Spiral

Truly excellent composition! Congratulations!

This image comes of wanting to move beyond a standard presentationof insect, and other 'macro'-style images. I had been looking atvarious ways of presenting such images that were more expressive andemotionally connecting than the standard. I'd first been made aware ofthis desire when seeing some of the images of Igor Siwanowicz andothers that created a real anthropomorphism of the subject and gaveexpression and meaning to the captured poses or behaviours. But, Inever felt the styles used suited me. But, these issues remained inthe back of my mind until recently when I say the cover photo of B&Wmagazine while in NYC. I read the bio and studied the pictures ofDavid Johndrow all week while away and looked at his website as soonas I got back to Toronto. I have since also found the work of ThierryVercampt (links to these fine photographer's portfolios are availableon my bio page -- Thierry also has a very new PN account). I am nowfully convinced of the potential for toned, B&W, ?macro' images whichplace a great emphasis on emotive qualities rather than precision anddetail.

I am slightly hesitant to submit this particular image though as ithas not been shot since I found this inspiration. It was takenbefore then. But, it has been ?developed' with this newdirection in mind. I'd appreciate any and all comments. I am thrilledthat it has already been noticed!

Thank you Charalampos-Philip!

Wow, Ian! I'm going to have to study this one a bit. It's complex, it's rich, it's multi-layered. Right now, I'll say I'm a bit stunned. Will have to think on it for more. But I can say this: If I saw this in a gallery I'd be sorely tempted to bring it home.

Ian--

 

I think you are on a great path. Your links and this whole approach provide some of the more (most) interesting macro type photographs I've been exposed to. I wouldn't describe the styles I'm seeing as you have. I don't get a sense of anthropomorphism, but that is a rather subjective description and I can see why the word would come to mind for some. While I think the styles you've encountered and yourself presented are more emotive and much less clinical than many others I've seen, I would question your suggestion that their precision and detail is not emphasized.

 

First, to your own image. I am immediately aware of the subject's integration into the background. That does give it a certain living quality. This is fascinating composition, the way the spiral shell is geometrically related to the plank of wood, being tangent as opposed to floating in the white space, which is where I think most others would have placed it, does make for, I think, more tension than had the shell been placed in a more typical relationship to the board. So I think this allows for a certain internal "energy" to come through in your image.

 

Adding to that energy is the angle and perspective, which is not restful but dynamic. It is as if the shell could easily fall off into space. The shadowed swirls in the background add to that dynamism. Of course the spiral pattern itself has movement to it.

 

What I would say about both Johndrow's and Vercampt's work is not that it lacks or de-emphasizes detail but that the detail is brought out in a different manner than normally seen. They both have given much thought to the background details, the overall presentation, the composition, and in particular the layering of their photos. For me, those things actually enhance the sense of detail I get, while at the same time giving me much more to take in and enjoy overall.

 

I know you said you didn't shoot with these other photographers in mind, nevertheless I will consider the "shooting" in my comparisons since I think how these are shot will obviously play a great role in your future considerations.

 

If I compare your image with the closest relative from Vercampt, Number 002 in the Details folder, I note the similarity of composition. I am, though, immediately struck by the detail both in the wrapped and "spiral" rope and in the wood grain. I think that sense of detail and, frankly, power is accomplished firstly, because of the way it relates to the background, in terms of focus and depth. His background having such a sense of three-dimensionality allows his subject(s) a distinctiveness in presence. His background seems at a distance from his foreground subjects. Also the contrasts of lights and darks, especially in the twined rope, is quite pronounced, operates still with a softness deserving of the entire image, yet it pulls the eye toward it in a very directed way. His strong lighting helps that (again, strong but soft) and so does his darker background. I think your background could cover more of the mid-tone range and be very effective.

 

I'd also like to take a closer look at Vercampt's Number 008 in the Inimite folder. Here, we see the background relating more to the foreground, also setting up a great dynamic energy. The flower seems to be reflecting onto the background. The lighter shades on the background feel as if they are being made by the flower. Also, the toning is quite important here, as it is in many of the other shots in the portfolios and which you alluded to. Note how the whites in some places seem to be excluded from the toning. That really gives an added sense of depth, of detail, and of photographic force. The background is toned with a colder blue and the slight shadowed areas on the flower are toned with a warmer almost-sepia color. That, again, provides a great distinction between subject and background.

 

I think there is incredible detail both given and suggested in this flower. The DOF has provided for some intense areas of detail backed by somewhat blurred areas which still offer quite a bit of detail, texture, line, and shadow. In many of the works of the two photographers you have astutely pointed to, there is much subtle shading on the subject itself that provides a sense of dimension within the subject itself. Then there is a further dimension usually created not just from foreground to background but within the background itself. This depth to the background doesn't detract us from the subject, rather it provides a dynamic space in which the subject thrives. That is how I get the multi-layered feeling. I go from dynamic subject (created with shading and depth within the subject) to dynamic background (created with layers within the background).

 

For this sense, I am looking particularly at Vercampt's Vegetal folder, Numbers 011, 012, and 004. Even when there is no actual reflection as there is with the rose in 004, I almost get a sense that I am seeing the subject reflected in the background in the others, or at least elements of foreground and background are becoming intertwined an a push-pull of the the layers of the photo. Notice how the spiral of 012 feels both like the shadow of a stem on the background and like it could actually be part of the stem in the foreground. It is part of both the subject and the backdrop. Notice in 011 that the shadows on the main flower in a very strong pattern continue in the background, again unifying subject and background and creating many layers of depth.

 

Ian, I think you are off to a great start here. I think you have chosen some wonderful photographers to study and I think even more will gel for you as you have their work in mind when you are actually composing and shooting these shots. These and yours are anything but clinical. Your photo shows a sensitivity and approach that is, in fact, refreshing for a macro shot. Seems like hard work ahead, because this is very refined and, in my mind, extremely detailed work. It may be that most of the emotion is, in fact, in the photographic details. I actually see this kind of work as quite related to a lot of the landscape work you do, your use of reflection, your sense of composition and subject against background, and your awareness of texture. I think following these photographers' examples will be a wonderful way for you to steak out some macro territory of your own that I will look forward to seeing. To me, there is a sensuality to be explored in this genre. Most differently, though, I think the complexity of how the subjects work with backgrounds is the most unique and has the most potential for creativity. Those creative possibilities are the most exciting for me.

You have a stunning capture here. Of course, I like the square crop. Your tones are excellent. I like the swirl of the shell against the hard lines of the stalk and the whispy flow of the BG.Three elements combined to make fine art. My only suggestion is to dodge the stalk a bit, but that may just be personal taste. This is a great example of how a simple subject can stand out.

Very interesting that you're thinking about presenting macro work non-clinically, or as we've discussed in other threads, less in a documentary style. While no where near doing this level of work myself, I have thought recently that there must be ways to present other aspects of the beauty of little things, and you are doing exactly that. Thanks to you and Fred I've started looking at Vercampt's quite amazing work. I appreciate being made aware of him, and I'll learn much from studying him.

 

Fred has done a wonderful job of describing the elements of your image and how they go together and work together for him, and while I don't yet have the excellent descriptive and interpretative abilities Fred shows in his critique, I think I can easily understand (your descriptions are that good, Fred!) and my eye agrees with Fred's words. In my more simplistic way, I want to say how well it works for me to see the harmony between the lines of the wood grain and the angle of the wood, with the direction of the dark lines on the shell. Also, the progression of thick to thin lines on the shell make it look very like it is growing out of the wood. I very much like the softness and tones of the background, and certainly the position of the shell and background swirl is no accident, and a feature that very much connects foreground and background by creating a sense of the light, shadowy background swirl eminating from the top of the shell. The similarities between your image and Vercampt's is unmistakable, and I particularly notice the richness you've achieved with what at first glance might be seen as a minimalist background. To my eye, very well done, indeed! BTW, the background is another shell, yes? Perhaps a Shark Eye (Polinices duplicatus) looking just to the side of the top of the shell? Whatever the specifics, the effect and the obvious continuity between foreground and background, even to the extent of being shell and shell, is delightful.

 

I'm afraid I can really offer nothing but observation and admiration for this image; I have no ideas of any ways to improve on what you've already done. This is a wonderful submission, first one or otherwise. You've certainly wet my appetite for your future presentations! Regards, David

Rachel, thank you very much. I actually quite overjoyed that you're stunned and feel you want to study this a bit. I am also pleased you feel this is something you'd be tempted buy a print of -- I have been consciously thinking of creating 'hangable' images of late.

 

 

Fred,

Fred, thank you for the length commentary. There are a couple of points where I am not sure whether we are on the same page or not.

1. I meant to imply that I had found some of the best of the full colour, large DOF, carefully lit, macro work to have achieved an anthropomorphism. Work such as that by Igor Siwanowicz. For example I find it hard not to give human emotions to THIS or THIS. I had previously been inspired to try and achieve the technical perfection of such images and also achieve a similar connection through such emotionally evocative poses or expressions. It truly is great work. I had simply decided over time that the style as a whole and some of the goals -- such as ever greater clarity and DOF -- were not what I wanted to strive for.

I do not get a similar anthropomorphism with Thierry or David Johndrow's images. I do get an strong emotive quality -- but, it does not rely upon giving humanizing qualities to the subject. That is part of what really draws me to their work. The emotive qualities of their work really lie on the side of the viewer and the photographer and the experience of 'seeing' these -- either through the lens or in the print.

2. I also agree that detail remains important. But, part of the technique which I have noticed is concentrated on using a shallow DOF to really focus attention and give an ethereal quality to the background (sometimes extreamely shallow -- see David's image HERE). Such an acceptance of a shallow plain of acceptable focus runs counter to the aims of most macro work. Even absolutely stunning work such a Igor's -- work that can easily be hung as art and sold as prints -- still has a strong emphasis on a level of detail approaching that of entomology-textbook line-drawings.

3. I agree fully with you that the location and emphasis of particular elements of detail in Thierry and David's work is what is so compelling. The concept of creating distinct layers within the image is also very important and an element not quite achieved here IMO -- close but not quite.

4. Your comments about Number 002 made me have a closer look. I had not paid much attention to that particular image previously. I agree strongly with your comments about the lighting really helping to give shape and depth in that image. Your emphasis on strong -- yet soft -- light is also important. This shot was taken with fill flash to bring some light to the shell (it was shaded strongly against the brighter background). Unfortunately the fill was somewhat harsh (even with a diffuser attached) and I had to use the shot with the least amount of fill and still had to 'patch' a few highlights on the shell. For anyone interested this shot was taken the same day as my Acadia Hairstreak shots (e.g. This One).

5. "I go from dynamic subject (created with shading and depth within the subject) to dynamic background (created with layers within the background)." What a great way to phrase what I've been seeing. So succinct too! I've been struggling to really define this well enough to 'carry it with me' when I'm away 'in the field'. This will really work and I'm already thinking that moving the fill flash off-camera here might have helped shape the snail shell better.

6. "I actually see this kind of work as quite related to a lot of the landscape work you do, your use of reflection, your sense of composition and subject against background, and your awareness of texture."

Part of why I was so excited to find this inspiration recently was that I had grown somewhat 'tired' of taking the same florals and insects that I had been -- particularly if they were species I'd already shot. I had really begun to focus on my landscapes but felt a little sad to have let go of this area of interest. I really feel that finding this new direction has rekindled an desire to look at these types of subjects all over again.

Joseph, thank you greatly for your continued interest and comments on my images. I love square crops too.

 

Also, you're quite astute. This is indeed a stalk of Yellow-Flag Iris that was about waist high (not wood -- sorry Fred).

 

Given your comment about wanting a bit more detail in the stalk and Fred's comment about wanting to move the background into the mid-tones more (which I assumed meant overall a touch brighter in the BG), I have reworked the curves and a touch of the vignette. I do like the revision better and will will be attaching the original here and placing the newer version above. It isn't much of a change and I did want the stem to fade to solid black in the corner.

I think the revision works great. Bringing out the detail in the stalk looks perfect IMHO.

David, it is great of you to note the connection between this image and my desire for a new direction and the discussion on your image of various styles of photography. I certainly had that in mind when I decided to put this image up for comments. I also had noted the coincidence that both Fred and I had been recently influenced by other people's work more than usual.

 

As I mentioned above, this was taken on a huge clump of Flag-Irises (I've never seen a clump so huge -- 5'H x 6' in diameter). The OOF background spirals/swirls are simply some other stalks of iris hanging pendulously. I did notice the similarity with the swirls on the snail though -- both while framing the shot and while preparing it for presentation and titling it. I am very glad that that illusion comes through into the image clearly for you.

 

As for what type of snail? I have absolutely no idea. I have never tried to ID a snail and have no guides. It is simply what is a common garden snail in these parts.

 

 

 

I came several times to look at this image and , I find the corrected image much better. The softly lighted BG adds to accentuate the beauty and colors of the snail and the stem it is colated on. Usualy in the fields that I know most snails are "living" in groups, so you have very beautifully isolated a single one, and gave it all the " stage", which makes his form on the stem and the stem's form as well, to glow on the shallow soft BG.

 

There is a feeling of a touching roundness to the composition, the round shadow of the lower stems on the BG that are meeting the big dark one and touches the roundness of the snail, the upper one that will meet the big one out of the image, and the dark stem itself, has a nice tilt toward the inside (of composition). Add to this the shadows on the BG corners all around the image, are again accentuating the center which has the stronger smi round light.

 

The light is soft on the whole, but well accentuated on the most part of the snail ,and the upper stem, presenting very well their texture.

 

To sum it all up, it is very well composed, very touching nature , with carful attention to all the details, and beauty.

Reading your answers I will not say which direction you ought to take or not, I know from my experience that inspiration and influence of other artists can help, but the real struggle and search to find your own voice, is done inside each individual.

I am of the " Rachel " school of thought. I most certainly would hang this image on my wall and I am going to need a bit of time to soak in the referred to photographers work before being in a position to make comparisons. I am going to borrow another page from Rachel's book and leave reading all of the above critique until I have finished with this one. I do not want to skew my own view and I'll probably discover it has all been said already and leave without comment.

 

I ve been aware of Igor Siwanowicz's work for some time. He is a consummate master in the studio. His anthropomorphic take on macro studies is very evident as is his terrific sense of humour. His work does however leave me a bit cold. It is nice to look at but in a bit of an eye candy way. Beyond the technical brilliance I do not get a sense of depth, I do not feel a need to linger on his images and would not hang one on my wall. I understand why you would reference his work but his style is not something I could see manifesting in your work.

 

Of the other two influences I have just earlier today briefly taken a look at the work of David Johndrow and I am very impressed and from what small amount I know about you and your work I can see that you would be inspired by his images. The other photographer Thierry Vercampt's work I took note of when he arrived at photo.net but I have not given it a hard look. So bottom line Ian , I'll get back to you on that part.

 

Now this image itself I like it enormously. This cute little guy clinging to an iris stalk is such a familiar image from my own day to day life yet you have presented it in a very unique fashion.

First let me say that in part I believe because of your treatment of this image after the fact, I have a strong sense of attachment to the moment this image was conceived . I can feel the heavy morning air of a midsummer morn, There is a peacefulness to this photo a calming effect. I think partly this is the toning and also the narrow DoF .The softness of the curves I see in the OOF iris swords in the background and the softness of the bottom of the sword the mollusc is stuck to, adds to this feeling of warmth and softness. In an otherwise gentle and fuzzy world the hard lines of the spiral shell makes this guy leap out from his environment in a powerful contrast to the rest of the frame. I also like the square format and have witnessed you making good use of it many times in the past. I do think you are onto something big here Ian and I look forward to watching your own very strong sense of style emerge from what you take in with these influences.

 

 

I forgot in the above post, this is most likely Cepaea nemoralis the banded garden snail. I'm not much of a mollusc guy myself and you've toned the image and he is hiding in his shell but I can't think of what else he would be.

I noticed a fine white line almost like a hair or a piece of lint on a negative. It is sticking upward from between the 3rd and 4th band down from the crown of the shell. Originally I though it was dog fur on my monitor. I'm not looking to be a fuss ass I just did not know if you'd noticed it or if it's part of the original image. Again Ian nice work.

Ok, you like what the other person Igor has done and that has inspired you.

I feel a tiny bit of that work here.

Well, it is a bug.

Ok, dead on I see totally YOU! I looked at it and went OH WOW he better have put this in fine art because those bug people and those macro people are going to go oh, I'm not to fond of that "fine art" feel of that.

I looked at it and since I studied your pictures the other day and found so many facinated and your wonderful DOF just well WONDERFUL because of its side dof or center ROUND dof that I couldn't help but to smile at this.

I looked at it because I saw THIS and it matched totally with this group of pictures.

Florals in B&W.

LOVED that it did that! It fits right in.

It also has the same feel as the picture here and here .

Ok, I'll be back.

Just something to think about ;)

My observations. Haven't even told you how much LOVE the picture.

Pnina,

 

I hadn't thought of the darkening of the corners as yet another repetition of the round theme here. I like that -- thanks.

 

I also fully agree that the real struggle is to take this inspiration and internalize it and come forward with my own take on it -- even if it remains in a similar vein.

 

Gordon,

 

Thanks for the tentative ID. Looking at some images online, I'd say Cepaea nemoralis looks like a very likely candidate.

 

As for that 'hair', I don't know what it is. It is on the original file and on both remaining compositions of this (and if I recall correctly, on the other 3 I have already deleted). It is in the same place each time -- even thought the camera moved. So, it is either part of the snail or part of the plant. I don't know. I'd have to see how noticeable it was in a test print before I decide whether to take it out. I kind of like it at the moment.

 

I could not have described my own response to Igor's work any better (and didn't). You're right that I don't think I would ever have gone quite in that direction entirely. But, I was certainly feeling that his work and other quite similar work was the inevitable pinnacle of achievement in macro work. I had been convinced by the accepted conventions that such 'technical perfection' was the goal. Having studied Thierry's and David's work, I know that it isn't really any less technically demanding; but, it certainly does not show off that technical precision as the end result of the image.

 

I'm also sure I could find examples of macro work that doesn't adopt quite his style nor this style here and which I would also like. I just have not seen a full body of such work so far. Hence, finding this 'Fine Art' style was certainly a breathtaking revelation and showed that there was a completely different path to try.

 

I'm glad you like this image too and that something of the experience of taking it has come through. It was indeed early-mid morning. In the open areas it was already quite bright and sunny and had driven the birds away. I was disappointed. But, in the darker wooded areas of the ravine where I found this little guy, it was still cool and damp. Where I was standing I could hear Wilmot creek burbling past.

 

That ability to connect not with the subject but with the experience of being there was one of the elements of David's work I liked most. That I have caught a bit of that is wonderful.

 

Micki,

 

Thanks so much. The fact that you can see this as logically connected to work I've done before is just fantastic. I had hoped that was true. :)

 

 

I'm not finding anything substantive to say. All that occurs to me is to describe how I feel when I look at it. That took me a bit of time to identify, too, as the image "speaks" to me at a very deep level. It's almost...well, it's subtle, gentle and heartening. I actually identify with the rounded shape. I'm going to refuse to name the shape because I don't want to superimpose any sort of impression or feelings due to prior learning/experience.

 

Tbe round "person" is (at least at this viewing) representing me. I identify with it. Why? Beats me. It's clinging to the ... "stanchion" with great tenacity. She's defying gravity and just staying put. It's as if she made up her mind she would stay there and is doing just that by sheer will. She's stubborn, she's determined, and she's content with her situation. It's not the best, perhaps not what she'd hoped for, but it's where she is and she's going to deal.

 

She's taken circumstances that others might find defeating and not only made it bearable, she's finding some quiet pleasure mixed in with the tremendous effort.

 

Ok...that's what this says to me. Technically, I have nothing to suggest. In fact, even if I did, I don't think I would. This is your vision, your work, and something like this should stand as is.

Thanks. I had misunderstood on the anthropomorphic attributions. I appreciate your clarification. Your two examples are interesting but I still don't anthropomorphize them. I actually see stuff like that more as caricature or "larger-than-life" but I don't tend to give them human qualities. If anything, I tend to see them as I would movies of gargantuan insects, pretty much at an extreme scale that I'm not used to, thereby heightening some of my sensual experience of them and altering my normal reactions to them, but not leading me to any more human considerations than I ever previously had.

 

I will defer to you on how macros have often been shot, because it is definitely not my area of expertise. I have often seen macros shot specifically with a narrow depth of field for just the reasons you are stating. What seems striking to me in the photographers you have used as guides, as we discussed, is more the layering of planes and depth and the play between foreground and background. More often, as I think of macros I've seen, the subject stands out more from the background (even if portions of the subject are out of focus due to DOF work) and stands as more isolated. I think harmonizing the subject and background more, playing with elements that can bridge foreground and background to an extent, and echoing back and forth between foreground and background are all very innovative and interesting directions worth exploring.

 

In your response to me, you talk about the importance and desire of "creating distinct layers within the image." I want to be clear that I think what's going on is an interweaving of those layers which does not keep them distinct. In our anlysis of these photos, we may distinguish these layers and how they operate, but in the photos themselves I think they are playing off and with each other and partaking of each other in very creative and nuanced ways, so that I am not left feeling them as distinct.

The emotion of this shot!

 

The color of the shot!

 

The feel of the shot!

 

The desire of the shot!

 

The identity of the shot!

 

These things all are what overcome us when seeing a picture like this.

 

It is no longer a MACRO shot. It is not a "snail" on a board with dof in the background. This is where I now puta teenage word DUH!

 

When I first looked at it I wanted to say so much but never had the time. EMOTIONS were way overpowering me and then I wanted to see what others said.

 

I only wanted YOU to know that this is YOUR work and nobody's else. I saw totally YOU in it and saw your work. i saw what you had done and how you had evolved.

 

I also loved the word you used. Oh that wonderful word...

 

anthropomorphism

 

Animal... morph or whatever (ok, not going to go look it up). BUT I remember doing a paper on Beatrix Potter and how that was an example. Silly but I have to agree that this has a way or a feeling of true LIFE like ability. Almost like it has FEELINGS or SPEAKS not ulike the bunny did.

 

See we look at it and can hear the whispers of the picture. I mean can't you?

 

I see the swirls in the background slow movement saying "you can make it". I hear the breath of the snail saying "yes I can". I feel the wood underneath the snail rubbing against the snail.

 

See all these things are done just perfectly.

 

All with the texture and the perfect tone with everything in place.

 

Yes, you could clone that bit of hair (or whatever out above the snail). Will you? Up to you. Doesn't bother me.

 

I think the darkness on the far right bottom corner is perfect. I think the swirls going opposite is wonderful.

 

I think the snail is going to tell you (a whisper of course) if I misspelled anything in what I wrote you will forgive me as I FINALLY was able to find time to write this ;)

 

You did a wonderful job! NOW to see the blue one. OH MY ~ even better! :)

Micki...that's what I was trying to say. Well done!

Please yell at me for what I'm about to say, Micki, if you feel like it. If others disagree with me, I'd like to hear opinions. I'm interested in and hopeful about this group to the extent we are all willing to admit our imperfections and the imperfections of each other and to the extent we each know we have a lot to learn and a desire to grow as photographers. I don't see how this will be a learning experience if we go about looking at each others' photos like this:

 

"EMOTIONS were way overpowering me and then I wanted to see what others said."

 

"See all these things are done just perfectly."

 

This is Ian's (according to him) first attempt at a new and difficult approach to and style of photography. As with any worthwhile attempt at a new style, it will take many, many attempts (months if not years), much hard work, much careful looking and studying, and much improvement for him to get where he wants to go. If we could all be Ansel Adams overnight, it wouldn't be worth much becoming Ansel Adams. If Ian were immediately as good as the experienced "masters" he pointed us to, that would take an awful lot away from those masters, who worked damn hard and for a long time and made plenty of mistakes and missteps on their way to getting where they are.

 

This is a stellar first attempt by Ian, who is obviously onto something and has chosen an exciting path. But it's a path, it's not just one single step. I think we do each other a disservice by not acknowledging and actually searching hard to find areas that need improving, technical, visual, emotional, compositional, lightingwise, and on and on. I learned a whole lot by doing my critique of Ian's work, about a style which I know not much of. I put in a fair amount of hard work comparing his work to the work of those he considers worth emulating, also looking through my own books to see what I could find in a similar vein. The same is obviously true of Ian's critique of my photo. Heaping praise is marvelous and it's totally appropriate to do so when giving a critique, but it seems to me that should be accompanied by something constructive, something helpful to the photographer or else, in my opinion, it really shows a lack of respect for our goals. By giving my critique, because of my unfamiliarity with the genre, I know I risked putting my foot in my mouth because I didn't know much about the style. Had I done so, others might have chimed in and we all might have learned something. I am as prepared to learn from my critiquing as I am from the photographs I submit.

 

I consider our critique group to be somewhat like a class. I've never been in a worthwhile class, art or no art, where our emotions overpowered our ability to discriminate and criticize. I took the goal to be actually getting better. I have heard many great things so far in our group and there has been much of value. But I have also heard a few things, not just from you Micki, that could lead me to believe the goal is to present or to view a finished product that has no room for improvement. I can go out into the main PN world for that. I am definitely hoping for something different here.

 

I actually just went back to Gordon's first submission in order to reread some comments and responses I felt might yield more fruitful discussion and was disappointed to see that it has been replaced with a clean version, all the critiques gone. (I assume Gordon wanted to reorder the photos in that folder and know that you have to delete and repost if you want to have control over the order.) I figure, we've seen all that we're going to see for this critique period and thought it would be worthwhile to continue in more depth on some interesting things that were said on his photo. Since I have nothing concrete to refer to, though, I'd rather not try to do so from memory and I'm sure some of these issues will come up again.

I am in fact trying to re-order my portfolio and add quite a number of new uploads, I meant no disrespect to the group. About 5 seconds after I hit the button I realize that I should have, at the very least, waited until this Fri. when the new submissions go up. I had too hastily assumed that after 48 hrs. of no further comment and with 70 postings already, we were done with that one. Sorry about that Fred and everyone else.

 

Ian, I have been very busy this week but have been doing some background work looking through the work of the photographers you gave as influence. I will get back to you if not by this Friday as soon as I can. I do have some things to say yet in regards to your direction here.

Hello, read my FIRST comment.

 

I tried telling IAN that he was already doing this style and not realizing it (in my opinon) and it is my right to actually think that he could get it right the first time somewhat.

 

Truthfully, I think that he has a great mind for these types of things and that us doing this critique group has brought on his creative side and maybe brought on this new folder of his where he pulled out another one of his pictures.

 

For me "I" meant everything I said BUT I also said what I meant in my first comment and was probably a bit harsh in that critique which was about this picture being HIS photo totally and not anyone elses style.

 

I will not go around telling someone to change something if something does not need to be changed or mess with it. YES he could fix the one area but have "YOU" ever tried to clone or fix something MACRO? It is HARD and the distortion is ery difficult and not worth it sometimes.

 

 

So your statement:

"This is Ian's (according to him) first attempt at a new and difficult approach to and style of photography" Is true BUT that doesn't mean I have to tell him to change a whole bunch of things or critique it tremendosly. I can absolutely LOVE it if I want to.

 

Don't critique my critique (that is me yelling at you). Sorry, still friends. Just don't like it. Makes me want to crawl in a... well snail shell (lol).

 

:)

 

~ micki

Great one again. Much more interesting than normal kind of nature pic. I like the simplicity and the composition a lot. Very nice art piece. rgs Tero.