Article

California Love: Part IV

| posted on April 10, 2013

Editor’s Note: Rob Gilley recently wrote a piece about the Golden State’s oft-overlooked place among the world’s best surf destinations. Sure, it might get crowded and occasionally flat in certain places, but if you know where to look and when, it can make for an incredible surf trip. To read Gilley’s piece, click here, or check out the final installment of his California photo series below.

Photo: Gilley

Photo: Gilley

Photo: Gilley

Photo: Gilley

Photo: Gilley

Photo: Gilley

Check out California Love Part I, Part II, and Part III.

  • Scott Campbell

    The Gilley Dog dove deep, mid-80s, for some of those photos.

  • Smithers

    just keeps getting better and better!

  • o rly?

    nice photoshopped moon, mr. i-hate-digital. although, to your credit, the fake huge moon/totally impossible perspective composite photo is one of the oldest gimmicks around. so at least you’re keeping it vintage.

  • http://www.surfingphotographer.net Jack English

    Moon photo is really cool. I enjoy and appreciate looking at images taken on slide film.

  • kobe

    great, now more out of towner’s will crowd out local line ups.

  • http://Facebook john.keifer

    Super nice is that a shark or a rock between waves ?

  • Pavlo

    Was that a day when the moon decided to come really close to California for a photo shoot?

  • http://www.cwsc.fi chris winter

    Send me a ticket!

  • LFEAK

    @o rly? I agree. This photo is the cousin of the couple in the Champagne glass staring off into their future. BTW I think I saw this moon photo on the side of a 1978 Ram Van.

  • http://www.surfimages.com Jack English

    Rob,
    You care to chime in on the moon photo as a few feel this is photo-shopped (I don’t think so).

    That’s the photography world we live in now since digital came into play. It’s kind of funny most people never thought of images being “photo-shopped” when everything was shot on film. They just looked at a image and accepted it, now any slight suggestion to the viewer and they lean more toward it’s photo-shopped.

    In the film days there was a thing called filters that you could put over your lenses to make your images have a different affect. – Jack

  • Scott Campbell

    I remember when the photo ran in Surfer. There was no such thing as Photoshop then.

  • joe surfer

    There is an optical effect when the moon is close to the horizon. Makes it appear larger than it really is. Combine that effect with what is termed a “supermoon”, that is when the moon is closet to the earth in its orbit, it can be spectacular. Nature can be this amazing. Photoshop does not have shit on nature.

  • larkstan

    @o rly and LFEAK- the ultra-large moon in the photo is a common effect known as “foreshortening” or “perspective compression” that is achieved with a telephoto lense and does not require photoshop. Skepticism is OK; uninformed accusations are not.

    • Paul

      I am a professional photographer as well as a Photoshop user with nearly 25 years experience in the software. Photoshop-like effects were possible before the existence of Photoshop by compositing or double exposing. Not that difficult to do.

      As for it being shot on a telephoto lens with foreshortening, it doesn’t look like that to me. If it was shot on a telephoto the foreground would appear foreshortened as well but it’s not. The foreground looks like it was shot on a medium focal length lens (e.g. 50mm) with the moon shot on a telephoto lens (could be say a 500mm lens) then the wider angle shot was stripped in. I could be wrong, but that’s my opinion as a professional in the field.

  • Anthony Ghiglia

    Don’t you hate it when you come on a public forum and make a bold accusation and then realize that you were completely wrong. Such a bummer…
    I recall this image of Rob’s as one image shot on slide film. Although an in-camera double exposure is entirely possible, I’d venture to guess it’s not the case here. I’ve always though this was a beautiful image Rob. Wish it was mine! On another note, anyone out there who would like to understand the photographic process a little better may check out this link. I think it does a pretty decent job explaining a current understanding of what is acceptable and what might be pushing the craft a bit outside of it’s principle foundation.
    http://blog.carljohnsonphoto.com/?p=5279
    For me personally, as long as the artist is honest about their work and method, I can appreciate it for what it is.