_human

4784 Posts

March 24 2010 00:00 GMT

#16

On March 24 2010 08:56 phosphorylation wrote:

Show nested quote +

no, that's not priceless
that's just a sad reality
something akin to a talentless, screaming hack on the guitar making way much more money than a talented and disciplined classical pianist

I tend to agree, his photos do not contain too much essence, it's more in post-processing, which does not make you a photography prodigy. However I thought the last photo was remarkably good, I really like it.

minus_human

4784 Posts

March 24 2010 00:03 GMT

#17

People who have not formed an eye for quality photography (if I can put it that way) seem to be overly excited when someone starts shooting photos in an unusual/unfamiliar style.

Low or ultra wide angles, strange colors and silhouettes along with gross over-editing apparently are very appealing to a great many people, even if the photograph itself is a compositional/technical failure.

Long live the purists! [image loading]

BalloonFight

United States2007 Posts

March 24 2010 00:13 GMT

#18

On March 24 2010 08:56 phosphorylation wrote:

Show nested quote +

no, that's not priceless
that's just a sad reality
something akin to a talentless, screaming hack on the guitar making way much more money than a talented and disciplined classical pianist

Whats your point? Priceless is clearly not a literal term anyways. Are you telling me I can't interpret it the way I want to?

On March 24 2010 09:03 minus_human wrote:
People who have not formed an eye for quality photography (if I can put it that way) seem to be overly excited when someone starts shooting photos in an unusual/unfamiliar style.

Low or ultra wide angles, strange colors and silhouettes along with gross over-editing apparently are very appealing to a great many people, even if the photograph itself is a compositional/technical failure.

Long live the purists! [image loading]

Well obviously what appeals to non-connoisseurs is going to be lowbrow to those who would consider themselves connoisseurs...if it wasn't, then purists couldn't consider themselves elite.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/03/070903fa_fact_keefe?currentPage=all
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/the_subjectivity_of_wine.php

tRi[T]oN

United States181 Posts

March 24 2010 00:22 GMT

#19

On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:

Show nested quote +

actually more like this

+ Show Spoiler +

while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke

Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above.

phosphorylation

United States2935 Posts

March 24 2010 00:24 GMT

#20

it's not just about being high-brow and lowbrow
and it's not just about preferences and tastes either
there's something called artistic merit and substance

you were ridiculing sadistx for his assessment of the photos
now i am ridiculing your ridicule