love and loss

Hi, all. Not much timer to read this entire discussion, but it seems to me, after an overall view on this page, that the discussion was mosly about the question "how was it done?" and about the limit between photography and graphic design. In my humble opinion, the question in such a case should rather be : WHAT IS THIS FOR ?

 

Okay, it's a fairly decent use of the flood filter, and the aesthetics of this image may appeal to some - not to me. But in the end, what is the effect for ? What does it suggest ? It's swweet, or "cute", but what does it say ? Just try to find a meaning to what you see, and to clearly express, with words, the meaning that this effect added to the original photo, and now what do you get ? NOTHING. This effect is an empty shell, meant at best to surprise those who haven't heard of this filter before, or meant to create an eye-catching composition. But in my opinion it says nothing, and is just worth as much as what it says.

i think I need to remind some of you that this image represents love and loss...the use of the flood filter supported this notion for me...i believe art should provide answers to questions that need to be formulated by the artist...was this worth doing for me...answer yes...did I achieve my goal...answer yes...the questions many of you ponder are different from mine...some of you want to believe this image is a simple manipuation done in a few minutes...wrong!...you can of course take a snapshot and run a flood filter to create a mess if you desire but this is clearly not the case...even the choice of flower to convey the emotion took time...you can purchase a calla lilly in virtually any florist...the one I use happens to go down to the flower distrcit in New York twice a week and unloads them in the afternoon when I show up for the "pick of the litter"...they are fresh and beautiful and my choice is based on the emotions I want the flower to convey...back in the studio, I set up the lighting carefully, in this case backlit at f22 for 30 seconds supported on a tripod using a 55ex off camera with a black disc background supported on another stand...the flood filter is not a simple click although it can be...in order to get this shot just right I experimented with many versions of separate layers, eventually deciding to blur the reflection and transform the properties to give it the look I desired....the flower was sharpened using a hiraloam sharpening technique and standard USM sharpening...apparently enough people found this image interesting, hence its high ratings......years ago when Ansel Adams was taking those incredible black and whites of Yosemite and other landscape paradises, I could image some landscape painters complaining that "all he does it attach a camera to a stick, plant it in the ground and press a button...obviosuly I'm not the Ansel Adams of digital manipulation but this wasn't a simple task without forethought.....

Speaking of this particular image as it stands alone, despite the appeal it holds for some, I would not say it exhibits much in the way of mastery. A photograph of the lily by itself might have been a different story, but the addition of the watery effect is rather common. If using a software plug-in to add a rippling reflection accomplishes the artist's intent, then fine, all is good; but as a visual artifact, it is not unique, and does not, in my opinion, display a deeply satisfying level of competence, or artistic vision. I suppose it qualifies as "art", using whatever definition one chooses, but in the passage of time I would not expect it to rise above the many images just like it that already exist on this very site. Velvet paintings were all the rage at one time, but I've never seen one in a gallery or museum. It's a nice picture David. If you sell your work, you'll probably make a mint off it.

your portfolio as a whole is rather impressive. I personally don't dislike this particular shot, but I don't think it has much depth, either. As a single image for critique, it does have its own place, appeal, and aesthetic value, but, I hope, you would not want your reputation to hang on it.

Great Image David. It is charged with Meaning , which is the primary purpose of art. Yes Art . The image shows Vision, Purpose, Content and Craft and it is clearly Made ,not merely captured.

This image is consistent with the rest of your Portfolio and it is not just a “Lucky accident” . You do have the those qualities that I mention. In my book you are an “Image Maker”. Congratulations!

  Luis

I think its brilliant and it has put to good use the flood filter. Generally speaking, folk love reflections and most non-photographers would take this to be "real". Is that a problem? In my opinion, its not. I have a great deal of fun with the filter ..see below

ur tone is very nice..

and i don`t has any comment again...

cause this a wonderfull pic.

 

 

assalam mualaikum ( berry febrian )

This is a wonderful image and I would very much like to speak to you about using your photograph for a book cover. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

 

Regards,

Mark