Spider Chrysanthemum

Leslie, sorry for that, but I really don't like this picture. Wait... I

think you have a wonderfull portfolio. You have a personnal and

different style. I never seen pictures of still life as yours. Very

creative and clever you are between the bests around this site.

But, I need to say, this one is not your best. I think your best

picture is Papaver Rhoeas's picture. Anyway, congratulations for

this POW

I am a big fan of intense color. I think as well as a gantastic macro deisplayin great

detail we also have an excellent display color that seems to gradient itself across the

image. Lighting is supurb.

I like the composition and colors, but that's been said by others.

To refer to this as merely a flower macro seems to limit it

unnecessarily. If you could find another subject and composition

with similar shapes and colors, would you like it any more or

less? Aesthetics in photography is only tangentially about the

subject.

 

This image has the deepest of all possible meanings, if you

want to look at it that way - there is beauty all around us.

Sometimes it's a repeat performance that can still serve the

purpose one more time. Sometimes the composition can be

easily overlooked and requires the eye of a photographer who

can somehow gravitate towards the less obvious. If it brightens

your day, what greater message is there?

Leslie, I read through your description above, and from someone who is admittedly a rank amateur, it's always nice to see some humanity and willingness to share in those chosen to have their photos put up here for a week. This is indeed a very nice macro, as flower shots go, and definitely satisfies the "just pretty" goal you were looking for.

 

I'm a bit curious about the color of the flower itself though. I trust that you didn't alter colors in PS or anything like that, but both my mother and brother are in the floral business and I must say I have never seen a spider mum with colors like that. In fact, I have rarely, if ever, seen a flower anywhere with that shade of blue.

 

So it makes me wonder - was this one dyed? I know you can dye many flowers systemically by freshly cutting their stems and putting them in water with food coloring. And that you can selectively dye parts of the blooms by putting only part of the stem in the food coloring. Is that what happened with this one, or is it, so far as you know, this color out of the ground?

 

-A

Aaron: I'm sure the flowers were dyed, though I don't know how it was done. They're strictly supermarket flowers. I like dyed flowers because for (ironic) reasons of my own I prefer things that look too good to be true. I didn't change the hues, but I did limit the exposure to darken them and bring out the color in petals that might look off-white to most eyes. Also, remember that this is a macro the image on the sensor was life-size, so you're seeing small, translucent petals at the heart of the flower; they're filtering, diffusing and maybe even diffracting the direct light.

"According to the photographer - there is no Photo Shop

manipulation. " -- Elves

 

So what's the difference between manipulating the image in PS

and manipulating the subject itself (like in this particular case,

dyeing the flowers to achive unnaturally graduated and extremely

vivid colors)?

 

Is that really an added value in an image? having no PS

manipulation?

Since saturation and brightness (much less contrast) always affect color and color perception, I thought that I would try this desaturated by about 50. I like it there, and at other values as well. The composition stands, with or without the vivid colors. I personally like the more muted colors of other photos in your folder better, but this one is good, too. Here is the desaturated version:

Leslie, the first digital work I've seen from you and it's as POW here on photo.net! Congratulations. I knew you'd put that D30 to good use. It's a beautiful shot, and you've really shown off your flair for dramatic lighting and color. Thank God it's not a dead rabbit ;-).

Thanks Leslie.

 

There are two things I think may not have come across correctly in my original comment and I want to nip any confusion in the bud before they blow up. First, the "rank amateur" comment was clumsily worded at best - I definitely regard you as accomplished, and meant only that I was a total amateur and that it was nice to be able to honestly learn from people more accomplished than me instead of just sitting in awe while they remain silent.

 

Also, the dye-job question wasn't intended to detract in any way from the quality of the photo, but more to better understand how the nature of the subject was interacting with the lighting and the camera. Personally, it doesn't bother me one way or another, but I was curious having not seen anything like it in my family's shops.

 

Anyway, thanks again for the quick response.

Sure, I see no big difference between PS manipulation and manipulationof the subject or the lighting or whatever, and the animus some folksfeel for "manipulated" images puzzles me. Many of my photos areheavily Photoshopped; it's a fact but not a virtue that this oneisn't.

Let's face it: every photograph is a manipulation, nay anabstraction, of reality. Were the people in Cartier-Bresson's photosreally that small? Was the landscape shown in that Ansel Adams printreally black and white? Was that pepper so flat that Edward Westoncould render it accurately in two dimensions? Sheesh.

Lannie H., thanks for taking the trouble. I like your version too; asthe Chairman said, "Let a hundred flowers bloom." Most pictures havelots of possibilities. It would be fun to turn an army of famousartists loose on (copies of) one another's pictures. Duchamp'sGioconda moustache would be just the beginning.

Aaron L., no problemo. I understood you, and your question'sperfectly sensible. As for you or anybody else being an amateur,that's cool too.

(I often wonder how "amateur" became an insult.In, say, the 18th century, science and the arts were mostly pursued byamateurs rich folks mainly, who did what they pleased becausethey enjoyed doing it, and got very snobbish indeed about anybody "intrade" who did what he did for pay. Now, on the other hand, it'simportant to be a Pro. You can buy "professional" bicycles, swimfins, computers, condoms and cameras. Double sheesh. Let's hope thatred herring rots away as soon as possible. It stinks.)

Before the POW award I wrote: "Without manipulation this means the colours of the petals are natural right? Amazing."

To which Leslie replied: "Yes, the colors are natural."

I don't think it was made clear, that in fact the flowers were dyed, which I would not class as natural colours. I must admit that this revelation has taken the wow factor right out of the image for me. The impact and amazement I expressed was primarily due to what I believed to be a real flower of natural colours, not a dyed supermarket specimen. The strong graphic design of the image remains, but the awe inspiring wonder at the colours has now been completely shattered...

Leslie... if you take a look at my images, you will know that ALL of

my work are heavily photoshopped, and it goes without saying,

that I am an advocate for the acceptance of images manipulated

in PS -- as legitimate photography, as opposed to quite a few

people here who abhors anything that goes through photoshop.

By the way, my post was not directed to you

 

BTW 2, since English is not my first language, what do you mean

by "sheesh"?

For me it is not about the manipulation of a photograph.

Since there is no capturing of reality with a camera.

It is what the photographer wants to communicate.

And I really like your photograph, Leslie. Well done.

 

Keep making great photographs.

 

Styx

Geraldine A. writes: ...the awe inspiring wonder at the colours has now been completely shattered.

So mote it be. I'm a photographer, not a florist. A photo is not the thing photographed, a picture isn't the thing depicted. However lifelike, the image is the ding an sich, a thing in itself, however and by whomever it's made.

Those who admire a photo because it shows them Something Beautiful are in fact admiring that Something, which the photographer most likely had no part in making. There's not much satisfaction in being told you're a wizard photographer because your picture captures the true beauty of the Mona Lisa or the Grand Canyon. I know my limits. I can't make a photo that looks as good as the Grand Canyon. The only thing that does it justice is a trip to the Canyon itself.

In pre-photographic days there was some point, maybe, in flattering Michaelangelo or Rembrandt by saying they had the skill to copy nature so well they could fool the eye. Now anybody who can afford a disposable camera has that skill. But those guys are still famous; apparently their work's valuable for some other reason.

I should've known better than to check that box, and the Elves should've known better than to put it there. It's a trap. I stand by what I said before all photos are manipulated one way or another. And especially mine. I revel in it. Treat these flowers as clever fakes, spun out of pixels, of no known species, spliced from fiendish genes, colored by hand by robots using artificial dyes extracted from oil sucked out of the world's most scenic and sacred wilderness. If that makes a difference to you, I lose, as I usually do when I try to argue religion. Triple sheesh.

(Kohda: "Sheesh" is American slang, an expression of exasperation or mock surprise.)

(None of this should be taken as a personal remark to Geraldine A., who BTW has posted some very interesting "floral landscapes." She innocently stepped on an old sore toe. Apologies, Geraldine.)

Absolutely amazing - the range of colors and the pattern from yellow to dark blue/purple are amazing, and I love the gradiation. Almost hypnotic.

I respect this photo for what it is, a nicely focused and exposed shot of a beautiful flower. And with all due respect, I don't think this is anything more than the photographer intended it to be, so in that case-well done. For me though, this is the photographic equivilent of valium. Far from irritating, not quite stimulating, just very comfortable and easy to digest. Well done, but not quit deserving of some of the received praise, in my opinion. cheers

Congratulations, Leslie. As always, I'm a fan, but this is an especially outstanding piece of work. It takes a hell of a good eye to take a subject seen so often and make it new again.

Wel, it's not a BEAUTY as Leslie knows. He deserves the limelight but this image is particularly poor. Elves got it rgiht in selcting him - but why this hombres?

Wonderfull photo Leslie ! I think this is better advertising for a digital camera than 100 folders and leaflets. But I still think it's the photographer who makes a great photo! (or a lousy photo for that mather). I think I have to think about upgrading my Eos 5 into a D10...

Nice shot Leslie. Strong composition.

I am a bit surprised at the opinions on the flowers being dyed. I don't recall recently seeing many people expressing they would prefer photos of people au' natural.. no makeup and natural hair color only.

Hang on! I've got a great idea! Lets go tell our favorite fashion photographer we'd respect his photos a lot more if he didn't modify his subjects! Any volunteers?

Leslie I appreciate your last comment wasn't directed specifically to me, but nevertheless it was still in response to my post so I would like to clarify (sorry about your toe btw!).

On the ethics of fake v real in nature photography, there are some interesting discussion in Spinak's Journal (and his following two articles follow it up). It certainly makes interesting reading if anyone wishes to consider the topic.

However, I did not mean to insinuate that Leslie had personally broken a moral code. I believe every photographer has the right to draw the line exactly where they wish. I am not as purist in this regard as you might assume by my comment. I sometimes shoot supermarket flowers myself, though I preferred the un-dyed variety. This is not from an ethical standpoint, as hybrid flowers are just as unnatural as dyed flowers.

What I meant in my comment above, is that I was disappointed to find out that this picture wasn't representing "natural" colours, and that therefore 'the magic of nature' I assumed to be captured in the colours, was not in fact present. What that means with regard to the manipulated checkbox I have no idea, but I did not consider this a manipulated image - rather a manipulated flower. However, it would have avoided my disappointment if the colours hadn't been described by the photographer as 'natural'.

This indeed raises the question about whether the viewer finds the 'subject' impressive, or the actual work and input of the photographer. Personally I don't think it is an either/or scenario, and find both are equally important factors when considering an image. On the issue of the photographers input with this Chrysanth, I still enjoy the photo aesthetically and remain impressed with the handling of the subject (ie photographic decisions). It's just that I was even more impressed previously, when I believed the magic of nature to be captured aswell. This means we are looking at a pretty abstract - which I hasten to add there is nothing wrong with. But, it has become apparent later rather than earlier, that we are looking at a pretty picture and not at a nature shot. Just thought I'd clear that up...

Ian, I am not speaking for the other commenters on the issue of dyed flowers, but for myself the issue is not an ethical one of whether we should or shouldn't, or rights and wrongs. I believe we should do whatever we like as long as it does not cause harm to others, break the law or whatever. Ethics are a personal choice. The issue for me is about labelling and representation. It has been stated by Leslie that this is a dyed flower so I am not saying he has deliberately tried to misrepresent. However it was later in the discussion, and the initial 'wow natural colours?' is not now relevant.

Yes, this means I am amazed at natural phenomenon, particularly if captured well aesthetically and technically, more so than a well-controlled set-up. It does not mean I am against the latter (it is one of my own genres, as is PS manipulation), rather it means that representation of something as 'true' or 'real' is important to me and has an impact on my viewing. Perhaps that may be wrong or irrelevant in some peoples opinions, but there you go.

Kelly L. writes: "...this is the photographic equivilent of valium... just very comfortable... Well done, but not quite deserving of some of the received praise..." I agree with him utterly. To the beholder intention doesn't count who knows what motivated the guys at Lascaux, and who cares except anthropologists or the idly curious? But in my SFP (strictly-for-pretty) photos I'm doing what any oyster does, reducing irritation by making a pearl. Somebody wrote a bio of Vladimir Nabokov called "Escape into Esthetics"; I'm no Nabokov, yet the title pretty well states my case. Valium's great stuff when you need it.

Geraldine: Thanks for the follow-up. You and I have diametrically different points of view. The fact that people do differ so much is one of the (few) pleasures of being one. For me, art is artifice. Since this be fakery, let's make the most of it. In the immoral (but sadly mortal) words of Marshall McLuhan, art is anything you can get away with.

A technical word about dyed flowers. If you look at this photo of the same subject, you'll see that the dyeing is reasonably subtle. I tried to bring out the range and depth of the colors by choosing a different camera, different distance and perspective, and different lighting.

As I said, I'm not a florist, but I don't suppose it's possible to dye a flower many different colors you'd use food coloring, I guess, to add some key color the flower lacked. (I do know that you put the cut stems in dyed water and let the dye percolate into the petals internally nothing's applied externally as in Disney's "Alice.") If anybody knows more on this topic, please speak up: I'm curious.