Too conventional?

[Downrigger]

This is a shot of a Salsify blossom in seed - a common composit around here with an edible root. Like the dandelion in the same state it is irresistible to relative beginners like myself. This image had an only fair showing as B&W in a minicomp here. I still can't let go, and cropped in tighter and dressed it up (LR/Color Efex). Maybe it is still just too boring and conventional but I would really appreciate some honest reaction - C&C.
Thanks all...

[Mike Buckley]

The issue for me is that I can't tell what the subject is. I "want" the subject to be the center of the image but the out-of-focus material displayed across the center prevents me from clearly seeing that part of the image. This issue would apply whether the the version would be in color or monochrome.

[jamn4ex]

Some of the most impossible shots at first seem simple, I call these trap shots. (I will step in one every time.) Perhaps this falls into that category? I agree with Mike I love the perimeter but when my eye is drawn to the center I want to reach up and wipe my monitor.

[chauncey]

That subject is one of the many clichéd subjects that we oftentimes shoot for the practice of our craft.
I used one as a practice attempt at photo-stacking...Software for focus stacking?
Perusing the net will give examples of better outcomes.

[IzzieK]

It is not conventional, Mark. I like the natural look of your shot. It is one of those I would like to delve into but in macro style...It is not as spectacular as William's yet, but you will get there...I am sure.

[Downrigger]

but I would really appreciate some honest reaction - C&C.

Thanks much, Mike, James, Chauncey... I sort of anticipated these responses, but it helps to have them nonetheless. I especially like James' term "trap shot". That it is, you see these all over.
Maybe at some point I'll get to focus stacking and try again, I wonder though, if it wouldn't be overwhelming, at that point.

[Downrigger]

Thanks, Izzie. I was trying to take advantage of the shallow DOF here to be an impressionist. Mike and James might buy it if the DOF were shallower and the OOF stuff in the center were just gone. I've got enough learning to do without jumping into focus stacking for now but it does produce anatomically correct renderings of objects like this.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Mark,

Boring and conventional, well maybe, maybe not?

Technically a good shot and I suspect there's more scope for processing to enhance the impact of those parts that are well in focus but if we did this we still have the same image. It reminds me of the kaleidoscope images, fun to look at for a few seconds and move on to the next.

I believe the repetition is taking the impact away from the image and if it were mine I would do a portrait crop putting the centre somewhere in the lower right third and close to the right edge.

As for stacking, a no no on this subject, we do not need to see every bit of repetitive detail to know what's there, that's what our brains and imagination are used for

Grahame

[Downrigger]

As for stacking, a no no on this subject, we do not need to see every bit of repetitive detail to know what's there, that's what our brains and imagination are used for

Thank your for that Grahame - after looking into it a bit I agree. I am interested in exploring macro some but am not that interested in doing technically precise botanical or entomological images.

At tried your suggestion and it is certainly a more interesting composition, though doesn't address William's Jame's and Mike's very valid concerns.

[FootLoose]

Mark, I like the light in the first one, particularly the white and gold in the floweret at the top left corner, but I have to agree with others, the focus in the rest of the image is distracting. If I were going for an impressionistic affect on this subject, I would try cropping the upper 1/5th or so of the first image, and making just that small section the subject.

[Downrigger]

Thanks, Greg. I agree I degraded the light in the second version. I am going to wait for next July, and simply start over - and I look forward to it. Even thought trite, there's a good and interesting image there somewhere/somehow - see Chauncey's, for instance.

[Mike Buckley]

Not at all trite, Mark.

I wonder if you simply need to keep a pair of scissors with you. You could have used them to remove the few parts that are between the camera and the subject.

[Downrigger]

Thank you, Mike. That does bring up something....

Sometimes I'm tempted to dress up a nature shot - pull away branch, pick off an errant leaf, move a rock, whatever and something weird tends to stop me - something of a vaguely ethical sort that seems to say - "if you can't show how you appreciate it/what it communicates, as it is, then maybe you don't like it in the first place and just think it speaks to you". It sort of mixes in with setting out bait for your wildlife shots, which is fine with me for others to do, but if I did it I would feel like I was missing the whole point.

[Mike Buckley]

I understand your thinking, Mark. Now try mine on for size:

If we as photographers are out to document random moments in time, we should never use our scissors. However, the extraneous matter that is out of focus could just have been easily moved out of the way via several options by Mother Nature. Once we recognize that, it might be easy to accept giving Mother Nature a helping hand now and then as thanks for everything that she does for us.

That to me is very different from setting out bait for wildlife shots. Doing so changes the behavior of the animals over time and almost always occurs to their detriment.

[Kaye Leggett]

Mark - I agree with most of what has been said, but as an amateur gardener as well as photographer I have no problem doing a little 'gardening' to get the photo....... Enjoy the planning for July

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mark,

Can I suggest you downsize to 1000px square, not 1600?

The 1600 as a height won't fit anyone's screen, so they are, to see the whole composition, seeing it blurred further by the downsizing algorithm on their browser.

Conversely, if they make it 1:1, it spills off the top/bottom of the screen and needs scrolling - but (I think) it does show the sharp bits better.

I'd try tweezers (instead of scissors), to just 'help mother nature' by pulling out a few facing the lens.

Hope that helps,

[Wavelength]

I like both versions; the first one is more poetic where as the second is more realistic

[Downrigger]

Right on, Mike & Kay, I get you. I think it's one of those respect, degree, and slippery slope deals. Thanks Dave - I'll try to keep that in mind, and yes, Nandakumar, all of our images lie on a continuum between raw documentation and imaginative expressiveness, but the best, I think, are often when both are present, both integral, and each part of the other.

[chauncey]

This is a rather dated debate...the very fact that you are squeezing that shutter is altering reality by allowing the in-camera PP software to apply it's own "spin" to that image or...for you to apply your "spin" to that image using RAW PP software. Then you want to print that image, aah...different papers/printers/different lighting scenarios all put a different "spin" on that image. Where does one draw the line on that, afore mentioned, slippery slope?

What do you consider yourself...is it a purely documentary photographer or...do you think of yourself as an artist? That pendulum has a rather long arc to it.

[Marie Hass]

Just for grins and giggles, here is my offering. I liked the subject matter a lot. It was more a matter of working with the part I liked best.



I think you were on to something. What I liked best was the repeating patterns.

Marie