love and loss

the flower was placed in a vase against a dark cloth background...it was lit with a 550ex off camera from below and at an angle...the reflection is a creation...i used an ordinary plug-in filter...you can download a demo at www.flamingpear.com this is a flood filter and I've used it on occasion...they're reasonably priced...i also like the india ink and melacholytron filters...hope this didn't spoil it for anyone...my ambition is to create the image by any means available, but i understand why some people would be opposed to it...just remember, it's what you do with the tools, not the tools themselves that's important...

Thanks, David. Some of us just want to know in case we might want to try the same thing ourselves.

 

Great work.

 

--Lannie

David, Thank you so much for the technical info! As for using PS and filters, I don't apprehend the problem and I agree very much with what Frank Gaffney wrote. Your creation is just that, a creation, and it doesn't matter if it's purely photo, partly PS, pen and ink, mixed media, or whatever. It's art. It's a vision you had and brought to life, and photography is certainly the primary medium... which involves, as I understand it, many, many tools, such as the cameras, lenses, film, digital media, lens filters, and on and on to whatever an artist wants to use. However you do it, I like your work very much, and congratulations on achieving POW!

P.S. I went and got the flood filter from flamingpear.com, and I think it's a nifty tool. I'm having great fun playing with and learning to use it.

Hi David R,

Thought I'd add the R because it seems to be a popular name in this discussion. Thanks for enlightening me on how you did it, this is a learning forum after all but unfortunately not everyone is as willing to part with their knowledge.

As I said I am not a manipulating fan but in this instance it makes no difference so no there is no dissapointment in knowing that it is a fabrication, I still think it is fantastic.

Very nice creation David, congrats on your POW. I have been an admirer of your abstracts for some time, particularly the pool reflection series. You have titled this image " Love and Loss " I have to admit that although I do like this image it does not evoke much emotion for me. I think this is in part because of the very clean and sharp lines in the reflection. I am left with a clinical, almost surgical feel. Given that this is a creation rather than a capture, I wonder what motivated you to go with the width you chose as well as why you had the reflection fall off the bottom and left edge of the frame? I think I would have preferred that the reflection be given a bit more room to breath as regards width and was contained within the frame. Thanks for jumping into the conversation and offering up your thoughts and explanations. I find " Love & Loss " to be an inspired and most elegant image.

Just looking at it, the reflection looks very fake, like using PS smudge tool, and i am not sure the perspective is quite right. First glance i was impressed but am now less so. Good use of PS true, but i could be completelty wrong and it is a real capture, but something tells me its not

I really like this. I think it's the angle that's off for the reflection. I would like to see less space between the flower & the reflection. It's very pleasing & dreamy. Well done!!!

i'm reminded of the song lyrics that go something like this "everything is beautiful in its own way"...creativity shouldn't be limiting, it's a constant evolution of thought and experimentation...it has always been part of the next frontier...i'm happy this image has created such discussion and I appreciate your comments...thanks....David

David, great image. Very simple & pleasing to look at. Knowing very well the photo shop filter that was used, I think you could have decreased the perspective and altitude values a little more to make the proportions and depth of the image slightly more photo realistic. As was mentioned before, the reflections appear to begin at eternity and so does the flower, making it absolutely humongous. Interesting effect yes, but I would personally like to see a more accurate rendering of space, and depth. I think a delicate macro composite of this sort demands absolute perfection in that respect, though I can appreciate the image for what it is regardless.

The instant I saw this I knew the reflection was not real: as has been mentioned the detail runs too small into the background making it look like it comes from behind the flower, and the flower is on the left of the image whereas the reflection is central (and slightly left-right shifting as it comes forward, which is physically nonsense).

 

The effect is, when I look at this picture, all I really see is the flower itself, which I think looks a little shy and timid.

I think that the title contributes to the perception of the photo. I see not so much a flower reflected in water, but a flower dripping tears that are pooling beneath.

 

Yes, there is a bit of a perspective problem with the reflection receding so far into the distance, but the execution is generally solid.

 

I won't even get into the PS issue on this one any further than I have already done, except to say that I like the basic idea very well, and I think that the use of a single plug-in can work very well. Execution will continue to be the test of the valid use of a plug-in filter. It is very easy for a familiar plug-in to become an instantly recognizable manipulation, a photographic cliche, if you will.

 

 

 

--Lannie

I thought I would submit an alternative view with a lower altitude ("closer" to the water surface and nearer the flower)...

I prefer this version. The decisive point, or moment, where the two states of calla appears so creative. The calla is telling its own story.

Matt, i'd be interested in seeing your version, unfortunately it didn't load...

 

To All...my interest in this photo was certainly less technical and much more emotional...i understand the marriage of the two would solve an issue though...thanks....David

Matt, i finally got the pics to load...i'm sure it's technically better, but the emotional impact, for me, is changed...thanks, I'll study it later when I have more time...regards....David

Matt's version is more realistic as regards perspective but much less interesting as a composition. I had never thought of this image as anything other than a product of David's imagination. In order to suggest that a realistic perspective is an improvement one has to assume realism to have been David's intention. I never had that sense, either from anything David has contributed to this thread or the image itself.

Getting back to the image . I think the refection is what makes this work , I like the concept and the flower is well placed but the reflection is very nice indeed and most dominant. I see some Lyrics and even melody in this image ! Very Well done David, Robert

remember, the image is about love and loss...although an excercise on the technical merits of this image may be warranted, it totally misses the point...if I focused too much on technique, I would have lost the ability to create the emotions that this image stirred up in me...a tool is simply an instrument to be used in a way that helps in creating the message within the art...digital photography is not just a click here and a click there and presto, a work of art appears...how could it be...it still takes the maker to create...

As I have said, the use of the flood filter works for me in this case. I can imagine instances, however, in which the use of such a filter on a black background (or a dark blue background) might strike me as something like "Elvis on Velvet," leaping completely over cliche to the realm of kitsch. I confess that the use of the flood filter could quickly become boring, at the very least. Perhaps it does not for me in this case because I am not used to seeing it used. In any case, my reservations about the use of a single filter--if overused--do not apply here.

 

I am not quite as sure about the daisy or "Single Moms" photo, or whatever it is called, in the very same folder. Perhaps by the time I saw that photo in the same folder I had already tired of the same filter. Emotional responses are rather hard to predict.

 

In any case, I do not think that my evaluation of digital art comes down to what percentage of the final product is based on an unmanipulated image.

 

It finally comes down to liking it or not liking it quite apart from any reasons that I can give, and in this case I like it. I do not have to intellectualize about it before I make that judgment.

 

--Lannie

Landrum, the flood filter is used sparingly...my wife and I joke about it sometimes and I agree, one can be tempted to overuse the filter...i think today's digital manipulations are part of photography's current path, perhaps were looking at a branch of photography as photography is a branch of art...i enjoy reading photographic history and there have been various movements that have always countered the prevailing trend...

"although an excercise on the technical merits of this image may be warranted, it totally

misses the point...if I focused too much on technique, I would have lost the ability to

create the emotions that this image stirred up in me"

 

David--

 

You know I have often been an admirer of your work. I have appreciated many of your

photos over time. Honestly, this does have a certain

WOW factor and is certainly pleasing and thoughtful to look at. You having told me it's

about love and loss makes me see that that reading of it is in there. I would not

necessarily have gotten that feeling without your accompanying statements.

 

What strikes me here are the words of yours I've quoted. Whether it's the technique of

holding a camera steady or knowing how to move one for effect, setting the right

exposure

and focal length for your desired result, dodging and burning in the dark room, choosing

the right paper to print on, or using photoshop, technique can't and (I think) shouldn't be

separated from content, form, emotion, or any other aspect of a photo. Very often,

whether it is

Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon, it is precisely technique that communicates a lot of the

emotion. The subject matter and lighting, the thoughts of the photographer about the

subject matter or what he's trying to communicate, may be very secondary to the

technique utilized in both camera work and post processing (digital or analog) in the

actual communication of the emotions. The

photographer may have all the emotions in the world invested in an image, and technique

is often one of the many factors that will allow the viewer access to those emotions. Often,

in my experience

and the experience of others, those emotions do not get conveyed because of a misstep

usually in technique.

 

That's the case for me with this photo. I am in no way against photoshop or post

processing. I think both are often necessary, certainly valuable. Being specific here, my

emotion is cut down some the moment I recognize (pretty early on in the viewing process)

the water seems artificial. Photoshop creations don't have to seem that way. For me, there

is an emotional distance between the cala and its

background, and that impacts my response to the image. Believe me, I am constantly

working on my techniques, those questions of approach to taking and processing images

that affect my ability to communicate. I often miss because my technique is not yet always

able to render accurately my vision. I really don't think this is simply a question of the use

or non-use of photoshop.

 

Ultimately, I don't think you should be chastised for what you've done. You and your

thoughts are not a threat to photography. Photography will thrive no matter what you do

on your computer. I think you should be assessed on how you've achieved your desired

goals, how you've conveyed emotion through your creativity, not on how you've chosen to

deal with the medium.

while we are on the topic of what we like or don't like about it, I confess that I would like it to look a bit less manipulated (as shown), although there is no way that this kind of filter is going to be seen as other than some kind of global manipulation, as you put it.

 

--Lannie

In other words, for me a truly successful manipulation is one in which the manipulation is not obvious, and ideally not even visible without comparison with the original photo.

 

--Lannie

I played with this filter once when it first came out and I literally took a few minutes on one picture. It has been one of the most consistent seller of prints. If the buyer wants to pay for it then great I'll bank the money. But isn't this another reflection - that of mass populus 'aaah' rather than a discerning eye for art or photography?

 

David, your portfolio displays many well composed/exposed photos. I really think the more natural ones are wonderful examples of what can be achieved in-cam.

 

One of the most dificult tasks is to keep a select portfolio. Trim it down and keep only the best. I have recently deleted photos from my hard drive which were very popular over time, but they made me cringe whenever I looked at them!

 

My flood filter best-seller is still out there somewhere ... and I continue to cringe ;)