Untitled

I was both flabbergasted and honored, as I suspect other members whose photos have appeared on this page have been, when I went to check out the pow for this week and found myself looking at one of my own images. Thanks to all of you who have commented, both for the kind words and for sharing your thoughts on this image. Your encouraging words are a true gift to receive and it is always wonderful to know an image of mine has had an impact on others. In terms of actual critique that I can respond to, I will try to address the points raised thus far. The concept of focus and what we have come to expect of it in an image has come up repeatedly. I am both surprised and heartened by the number of people who find the slightly soft focus pleasing. Anyone who knows my work, or has seen my portfolio here at Photo.net, is aware that the majority of my images have limited or no point of sharp focus. Since these daisies were quite literally trapped in my backyard, I had the opportunity to return daily whenever the light looked promising in order to take additional shots. Some of these were done with a tripod, many including the one above were hand held and some of my favorites were shot at slow shutter speeds whilst deliberately moving the camera. Although I had experimented to a slight degree with various forms of motion blur and alternate focus back in my youth, it has only been in recent years that I began to fully understand the liberation of which Tom writes. This liberation continues to open up a new world of possibilities to me.

A point raised by Asla which cropped up several time in comments on my trapped daisies folder, is the emotion evoked by these daisies. I had looked upon them, depending on how long they had been open, simply as young or old. I found that some of the comments left on these photos ascribed sadness and melancholy to the older blooms and the younger blooms were being described in terms reflective of happiness. This connection was apparently obvious to others and is, I suppose, hardly a revelation, particularly in our youth oriented society, yet the idea had nonetheless alluded me. Perhaps this speaks to my own mortality. I do not wish to look upon old as sad or battered, irregardless of the realities involved.

I find Brian's comment thoughtful and fascinating and I thank him for taking the time to post. The idea that the relative value of an image is directly proportionate to the difficulties encountered in getting the shot, is curious to contemplate. On occasion I do look at a photo and think wow! that was a hard shot to set up or a dangerous or difficult locale to deal with. In the end however this does not make the shot a success or failure for me. Carrying this logic to the extreme. If I hiked to the top of a mountain with my gear and found these daisies growing behind some windows on the edge of a dangerous precipice , the resulting image would be ascribed more value or otherwise be different than if they just happened to be kicking around behind my barn and I could go out in my slippers with my morning coffee to do the shooting. Hmmmm ?

One final point of clarification regarding my first response to Doug. I was alluding to a comment Doug left on this image back in July and hope no one was left with the impression that " I " was praying for my photo to be chosen as pow. I can think of few things that would have been further from my mind than receiving such an accolade for my sad little daisy. Warmest regards to all. Gordon

The photo of daisy looks to me interesting because it has a sense of vintage style. The point of sharp focus is not the subject here, although for me, the sharp focus lies on water drops at the window.

The symbol of photo is obvious.

Daisy's beauty is cold, maybe because of colors, but reveals a life in a trapped environment. Even her petals unfolds below its yellow stamens and looking upward, which mean that daisy is growing at very narrow place. Anyway, she reveals her beauty. The whole structure is like relief, beautiful and disperse uniquely through the plain.

"...a hard shot to set up or a dangerous or difficult locale to deal with... does not make the shot a success or failure for me." This is also a subject I am currently contemplating. While such difficulty does not automatically grant the image visual success, I think it does add to the objective value of the artifact made from the photo. I would price a print of this image higher in a gallery, if had it been made on the distant and treacherous precipice than the one made behind your metaphorical (or actual?) barn while in your slippers. Not a lot, but enough to make a statement about it that is contrary to the notion that prints are priced by the square inch, regardless of the work required to bring them to the page.

Personally, I prefer the daisies with some age on them. More poignant, richer metaphorically, more intellectually complex. It gives me something to consider after I've had my fill of yellow/blue. Youth is very pretty, but it only lasts so long... t

For the record since you asked, my barn is actual not metaphorical and the same goes for my slippers. This issue of relative value is interesting to me, more in an abstract sense at the moment, as unlike you Tom I am not currently showing or selling my work. I think the key words in your assertion are " objective value" . For the image to have greater monetary value I would want to be able to view the image and be immediately aware of how time consuming, perilous etc. the process was. For example Saul's Patagonian image from a couple of weeks back. My daisy image offers no reference in this regard, it could be a total deception as Brian suggests. It certainly would have been easy enough to fake in a studio with a spray bottle and very few props. Now, if you consider the same issue subjectively the border begins to blur. I am an avid native orchid photographer. In order to photograph some species I end up traveling hundreds of miles, getting out at 4:00 a.m. in the hopes of being set up before the breeze picks up for the day. Slogging miles on foot through mosquito infested bogs, only to arrive at my destination and find that a slight warm spell earlier in the week has blighted all the blossoms and I now have to return next year to try again. In the case of Amerorchis rotundifolia forma lineata I have repeated this journey four years running now and still do not have that perfect shot I am looking for. If I ever got that photo and charged for the subjective value, nobody would be able to afford it. At the other end of the scale I can go out in my woods and get good shots of Cypripedium acuale without breaking a sweat. For the viewer looking at either image there would not appear to be any objective difference in the two images. I would stand no chance of recouping the expenses incurred to obtain the former image. Which I suppose leaves me as a silly person standing around in a swamp feeding mosquitoes. Now if I am selling the same photos at a native orchid conference were my target market knows the relative rarity of the lineata form of Amerorchis well then... Tom, I do agree that the daisies acquired greater complexity and character with age. I hope the same thing happens for the rest of us.

Am I reading a discussion which equates the effort and degree of difficulty in obtaining a photograph with its value?

 

If a diamond hunter has enough experience to recognize a diamond in his own backyard, why would that diamond be any more valuable than the same diamond found anywhere else?

 

 

Not the best metaphor, I suppose, but if I'm looking at two essentially identical photographs and one took 10 seconds to produce, and the other took 10 years, what kind of fool would I be to pay more for one over the other?

 

This is marketing you're talking about, not photography.

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

My initial point was in response to Brian's assertion which I believe was addressing an images qualitative or aesthetic value, or at least that is what I assume, as he mentioned rating rather than dollars. My second comment was in response to Tom's thoughts which did in fact shift the focus to dollars. My point being that whether it's dollar or any other value you attach to a photograph it is not easy to pin it's value on what went into its making as this is not always going to be clear and easy to define for the person viewing or the person creating.

I think you did a super job on the glass and the color of the daisy works very well , but a fresh looking daisy would be better image , that seems to be the 1 missing piece for me . regards robert

I think in the end all these thought processes go on after the fact. Obviously I don't stand around in swamps hoping to get rich, I do it because I love photographing orchids and love being out in nature. When I took these photographs of daisies I did so because they caught my eye and I though there was something unique in the way they looked. I never thought, oh dear no point in shooting those since they are not rare or on the edge of a cliff. I realized I was creating a simple image of a common garden weed and that was enough for me.

Thanks for the comment Robert. The diversity of opinion is interesting. Generally it would seem most people grow progressively fonder of these daisies the more wretched they look. The one you are looking at Robert, is I believe, the freshest one I have to offer. Sorry about that.

I have left my run on discussing this weeks entry quite late because all I can offer as an novice photographer is that it is a very well done still life shot of a flower. The focus issue is not relevant because it works as it is and is one of a series so there is a variation of a theme. Now we are moving into an area that has nothing to do with this forum and are discussing the marketing and pricing of a print. This is something I do know more about, not that I sell prints or art but marketing is marketing. I have to agree with Doug that it matters not how difficult it was or where it was done an item for sale of equal visual appearance is valued the same. The variation in price which we must say is not what Gordon cares about, is determined by other factors. The largest of these is image, not the one for sale but the one of the photographer, the bigger the ego and reputation the bigger the price tag, I think this would be evident from some previous discussions. Lets say we had 2 of these for sale one by Gordon whom I don't know,( mainly because I live on the largest island on the planet) and the other was by Ansell Adams. Which print will sell for more? ( sorry if I misspelt the name I know he is an icon ). The difficulty factor could be in Gordons favour but it will never be considered as good as the other because of reputation. An other point to consider is that if Gordon was looking at selling his work the Marketing would be focused on him personally not his work initially. Lets face it a marketing person would not tell you it was taken in his back yard anyway, they would say it was in some exotic location a million miles away!

 

On a more pointed note, Gordon you have done a fine job and deserve your moment in the sun.

Thanks David for adding your thoughts. While I agree that marketing the artist is more important than marketing the individual piece my original interest in this entire area of discussion related more to whether a photo had more merit simply as a photo, if it was hard to create rather than simple to create. I suspect that the fact that this is nothing more than a "well done still life shot of a flower" is why it has garnered little in the way of debate or controversy. :-) I had always been taught that Australia was a continent and Greenland was the largest island in the world.

Gordon -

 

We've done workshops at camera club with flowers underwater, but I haven't seen a result like this. I absolutely love how the blue of the water and the white and yellow of the flower blend to make this picture pop.

Thanks very much Marianne. This daisy is actually behind a condensed window pane, rather than under water. I have also noticed that several people have suggested that it appears to be inside of a block of ice.

Yep your right Gordon it is a continent, I tend to talk in very generel terms in informal discussions. Don't sell yourself short though I was not trying to diminish your photo as JUST a good still life, that was not how it was intended. I also think there is nothing easy about any good photo, some people just have a nack for seeing things that the majority of us don't. I for one would not have even noticed your composition in passing, to my detrement.

I had assumed you knew that AS was a continent. I realize in hindsight, that it is difficult to see my tongue planted firmly in my cheek over the web. My comment about this being "just" a good still life was not intended to be self deprecating nor was it intended to imply you were diminishing my work. I am actually quite proud of this series and took your words as a compliment. I was more making the observation that as pow it is hard to get people too worked up about a still life of a daisy. There are only a few elements to the image, glass, water and a daisy and a very limited number of colours. The composition is quite simple and straightforward. A somewhat wilting daisy placed on a slightly downward tilt in the top third of the frame with the faint line of the stem heading down to fall off the bottom of the frame. Add some morning dew and wait for the light to look right and there you have it. I enjoy viewing this image, it does elicit an emotional response for me but it is hard to pull apart analytically.

I just read over most of the comments and was a bit surprised that the image is being

discussed as if it were a still life apple painting. Maybe I'm reading too much into the title and

the image but it appears to me that this is comment about our current look at nature and the

green house effect.

Glad we have everything clarified, best of luck.

On the discussion about the relevance of the "true value" of a picture and the way it was created.

So far the debate has been based on the comparison of two pictures with similar subjects that were the result of two totally different approaches. My belief is that the controversy lies with the mere number of pictures under comparison.

I believe that when we talk about photography as an art form, and especially when it comes down to expression, the more involving the creative process is the higher the probability that the final outcome will be a coherent body of work.

So, if you take a step back and instead of trying to make sense by comparing two single pictures that look alike (subject matter, composition, lighting, tones, textures... you name it), you put those pictures in context and compare the bodies of work that they are part of, I bet you that 9 out of 10 times the body of work that'll come out a clear "winner" will be the one produced with the more involving process.

To put it in a nutshell, chances are an 8x10 LF project that was realized in a full year will overtake a 35mm disposable camera project done in a day (I know, the example is an overkill...).

Conclusion: Process does affect the value of our work, even if it doesn't show in a single picture.

P.S. What is the "real value" of a picture anyway? If we talk about its market value, it has mostly (if not exclusively) to do with marketing. On the other hand, on a personal level, the way we value anything is based on what it means to us. The same picture could mean the world to me and nothing to you.

Regards.

Thodoris... most astute observations. Thanks for placing a larger context on this issue. I like to think that beneath my over-simplified premise, at it's heart lay the issues you outline. Actually you have described the core of my thinking, but I had not burrowed down to it, yet. There is a great deal to consider behind the release of a shutter. Your perspective is very helpful.

I now wonder about the value of a photograph made possible by decades of preparation and work garnered on entirely different types of projects. As artists and craftsmen work, they gain experience that applies to unforeseen opportunities, enabling them to seize a moment that might go completely un-noticed by another, less experienced practitioner (the difference between a photographer and a guy-with-a-camera)... "when" and "how" as opposed to "what" and "where".

A good example may (not surprisingly) be found in the jazz musician, improvising in concert with new partners or on new compositions in live performance (like walking in a new land with your camera, or meeting a compelling person, unexpectedly, in superior light).

Might not a epiphany reached spontaneously and singularly, be of such note and achievement that it could equal any studio, or planned effort that same artist might produce on long and carefully prepared projects? Might its singular rarity make it even more exceptional..."valuable"? Isn't this unique result distinguishable from the brilliant co-incidence that a less disciplined artist may stumble upon through chance and coincidentally appropriate aperture/shutter settings?

Still thinking this complex topic through. Thanks for broadening my thinking, while I contemplate the pricing of various works.

On an odd tangent with your comments: a few years ago I had an interesting chance meeting with Albert Watson in an otherwise empty gallery full of his work. He pointed out that there were images in the exhibit (his work) made with, respectively, 8x10 and disposable cameras. Format was not an issue in his valuation of those prints. I suppose we could agree that camera, print size, and degree of creative difficulty are not solely appropriate criteria for determining the price of any individual work. It's a complex and controversial subject for us... t

Tom and Thodoris, I understand and agree in principle with all of your comments above. You both make perfect sense with all points, however what you are both refering to is your value in the body or single piece of work. What I was leaning toward in my comment is more from a customers perspective, the person who will part with his or her money. This must be part of your overall valuation of anything, what is the market willing to pay for it. The market does not really connect with a difficulty factor of anything, they see value in other areas. This is why the marketing of things is so impotant and your image will also add value. The factors you are both contemplating really relate to what you personally will price something at, this is where ego and reputation come in, but you must also consider what others will perceive in its value. In the end you could value it at $1k, but will the market pay it, that only time will tell. One way to consider it all is if your business is in its infancy you will need to have lower expectations of price, once well established you can increase your price according to market demand!

In the point I made above I was presenting my views on what I believe to be the "inherent value" of a photograph. That is, a value that has nothing to do with numerical factors and currencies. I was relaying to anyone interested that my thinking is that the more you put into your work the more you can expect to get out of it (again, not moneywise.)

As to the "money value" side of it: yes Tom, you are right, it's all about marketing.

But, again I believe that you start your reasoning from the wrong point in the process (you obviously have a marketing background and therefore "supply and demand" are imprinted in your mind.)

To me the "get go" are the INTENSIONS of the photographer rather that the market demand of his work. If I want to sell my work in the hopes to become rich or famous or both, then I'll probably need a different marketing strategy than if I want to sell enough prints per year to be able to live without doing advertising for corporate clients or weddings, won't I?

To give you an example that connects my previous comment to this one: I can choose to sell the same picture in a limited edition for $$$$ or in an open edition for $$$ (the numbers being within what the market would pay for and the prints being of the same standard.) Now, does the "real value" of the picture change along with its market counterpart? I don't think so.

I believe that the market value merely dictates who can afford my work, where its "real value" who would want to have it on their wall (again, probably every viewer will give a deferent value to the same picture.)

Marketing has its place, but it's at the end of the line.

Regards.

By the way, since this forum is about Gordon's picture, to bring my reasoning home:

I believe that the PROCESS he described that he follows to capture orchids in the wild played a part even in him recognizing the possible greatness in this humble subject. I for one would probably have looked at it for a moment and then moved along.

Regards.

What did you do as far as editing this picture? Did you add the blue or enhance to get it?

Debbie

I made the usual adjustments to the raw file. Then the image had some levels and contrast adjustments in CS2. I may have adjusted saturation slightly although as a rule I do not do this.

Thodoris, David and Tom all raise good points. I see it as three aspects of the same process. From a statistical point of view I see Thodoris reasoning. While it does not ensure a higher quality result, the odds go way up with both the amount of time and effort expended and what level of previous experience and it's kind are brought to the shoot. That being said it is still possible for a novice with a lousy camera to take a priceless image and a professional with a very expensive set up to take a worthless one. Most importantly to me and this harkens back to the origin of the discussion, is my feeling that value, irregardless of how you define the term monetary, artistic, or otherwise lies with the individual who create the work and the person viewing it. These are the values which matter and they are not easily pinned down.