IRIS study (3rd shot from this grouping)

First of all I think it's pretty hard to make flower shots that don't make me yawn. Flowers have beaten to death from all angles and perspectives by millions of photographers of all skill levels. Most flower macros are utterly repetitive and I usually don't even start to expect something extraordinary from that kind of a subject.

But every now and then there comes along a picture that still gets to me. This picture does it by its detail, crispness, luminosity and live-like color. This is of course due to craftsmanship; somebody knows exactly what he's doing here; but very often technically perfect pictures are still boring. This one is not, at least for me. Why is that?

 

Taking pictures has always been about showing them. Showing pictures only makes sense, if they show something that the viewer can not see by himself in real life. Otherwise what would be the point of looking at a copy if you can look at the original?

That's why pictures a la National Geographic always work; most people haven't been able to look down from the summit of Mount Everest.

That's why pictures of wildlife and warfare work that well.

That's why in the early days of photography an uninspired picture of a black tribesman from Africa was absolutely sensational and today an uninspired photo of an ordinary white man taken during the great depression is worth looking at.

 

It's all about what a picture shows relative to what you are able to see in real life.

 

So given the fact that everybody knows flowers, has seen, watched and most likely photographed them, what is it about a flower pic that really grabs your attention? Why does this picture work?

 

It works because it takes you up close to a delicate and shining beauty and let's you watch its amazing detail for as long as you want. Sure, every one of us could try to do this in real life (like we could travel to distant countries and watch tigers). But we usually don't and moments like these tend to be fleeting. This picture takes us there and shows us what's there to discover.

 

That's why here perfect craftsmanship is not a moot exercise, but absolutely required for this picture to work. The same picture taken with a point and shoot would have been nothing but a waste of time and film.

 

I still can't think of a flower picture I would regard revolutionary and mind boggling, but this pictures makes we want to look at it. That's about the best that can be said about any phtograph.

Lovely photo. Generally flower pics don't do much for me since they tend to be not much more than ID photos (including my own attempts). This is the kind of work that I can only to aspire to produce. Well done!

absolutely gorgeous.

A wonderful balance of tone, detail, and composition.

 

It has an amazing 3D quality. One of the best garden flower shots I've seen. Great job Scott.

 

We've got to get you out to the Rockies some time so you can see the fields of wildflowers in a good year!

 

I just published an article on digital vs film image quality which you might find interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

You did it the right way.

This is such a nice macro shot. I love it!

WOW

;-)

A truly great image fantastick colour and light,exceptional in every aspect!!!!

Another comment from me, this film image truly blows away any digital I've seen on this site or any other for that matter,really superior work!!!!!

beautiful.....simply beautiful!

Great!!

The veining on the petals is gorgeous, and the lighting is perfect--was it all natural? The "toungue" extending towards us is interesting too. Well done!

Having read (and paid attention to) many of your comments on this forum, it's nice to see someone who can actually "walk the walk". Besides that, this image would be a stunner if scaled WAY up.

I thought I had taken a beautiful Iris shot....

This is one to aspire to.