Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Soft and White

  
 
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Soft and White


I shoot lots of macro outdoors where a tripod does not help or indoors where a tripod is not allowed. I also often shoot with a macro lens and an additional 2+ diopter closeup filter. I have plenty of images which are soft due to a limited DOF and/or I was not able to hand hold and get that narrow sliver of focus. Most of them I just consider to be failures. This is one I like even though the focus is mostly soft.







Jan 12, 2015 at 05:15 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Soft and White


I can't critique it
Just beautiful!

Scott



Jan 12, 2015 at 05:38 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Soft and White


Sometimes we make lemonade out of lemons to salvage the lemons as best we can. Other times we make lemonade just because we like it.

Much to like @ harmonize the soft/diffraction/dof vs. fight it. I'm thinking this could be a signature for you.

Sometimes our perception / reception is predicated upon our expectations. With these, there is no expectation for dof/sharpness (unlike "regular" shots), thus no disappointment for the lack of detail / crisp / sharp. Instead, an appreciation / enjoyment of the goodness exhibited.

After that, +1 @ what Scott said ^ ... run with it Jim. I see an exhibit in the future.



Jan 12, 2015 at 07:53 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Soft and White


RustyBug wrote:
...... I see an exhibit in the future.


I wish.

Trying to get into a gallery is really tough, especially for someone who travels most of the year. Last year I tried over a 3 month period and had some success with juried shows. Was accepted for three different group exhibitions. This year I am trying again. Within the past couple of months, I found a dozen juried exhibitions that interested me. Most are in the NYC area. So far I have one acceptance (4 photos selected) and three rejections. Unfortunately of the remaining 8, none are likely...meaning acceptance rates of well under 10%. I don't bother with any of the big competitions especially if they charge an entry fee. Last year I applied for a B&H competition. I think the competition topped out at over 50,000 applicants.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. I think the idea of trying to exhibit forces me to work at my "art".



Jan 12, 2015 at 08:48 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Soft and White


Simple but elegant - let's see a series, Jim.

Jeff



Jan 13, 2015 at 07:19 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Soft and White


+1 @ Jeff ^

Camperjim wrote:

I think the idea of trying to exhibit forces me to work at my "art".


I think (as if I know anything ) that one of the things that makes photography a challenge for "art" is that it is so often devoid of the tenets and fundamentals of art to begin with. By that, I mean taking a picture of something is 99% of the time void of such considerations ... rather it is a recording device.

Here, we have NOT an image from recording device, but a PRESENTATION. You have presented us with the very essence of form .. in some ways, it reminds me of those who shoot the human body as an art form (key word @ form). The nudes that I am most endeared to are NOT the ones that are picture of a naked person, but the ones that present form as indicative of a study.

I would suggest, that like one who STUDIES the human form ... Jim, you have indeed STUDIED the floral form. It is this study of form that is revealed in a presentation through the photographic medium. 99.9% of the images that inundate and proliferate the world are void of such studies. THIS (imo) is where the great divide is between photography and fine art ... artists (typically) have studied and practiced form and the other tenets with diligence and can readily recognize when another has presented those considerations. They can also readily recognize when others have not. It is often the absence of such tenets that separates the wheat from the chaff.

Meanwhile, the masses (not you) with a camera don't understand why they don't get more consideration from the art community ... yet, continue to neglect the very studies that are classicly the infrastructure to art. We can make amazingly pretty pictures, but in doing so that doesn't mean they exhibit the studies involved. I see all too often where an image has contradictory tenets involved ... suggesting the artisan has NOT given credence, nor display their understanding, of such underlying principles. For the artisan judge, this is an EASY trip to the thrashing floor in favor of those who clearly embody, include and present such tenets ... particularly given the magnitude of competitiveness involved.

Most anyone can take a picture of a pretty flower ... Botanical Gardens are abound with them. Cameras can record them to infinity and beyond. But that very "commonplace" aspect is part of what makes it such a challenge to reveal and present your subject in such a way to actually present a message that stands out from the myriad of other commonplace messages. This spawns the desire to be "different" ... but all too often folks try to be different, merely for the sake of being different, rushing past other considerations.

Sadly, they bypass the aforementioned tenets in their efforts to distinguish themselves from the masses, which essentially takes them from the frying pan to the fire ... only to join a different group of commonplace (i.e. devoid of the the studies / tenets revealed in the lack of command & control @ contradictory attributes). Although, the difference can be VERY POPULAR, it can still "tell" a lack of study & utility to the tenets embodied in understanding the form.

YOURS ... that we see here ... are indeed different. In that, they distinguish themselves from the commonplace. ADDITIONALLY, they also show their strength in a presentation of form ... WITHOUT contradictions (i.e. tells).

This (imo) avoids the frying pan of commonplace, AND it avoids the fire of a tell @ "you haven't done your studies". Now, it no longer goes to the thrashing floor as chaff, but is retained as wheat ... to then be judged as good wheat or great wheat or different wheat, but still making it beyond the thrashers.

But, even beyond the subject of judges & art ... I think that these fall into a much more significant category @ "I want to show you something." To me, these are indicative of a communication (message) where YOU see something that YOU want OTHERS to see, that they may have otherwise never really taken the time to study or observe. Note that here again, the STUDY has revealed itself as integral to the message.

Well, I've rambled to the reciprocal of Scott & Jeff's simplicity ... but I like them and think they embody much goodness for what they are AND for what they are not. I would urge, as Scott & Jeff already have, to pursue this exploration further to a level indicative of your mastery @ command, control and communication toward the essence of such beauty and form. I suspect that your longstanding work / study of the floral subject is about to move on to another level.



Jan 13, 2015 at 09:21 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Soft and White


RustyBug, nice job of explaining why creating art is a different process than just taking a picture as a representation. Let me try to explain the same approach with some different words.

I look at photography as three components...all of which should work together. First are the camera settings and related technical aspects. Second, is composition, which I define to be the arrangement of all of the elements in the image including light/dark, lines, color, shapes, objects. Third, is the artist's intent, goals and vision. There are no perfect camera settings, but the settings need to work towards the composition and vision. Composition is dependent on the camera and needs to support the artist's vision. To convey a vision, the photographer needs to have command of the tools - using the camera and finding and composing the image. (Finding or seeing are what makes photography different from other visual arts such as painting, but that is a separate discussion.) I find it difficult to explain the artist's intent, goals and vision. That is partly because those are so personal and unique. For me it helps to write an artist's statement which includes those components. Even so the concepts can be difficult to communicate. When it comes to shooting flowers, my vision is very clear at least in my head. I know for sure that a pretty portrait of a flower does not quality even though I am sometimes seduced by the beauty of flowers and capture portraits anyway. When I am successful, I know that what I have captured matches my vision. I have also found that a clear understanding of my vision is important only to me. The viewer does not need to know or understand any specifics of my artistic vision.

Sorry if I have been excessively long winded, but I do think this fits in with the nature of critique. When it comes to critique we often concentrate on issues such as camera technique and composition. We ignore the more artistic aspects. I suspect that is because few images convey any sense of intent, goals or vision. I know mine are that way. Even with a strong vision, most of my images are garbage and without any soul. I especially struggle with landscape photography. I have never been able to develop a well defined and consistent vision. At best I just have some sort of vague notion of creating something with impact that makes the viewer feel present. That has not been enough.



Jan 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Soft and White


+1 @ your first paragraph

-1 @ hard on yourself. One of the deep, dark unspoken secrets is the volume of our unsuccessful endeavors ... at least until after we are dead.
Note the volume of Ansel Adams reworks / reshoots to achieve what he wanted and progressed toward that have been heralded as part of his legacy.

I'd hardly call your stuff garbage ... even if you are tossing it in the can because it doesn't achieve the presentation of your vision. I'd call it ... hmmm, let's say "Research & Development"

This "R&D" period is to me a part of the process that virtually all the great artisans progressed through. The duration of the period is certainly variable to the individual, but very few (none come to mind) were so gifted to not pass through such a phase. I tend to think of those phases as "plateaus" of various sizes ... en route to the next ascent. Imo, I envision a "next ascent" somewhere along this path.

On the technical side of things, you've battled with dof / diffraction of rendering your chosen subject ... this particular style of presentation absolutely SQUASHES those technical shortcomings in this presentation (says from the detail junkie) and to me, liberates the viewer from the need to consider them ... only left to enjoy the presentation of the other tenets before us.



Jan 13, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Soft and White


I have been looking at a book of flower paintings from Georgia O'Keefe. I noticed that most of her flower images are "soft". Her "lighting" was soft and flat with hardly any shadows, texture or clues as to the direction of the ambient light. In many cases her images lack a feeling of depth. She often separated flower petals using a simple line with no shading. You often cannot tell which petal is forward and which is being overlapped and is in the background. If you spent time trying to figure out the overlapping you can reach the point where you must be looking at some sort of Mobius where nothing makes sense. O'Keefe was a highly skilled and classically trained painter. She did not just have some difficulty with technique due to lack of skill. She intentionally ignored these aspects as they had nothing to do with her vision and may have actually interfered.

I am not so skilled and my technical limitations often spoil the shot. That was not the case for either the red or white flower images I posted recently. Both times I got what I intended and/or expected. I also know how to improve the sense of sharpness and focus with post processing. If I ever make large size prints of either of these, I will need to decide if that is something I want or I prefer the image as is. By my standards both of these were OK. If I really wanted sharp focus and DOF, I would shoot under studio conditions with consistent lighting, no wind and I would use a tripod and focus staking. Many shoot flowers that way and the results can be stunning. No the garbage is the other 50 or 100 shots I made where the focus was totally off, the composition did not work or the lighting changed before I got the shot. Shooting live flowers, hand held can be difficult which is one of the reasons I like it so much.

When I shoot flowers, I can usually handle no more than about a 3 hour session. After that I am exhausted. I will have often shot 200, 300 or even more attempts. I will be lucky to have 50% that were technically successful and 1-6 that I really like.



Jan 13, 2015 at 12:34 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Soft and White


+1 @ challenge of hand-held live floral

Do your try to remain static? Personally, I try to be a bi-pedal or waist-up rocking horse. I know that conventional wisdom suggest remain static, but I find that in challenging situations of slow shutter for dof, a controlled single plane motion can give me better control than the omni-direction "wobbles" of trying to be motionless for hand-held, no tripod shooting. You can coordinate your rock with the motion or lull in the wind if you aren't using a wind-break for the floral movement.

It's kind of like pulling the trigger on a gun while tracking a target. In the case of a floral, I might press the shutter as I'm coming toward the flower and the top of the pistil or stamen come into focus. My slight forward motion and shutter lag may take me a bit further into the flower, but the dof will usually cover the "inexact" point of focus, that still coordinates with the space between the pistil to petal distance variation.




Jan 13, 2015 at 03:44 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Soft and White


Yup, rock and shoot with a gentle press on the shutter button.


Jan 13, 2015 at 04:26 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Soft and White


There's a genuine place for the soft high-key image. No apologies or excuses needed. Would look appealing properly mounted large on a wall in the right space.


Jan 13, 2015 at 04:39 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Soft and White


Bingo ^


Jan 13, 2015 at 05:49 PM
eeneryma
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Soft and White


As others have said, just beautiful!


Jan 14, 2015 at 08:34 AM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Soft and White


Can't add much to the rambling...
I semi-regret my earlier comment about the jpg artifacts.
I think both your flower shots were excellent as presented. The show of "form," as Kent eloquently stated, is excellent!

- John

PS - This sounds like most of my photos, not just flowers!
"I will have often shot 200, 300 or even more attempts. I will be lucky to have 50% that were technically successful and 1-6 that I really like."



Jan 14, 2015 at 01:05 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.