Daisies

Nice one Bob.

Simple, elegant, balanced. The polaroid transfer is pure icing on the cake! I wasn't at all surprised to see you were using a view cam for this. It's certainly a different point of view than one normally sees from an SLR

A couple comments.

1. Borders - Bob's photos aren't the first I've seen comments from those unfamilar with alternative processes that the borders look fake and add nothing to the photo. Do you think knowledge of the process is necessary to appreciate the borders. Personally I've worked in handbrushed emulsions for a while so my judgment is heavily clouded. ;)
2. Composition - it seems the composition may be a bit simple for some. Personally I think it's extremely well balanced and a testament to Bob's experience/eye. I'm curious if the preference for this photo is polarized at all by personal format usage. e.g. Do a greater percentage of Large Format users prefer this over small format users (35mm and equivilant digital).

That's it from me.. Time to go back to sniffing chemicals in the darkroom.

According to the elves this photo is ordinary with a silly and simplistic appearance and it is aligned in the most boring way.

This picture is DOA (dead on arrival), not only due to the comments of the elves, but because of the white frame that you posted. Try selecting the area just inside the Polaroid border and cut, now invert the remaining frame and solarize, you now have a semi-decent dark frame. Now paste the cut section back to the original and you should see a fine white line around the cut section. Proceed to trim down the overly-wide (now black) frame and you got my vote, leave it alone and you get 4/3 or 3/3 my friend.This is one of those photos that does nothing for me the way it isabsolutely nothing!It seems to be an unfinished idea. The flowers are arranged too perfectly for the abrupt cropping at the bottom (without a base for support) and the inclusion of the inane Polaroid edges. This could have been an excellent image as an abstract, but it has nothing abstract about it. You can also try adding an ARTISTIC-FRESCO filter to the border.

On another note, the flowers shots you have in your folder are nothing to be ashamed of.

P.S. I am much impressed with SHADOW, CALLA LILLY 2, HYDRANGEA, WILD FLOWERS, TULIPS, ANTIQUE BOTTLES, FRUIT BOWL and THE MARSH FAMILY. But of all these SHADOW steals the show. It may also be ordinary with a silly simplistic appearance or it may be aligned in the most boring way but it has feeling and impact. I know it has nothing in common with the flower folder but if I had to choose one from that folder Id go for the bottlesI just love old bottles! Although you guessed itI would darken the impertinent white frame here too.

While not a very big fan of Polaroid transfers (I agree with the above in that it is a gimmicky process) I can acknowledge superb artistic minimalism when I see it.

 

This image doesn't do much for me.

 

Yet most of the others in Bob's portfolio are wonderfull.

 

Even when I mentally crop the pretentious Polaroid transfer borders, most of the images in that portfolio are still amazing. The Cala Lilly, Rose, etc.... all superb pieces of work. This one just seems an after thought.

I have to weigh in on the side of "doesn't do it for me". I agree that its well done, but i

just don't see the creativity to it. Looks too much like a greeting card.

 

Story? No.

No elves, this picture tells me nothing except that I don't like it at all. You say it raises questions about relationships, etc, but I don't see it. It's just 3 daisies against a horrid background.

 

"At first glance, one may find this quite ordinary, but the title of the folder suggests..."

 

Let me get this straight, you are giving this image POW based on what the title of the folder suggests? I need to look "beyond" what I see?

A few thoughts and then I'll head back to my home under the bridge. First of all, the Polaroid borders seem more honest than pretentious. They are what they are so why grouse about the photographer showing them exactly as they are? This is a competent photo but not my favorite of the folder for the same reason stated earlier, I can buy something all too similar pre-framed at just about any local discount store. There is always the intangible gratification of taking a fine image even if it has been done many times before, so hats off to anyone who has the cash to make Polaroids. Thankfully we are all allowed (or should be) to be as opinionated as we are able to. Unless I have been under the bridge too long, silly is tongue-in-cheek humor meaning simple or common things. It is also plainly evident to any one that has every taken a high-school art class that still life compositions are about the relationship of the light and shadows they create, rather than the objects themselves. I suppose that stating the obvious is another God given right but somehow it reminds me of the fourth grade when we had to wait for people to catch up before we could proceed with the lesson.

Why must everything tell us a story? Why does everything have to be over-hyped and over-sold? The real message in my mind is to kick back, take a few deep breaths, relax and really look at something that is not complicated and will not burn out your eye sockets with super saturation or flashing spotlights. Its not about how much can be added but rather how much can be stripped away to reveal the basic elements of composition. I see circles, cylinders, squares, cubes, light and shadow. Those things are not silly they are the basic building blocks of every other thing that we can take a photograph of.

All that said (and probably censored), I feel a bit bad for Bob because the POW forum reminds me of the old song, What do you get when you fall in love? According to the song, you only get another chance to catch pneumonia (and a host of other tragedies). Sorry Bob, you will now get the chance to suffer for your art in the tradition of all good artists and photographers. I hope you dont take it too much to heart though. The Eggs and the Rose photos get my vote for serious reflective thought and the contemplation of life. Those two are classics in my mind.

I am the only one who sees HUMOR in this image...?

I'm curious enough to ask Marc. Where do you see humor here?

My thanks to everyone who has dropped by up to this point! I learned a long time ago that not everyone will like my images, and I take no offence at all if you dont. All your comments are appreciated, good or bad!

 

To Isidro - You're not the first person to take issue with my method of framing (hello Doug :-)) but I've always been one for keeping it simple. I just feel that if an image needs elaborate framing to succeed, then the image has failed. Was white the best choice for the web? Maybe not! In real life I always frame my original transfers with a white, or off-white matte. And very large mattes at that. I like them to float in a void. But on the web white may be a distraction that I never considered (until Doug mentioned it). But by that point I was too lazy to go back and redo them all even if I wanted to.

 

A topic that comes up quite often is the borders on my transfers. I touched on this briefly earlier in the thread. To expand on this a bit Ive done a copy and paste from another thread "One thing I like about the border is that every photographer doing image transfer is restricted to a specific playing field. There is no cropping, no enlarging, or no reducing for that matter. That border defines the playing field, and in that way connects all image transfers". Personally I like the borders, but anyone who has purchased one is of course free to frame them as they like. And I dont want anyone to assume that Im against cropping! Im not at all. Except with image transfers.

 

The shadows in this image have been mentioned so I thought I would set the record straight on that, and also give you a little background on this shot.

 

Those shadows are not shadows in the traditional sense. I'll start at the top. This was lit in stages. The main light was a 36" softbox and it provided the illumination to the blossoms, and partially to the stems. That was the only light used for this stage. The softbox was turned off and the stems were then enhanced with light painting. The background for this shot is about five feet behind the daisies and was lit with a spotlight (or possibly 2 spotlights, I can't remember). Before exposing the background I slid the front standard of the view camera forward a bit. This changed the relationship between the lens and daisies, so when I exposed the background the daisies (now in silhouette) blocked the light from hitting the film in the areas that now read as shadows.

 

The reason I lit this in stages was the main light did a fine job on the blossoms, but left the stems looking a bit boring. I love daisies stems and I wanted a little more interest there. Lastly, the background required a great deal more exposure than the blossoms. I did this shot several years ago so I can't recall my exposure times very well. But we were talking about approximately 10 seconds with the softbox, 15 seconds light painting for each stem, and around 30 seconds for the background. Give or take a few seconds. And then I'd go off and do all of that transferring stuff.

 

To all those who feel that you can see similar images to this at the local mall, you are right! While this particular image was never published, a large number of my transfers have been. They were sold as a pre-framed, or unframed-signed prints and distributed to galleries and gift shops. So if any of my images look like something youve seen before, it may be that you HAVE seen it before. But dont get the wrong impression, with the state of the economy I have NOT gotten rich off of this. Darn it. :-)

 

Thanks again everyone!

He speaks!

Regarding the light and shadows, I do think it adds plentiful atmosphere to what may have been considered a sterile photo in broad daylight. As to the question about there being no story... why should there be? Perhaps the intention was to be merely decorative, or on the other hand perhaps these flowers were being portrayed as if individual characters themselves. Perhaps there was no intention, and it is we as a viewer that should inject our own perceived meaning if that is what we want! Or, maybe it was simply a technical exercise. Whatever the 'story' is, I enjoy looking at it! I find the natural colours to be subtle and earthy, and for me there is something appealing about the simplicity. It's not a picture I could spend a long time considering as I don't find it thought provoking, but aesthetically I would be quite happy to see it on a wall as interior decoration. Congratulations Bob.

If one take away the frame.What can one see? With all the good will I see just three simple daises shooted without any abilty in trying to give them any semblance of artistic looking .What story should one see on this image?To me none.The fact you sold your images,Bob, do not make them better than they truly are. On your portfolios I appreciated some others much better.Anyway, congratulations on your POW.........Anna

With the addition of this "no story" ideology, I have expanded my list of attributes

that I must never aquire if I want to keep my photography fresh. The idea that a

photograph must have a story to succeed is laughable. Its right up there with the

supposed rule of thirds, and the cropping-is-bad argument. On a more personal

level, I have been told that at least something MUST be in focus(why), and that I

shouldn't photograph dead animals(why).

 

I don't fully understand this ideology and I'm not sure that I ever want to. Is

something wrong with

photographing something because you think it would look asthetically pleasing when

rendered in 2D within a particular frame? I hope not, because thats been the

motivation for me in 99% of my stuff.

 

Bob, I love the simplicity of this-very clean. I don't really like how the burn on the

background hugs the shape of the flowers(or maybe its just too dark?). I also agree

with a previous person's comment about the black border-its overwhelming. I

understand that you are going for that wall mounted look which I use as well, but it

doesn't work on a monitor. cheers

Yeah, I think Anna Pagnacco makes a very interesting point. If the work is good, it should stand out without the frame. For example, in Anna's folder called "In my mind", all the images are framed, except this one:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=888407

Yet, this image looks no weaker than all the other images in Anna's folder.

Indeed, now that your shot is shown naked, I can see that the white border was a lot better than Photo.net's white page background...

A very beautiful simple classic image,the polaroid effect adds age and a kinda timeless look ,very traditional ,it really is what it is three daisies,and not some overmanipulated fantasy!!!!!!

... two of them looking down, one apparently triumphant, each of them inits own little shadow. But the question is: does this picture tell you a story?

I note that one of the lower daisies is now looking up, maybe due to POW status?

I feel like a mother with a million children when I come on photo.net to view and critique images...I love them all nearly equally, however many may need or gain my attention!

 

This image is no exception.

 

What I like about it: The coloring, the simplicity of composition. The shadowing. Yes, even the smeared border. I love disarray. It is conventional, yet it is not.

 

The story I have in my mind is visiting a quaint cottage and walking over to a small table by a window. On this table, covered in a light blue gingham cloth, is this array of three flowers. This would be the vintage portrait of those three flowers. :)

 

While I might grow ill of viewing some forms of man-made kitsch that appear in mainstream photographs, I do, on the other hand, never tire of Mother Nature, whether in a modest nude or a simple flower. I think there's a reason why. :)

I viewed Mr.Hixons folder and must admit i really like the simplicity of his images and their rich texture.

It seems that Laura gave us the story weve all been waiting foris this the real story elves (or anyone else for that matter) or is she mistaken in her interpretation? To be a little more cynical (not to the photographer or his work, or anyone else for that matter), if I have to formulate my own story about every photograph I come across, I should not see a bad photograph ever. Yet if this were true, how can I tell a fine work from a shoddy one? By the way, are we to infer meaning to a masterpiece or does it speak for itself? The same logic that applies to a photograph applies to everything in life, be it food, architecture, a painting, a clothing line etc. everything in life is readily accepted or rejected at first impression and at face value, but in photography we are supposed to look beyond the obvious and dissect the essence there of.

 

Ok Marc, you got me, I cant see the humor in this photograph!

Hey, that's pink floyd.

"I am the only one who sees HUMOR in this image...?"

 

The suspense is killing me Marc! :-)

 

I will admit I was laughing my a$$ off when I was shooting this. I accidentally licked a wet transfer and caught a little buzz. It was pretty good!

 

Don't you just hate it when you accidentally lick something?

I think this is a beautiful image (as are your other images of flowers), very nicely composed with nice tones. The original would be great to see on the watercolor paper. I do not see any story here except for three flowers that look very lonely. Photos can be appreciates for other things than a story, such as beauty, texture, tones etc.

 

I like the border but I feel the bottom border makes the image feel as though it ends abruptly. Maybe I want to see more of the stems or something solid there. Not sure which would work better.

 

I like the other images on you portfolio better though. Great portfolio and congratulations on POW.

I haven't forgotten about you Anna!

 

Thanks for stopping by! It's very true that the borders should not carry the image. And I've tried not to let that happen, but it's a matter of taste in the end.

 

The crop you applied to this image is interesting, but I think you may have cut off too much valuable real-estate!

 

Here's my version.

What was that recipe again Mr. Hixon?

I like the photograph. Its technically very sound and aesthetically very simple, yet composed. Well, about story telling, any photograph can tell a story if the viewer has a third eye to see the hidden beauty or poetry in mundane life.

For me, they are like three babies, in process of growing.