Stripped

[juliadebeauvoir]

“Loss is nothing else but change, and change is Nature's delight.”

Marcus Aurelius

This was taken about two weeks ago--it is a marigold at the end of its life sitting in an ordinary pot in front of a restaurant. I really get enthused about what may seem ordinary but on closer observation is a fantasy world of cups
and droplets. Yeah, sap, sap, sap...but I can get that way!

[marten]

Remarkable comes to mind!

[Suzanne]

This picture is amazing. I love the roundness of the droplets., and the cups! Marvelous shot.
Suzanne

[Arcadian]

Hi Julia,

Not sure if you want a critique here, or are you just sharing a spur of the moment snap?

Can I ask, what sort of a statement are you making visually with this picture ?

If it is to capture the rich vibrant colours of marigolds in bloom - then you have a problem. You have the distracting indigo/violet glass reflection ( of the restaurant window presumably) and it is right there in middle of the frame and hence it visually compromises your subject; weakens it.

I say this because your depth-of-field is shallow and the focus is in the middle, we cant avoid the "ughhh", of the insightly reflection.

Indoor pics are difficult because of potential colour casting problems etc ( need to adjust the colour temperature as a first step ...) to show true colours. Parts of the marigold leaves are saturated and others aren't -- so you have a problem with lighting --you could of flash-filled the dark spots.

You have highlights that are overblown; we loose some detail.

The droplets, sap, is not translucent as you would normally see on flower - this can be a moot point of course for the image maker.

A stop higher for a little more DOF, to see texture ;detail of rest of leaves.

The background bokeh is uniformly creamy: great!

Your pic is about the luminance of satutarted marigold colours and therefore the job at hand, is to capture true life colour brilliance of the marigold.

I hope this helps: I'm sure if I had just said the picture was nice; wonderful ...you would have hated my comments --- why bother posting then ? LOL

be well
Arco

[juliadebeauvoir]

Not sure if you want a critique here, or are you just sharing a spur of the moment snap?

Of course I want critiques--no problem. How do we get better at anything unless some things are pointed out?

Can I ask, what sort of a statement are you making visually with this picture ?

I am really not making any defined statement with the picture. The only thing I want to show viewers is what they are missing when they walk by a disgruntled, stripped down, forlorn flower and don't stop to look. I hope that in my macro photography (mainly flowers) that I send a message to stop and look at how amazing the 'small' is.

If it is to capture the rich vibrant colours of marigolds in bloom - then you have a problem. You have the distracting indigo/violet glass reflection ( of the restaurant window presumably) and it is right there in middle of the frame and hence it visually compromises your subject; weakens it.

I kind of like the blue light across it. For me it wasn't distracting because the flower was in its environment at that moment under the "Culvers Ice Cream Restaurant" blue banner. By the way, too bad you don't have a Culvers because it's absolutely delicious...I digress. Anyhow--that is why I took the picture--to show the reflection of the outside world, and the cupping of water it its little leaves.

I say this because your depth-of-field is shallow and the focus is in the middle, we cant avoid the "ughhh", of the insightly reflection.

The problem I had was the flash--I totally agree. Unfortunately at the is time I can't afford to purchase a special flash that fits on either side of the lens for macro shots. So I get some focus issues and darkness farther down the pic. But I still like the reflection...

Indoor pics are difficult because of potential colour casting problems etc ( need to adjust the colour temperature as a first step ...) to show true colours. Parts of the marigold leaves are saturated and others aren't -- so you have a problem with lighting --you could of flash-filled the dark spots.

Again, you are right--flash problem. The pic was actually taken outside on a rainy day. When you get that close to an object the atmosphere changes from what it is surrounded in. It is hard to tell on a macro what environ a object is in by just looking at the pic.

You have highlights that are overblown; we loose some detail.

I need a closer lens--plain and simple. I have been asking Santa for one to no avail. He says I am too old to be on the list. I was ok with losing some detail--I like the softness of it. But there have been times I have been disappointed with lack of detail. My canon does a pretty good job for the power it has. But once you've gotten this close you just itch to get closer.

The droplets, sap, is not translucent as you would normally see on flower - this can be a moot point of course for the image maker.
Not sure what you meant?

A stop higher for a little more DOF, to see texture ;detail of rest of leaves.
What I see in the viewer isn't always what comes out--which is the fun and surprise of digital camera work. Yes, DOF would have been something I would have appreciated also. Do you have any suggestions as to the setting on my camera that might give that to me other than the macro button? What kind of camera do you use?

The background bokeh is uniformly creamy: great!

Your pic is about the luminance of satutarted marigold colours and therefore the job at hand, is to capture true life colour brilliance of the marigold.

I hope this helps: I'm sure if I had just said the picture was nice; wonderful ...you would have hated my comments --- why bother posting then ? LOL

Thanks Arco!

[Arcadian]

Julia,

I hear and know what you are saying.

However there is a subtle difference here: it is not what the camera points at -- but what is in "your brain "-- how you see and what you want to frame for the message you want to impart visually. You can't escape this by denial LOL

It is a visual message: photo's do talk ( note: the way you take the frame: says a lot about the photographer too)

Part and parcel of photogrpahy ( this was relentlessly drummed into me ) is learning to read other people's photos. The best photos are the ones that have a narrative; a story to tell. And this will set you apart from the compact users that just snap away.

Otherwise the pic of flower is just pretty and nice. See what I mean: flat dimensionless message.

Different to say: the flower being an equivalance or metaphor for something - that is , it reminded you of a feeling; memory; a person -- maybe the person qualities etc etc . This for me is much more interesting photography than taking a snap of something just "pretty".

Master photographers have been quoted to say the camera helps them "see". So it is all about being visually literate.

As an aside, there is so much visually pollution out there, we have become desensitized, so your point about having a pause and looking closely at the flower is very valid. So your motives are excellent.

Since you are interested in close-up photography; that is taking still lifes of flowers.

Have a look at the master photogrpaher: Rod Dresser ( quite enviably he worked in Ansell Adams studio where catalogued 40,000 negatives and 'proofed' the negatives too ) The images speak for themselves -- have a narrative, and are of exquisite beauty.

http://www.westongallery.com

what metering did you use ? center weighted ? matrix or spot ? - can you change the settings on your camera's menu ? ( I assume you have a DSLR )

Try spot metering perhaps, and did you change WB to tungsten ? Also the focus area settings.

Stopping down, of course you loose the sharpness, try stopping up a stop or two -- experiment

If you have a flash unit: then flash fill with one stop EV +1, visit the same place and take the frame again. I know the rainy conditons didn't suit - well if you can't take the shot then don't - try another time.

cheers
Arco

There are some macro lens that are 1:1; they do not have a crop factor.

If budget is a consideration, then check out the used market for camera gear( and lenses.)

You may be lucky and find a lens hundreds of dollars ( pounds) cheaper that will do the job for you.

good luck & happy shooting Julia

Arco

[marten]

Photography is a silent observation, that doesn't always need a narrative to make it work. Sometimes it is exactly what it is: not something predetermined by the photographer to imply some greater meaning. Taking pictures is an exercise in not thinking: if your thinking too much than you can be distracted from looking.

[Arcadian]

Oh really !, the artist/photogrpaher has no inner necessity to express anything with his tools; medium of choice. He just wants to observe -- not possible

Can I ask whose silent observation it is ? The photographer's of course.

It is impossible to be objective observer. The photographer is observing and framing the shot.
e
Before he even begins he/she has made some decisions (whether conscious or not) of shutter speed, ( or aperture) ISO, Depth of field, and perhaps employed visual design elements in the composition of the frame.

So his method of observation and taking the "shot" has his "personality" stamped all over his final image -- and we haven't even talked about his/hers bias or cultural context.

I think it is very hard to be objective observer ( some German experimental photographers come close) -- maybe if you clear your mind as in Zazen then press the shutter -- but then you have you have again his/hers " zen shot " as opposed to a "mums and dad ",consumer, compact shots ( nothing wrong with these of course)

Silent observation not possible, you the viewer, the image maker has your unique stamp and perhaps unconscious narrative -- if you are expert, then conscious narrative -- that is well expressed and composed

Arco

[camus]

Arco,

You seem extremely knowledgeable on many subjects, and I'm sure you have much to offer, but why are you such an aggressive, confrontational twat?

Just answer the question please...

tar
Kris

[marten]

Your over analyzing man and missing the point. Sure the photographer has complete control over the shot from a technical/creative stance, but you make it sound way too calculated. Of course it is subjective: without subjects, there wouldn't be much to shoot; but is it necessary to have all this meaning and personality attached to every fucking photograph? Many photographers have a particular style that makes them unique but I find it annoying to have discussions about what is meant to be implied, when it could really be something simple and enjoyed for those properties alone. Form your own opinions if you like but spare me the trouble of asking what the intent was. Why couldn't it just be a really nice shot of a flower without all this drama? Turns out there was a story that went along with it and that is fun to hear; but when noisy people walk into art galleries and start dissecting and reading way to deep into a piece of art only to find out the artist wasn't making a statement and for the most part feels indifferent about it, then they are missing out on something.

Post some of your shit, and I'll be happy to not say anything about it.

[Arcadian]

Hello Kris, My Fire


When I first posted a comment, I asked Julia if a critique was required. She welcomed it.

I read carefully what I had written -- I think I offered helpful advice and some well known ideas about photography. Namely, the successful photographs seem to be the ones that have a narrative thread running through them.

Sure, you have photographs that are just plain, nice pictures: eye candy.

Nothing wrong with this. You will find at most photographic exhibitions a theme is present; a series of images connected by some organising principle -- and this make sense for the curator to prepare and show case the work to the public.


If this is a critical forum then I would expect: analysis, debates, arguments for against
are considered in a logical manner and discussed. Of course you will have different opinions, and some may not agree. All part and parcel of critical forums. It is the enquiry and opening up of the mind that I think is valuable.

I don't know why My Fire feels threatened by the exchange of ideas. When I said " oh really" -- more surprise than being confrontational kris. I am amazed at his last comment LOL ( who is being confrontational aggressive now Kris ?

I don't think I have been agressive or confrontational in my commentary towards Julia's work, the above explanation should suffice I would hope.

And I am not like you say Kris, far from it, a non violent pacifist; if I were, then some of your front teeth would be missing ( I'm joking Ok ).

Now it has been a while Kris: so how is your fishing and internet business coming along ? I hope all is well in this tough global climate we are all in.

I too think you have a lot to offer , so please, when you get creative, let us see some contribution from your field of expertise too.

The more the merrier, so we can all share.

I hope there is no misunderstanding and that I have answered your question directly.



Arco

[marten]

Sorry Arco...that last remark was a cheap shot - I was getting tired of your tone I guess. Didn't mean to close any doors; in fact, we need more contributors in this area of the forum so please keep posting. You've made good points regarding Kim's flower; and from a technical critique on a photograph, yours was way more in depth any other to date, but it helps to have some more background on what kind of camera is being used first.

There is nothing threatening about the exchange of ideas - no one would be here if there was. Certain artwork seems ruined to me when it is too deeply scrutinized. In being overly critical it begins to feel erudite and stuffy, instead of just simply allowing it to be. It is fun to see how people will interpret the same thing in very different ways.

This is all petty shit though. I do look forward to seeing some of your stuff and exchanging some creative/technical ideas. So fire at will my man!


cheers
marten

[Arcadian]

My Fire,

No offence taken or given I hope ( but you got me thinking now ...my tone eh ?, well I will have to try and do something about that - LOL)

Say, thanks for your comments regarding my critique though. I was just trying to make some helpful suggestions to Julia's image making.

I can't critique everything that is posted here -- so many images. Normally, If I have an emotional response to an image ... then that gets my commentary firing, as I don't mind sharing knowledge/ experience. I have been down that road before

you are up late -- go to bed at once !

Arco

[marten]

not even midnight yet here in Seattle...but it feels past my bed time - damn daylights savings!

take it easy