Why do flower photos suck? What makes a good/great one?

more succinctly ... what Hans said!

�[� Z , jan 23, 2004; 07:16 p.m.

"One of the few insightful things I've read from Hans so far."

 

Stay tuned! There's more insight to come from Hans!

Sophie Thouvenin is who Gloria was referring to. I also find her work to be quite stunning. You can see her sight <a ref="http://prismes.free.fr/index.htm">here</a>. She definitely has the creative eye.<p>

 

Hans made a very good point which I think it at the root of your answer. I see a lot of flower images that are just shot in bad light, which kills it instantly. Shoot in good light, well, it could make it a lot better, but still perhaps "boring" to some. You really have to capture the character of the particular flower (or flowers). I think when you emphasize that, many people will connect with your image.<p>

 

Mark<br>

<a ref="http://www.grafphoto.com">grafphoto.com</a>

Well - I see I screwed up my HTML in my post, so here it goes again;<p>

 

Sophie's site: <a href="http://prismes.free.fr/index.htm">Sopie</a><p>

 

Mark<p>

<a href="http://www.grafphoto.com">www.grafphoto.com</a>

Mike Spinak- I looked at your link, and my reaction was oh my god. what the hell is this? ive never seen anything like that. awesome work man, keep it up.

Craig Blacklock has some very nice wild flower images. The secret to his success is that he captures them in their natural environment. He most often uses 5x7 or 8x10 view cameras so the detail and colors are quite spectacular. If you want to see some of his photos, just enter his name on google.

<i> Stay tuned! There's more insight to come from Hans! </i><p>

 

Like referring to yourself in the 3rd person? That's not going to do it.

�[� Z:

 

If it was good enough for Caesar, it is good enough for Hans.

everyone's covered the subject pretty well, so I'll just add my our fav flower pic. I have 2 or 3 others that I'd class as ok.<div></div>

<i> If it was good enough for Caesar, it is good enough for Hans. </i><p>

 

And if it's good enough for pretentious fools too? Good enough for you too?

Why do flower photos suck? Maybe your preconcieved notions are getting in the way. I don't think any general group of images can suck.

When you say "flower shots are not very interesting" DW, I suspect you are talking about closeups as any landscape photographer readily seeks colorful flowers to foreground complement landscapes.

 

The key to your statement is you seem to be gauging it by how members of this photography community rates them hererin. Therein lies most of the that issue. Experienced photographers will be much more critical because closeups of flowers have generally been shot to death such that it is difficult to be original as several here have noted. But that ought not detract from the essence of any well done such images which would readily be borne out by positive feedback and hence commercial value from the public. I also reject the notion that a flower photograph must somehow be uniquely artistic or original instead of the obvious. There is also much difference between someone that takes pictures of gaudy cultured flowers or those in gardens versus those that work with wildflowers in the natural landscape. A picture may be more than just its raw image. Some flowers are common and others are rare. Some grow in environments that are difficult to frame or under which lighting is awkward. Much more as this is a complex subject and not something that can be stuffed into someones black and white box of opinions. For myself by far the more difficult part of wildflower images from the field is more about finding the most aesthetic specimen versus the technical setup required to photograph such best. -David

Good answers above... most flower shots have ben done... and done... and done. In my opinion, the BEST flower shots are the ones that 1) isolate and enhance the flower into a "fine art" photographic shot to where it no longer is "just a flower", but a work of art OR 2) incorporates the flowers into an overall landscape.

 

To me.. the shots of "just" a field of flowers is pretty... but not that eyecatching.

 

Photos of flowers are a good example of snapshots VS photos. Snapshots have been DONE already... and require very little thought as to exposure, composition, etc. A GOOD photo requires some thought and / or preparation... occassionally a "snapshot" will capture the moment... but usually NOT.

<i> most flower shots have ben done... and done... and done. In my opinion, the

BEST flower shots are the ones that 1) isolate and enhance the flower into a "fine art"

photographic shot to where it no longer is "just a flower", but a work of art OR 2)

incorporates the flowers into an overall landscap </i><p>

 

Some of the best recent flower photography I've come across is by James Merrell, a

(UK?) commercial studio photographer who did great flower photography for Tricia

Guild's book, "Cut Flowers." Hallmark Flowers saw the book, flipped over the images

and hired him for their ad campaign -- where he made some really clever, beautiful

work. <p>

 

Today I came across some recent b&w flower photography by Lee Friedlander, who

needed to shoot something while laid up indoors with a bad knee. Some interesting

work.

Flowers are one of the ultimate exercises in photography; whether it

is a bunch I have purchased at the farmers market,a friends back yard

stand of tulips or acres of hillsides of wild poppys.

As with most subjects difussed light with a concentrated single direction key light seems to bring out the best in a flower or flowers. Vibrant colors with accenting or boldly contrasting opposite color back grounds, with texture, help. Nice strong side light that comes throught translucent petals and the right amount of ambient light that wraps around the rest can create a composition that reminds one of the fact that a flower that does not attract a visitor to pollinate it may not return.

If you look up some images of flowers by someone named Cunningham you would see that the only thing that sucked would be the bees and humming birds that came for the nectar. Walt Byrnes