Spider Chrysanthemum

Scott: In the 70's I came to rely on 4x5, and Will's certainly right about the quality of LF/MF macros qua prints. The D30 holds its own against 35mm up to 8 x 10" print size, but of course 3mp aren't going to beat out a 4000dpi scan of Velvia, much less of a 6 x 6 chrome. Then again, 6x6 takes a back seat to 9 x 12, which must yield pride of place to Weston's and Adams' canonical 8 x 10". (I believe Brett Weston went to 11 x 14" his was bigger than daddy's.) There are obvious tradeoffs for starters, macros made with a studio camera require a studio. My original point, yo many comments above, was that digital made macros easier, not that it made better macros.

That said, the current best of breed in DSLR's, Canon's 1DS, comes very close to MF quality. (There's an interesting comparison at luminous-landscape.com; don't have time just now to locate the article.) The trend's pretty clear, but trends aren't causes in any sense.

I've used an 8 x 10" Deardorff and enjoyed it very much, but if that's all I had to work with I'd seldom make a photo. I'm a youthless old guy now, grateful for every minute digital adds to my working life.

Your technical comparisons between formats for this type of work are perhaps grossly understated. MF is about 2x as difficult as 35mm for macro work, LF 4x as difficult as MF, and digital typically the easiest of the bunch. I frequently lose shots doing outdoor macro work with MF because the limted depth of field and camera controls are too limiting compared to 35mm and digital. 4x5 wouldn't even be in the concept range.

 

Regardless, the remark that 'you should have shot this film' is incorrect from both a technical and aethestic standpoint, and is totally inappropriate. The reason many of us get sick of looking at macro flower images is they are ALL shot with hyper-saturated slide films and hence produces the same range of dye induced colors. This image is striking in both the subtle range of tones and graphic nature of the composition.

Does anyone have a copy of the 'Dummies Guide to Internet Communication' which I could surely use?

I would like to clarify further, that my subsequent expressed disappointment on realising that these colours are the result of dye and not by the miracle of nature, does not mean I am some kind of anti-ethical anti-freedom-of-art lobbyist!

Leslie said: "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."

I am a proud supporter of artistic freedom and did not make any comment which indicated otherwise. In my opinion, fakery is only relevant here because of the earlier description by Leslie. So I repeat, the issue was not about any moral stance, but a statement about how I felt, and questioning Leslies intended meaning of 'natural colours'. With the benefit of hindsight I suspect Leslie meant 'not photoshopped' and that is all. I concede it is my own mistake for equating that answer with 'as nature created'. I hadn't considered a set-up, much less the possibility of dye. Those of you that think it shouldn't make a difference whether it is dye or not, are basically telling me I should be more impressed with the art than with nature. My passion and subsequent choice of education has primarily been art, but the fact is that nature wows me even more so. Does that make me anti-art? Of course not. It just makes me more enthusiastic (quite possibly over-exciteable) of nature, than of art. Should I be lucky enough to enjoy a beautiful specimen of nature, offered to me by an artist with obvious skill and talent for his chosen medium, then you might imagine how special I would consider the pleasure of viewing! Having assumed I was viewing such a sample, it is only to be expected I would feel disappointed that the colours were not a miraculous feat of nature after all!

Regarding the digital v MF/LF shooting and quality of prints, I agree that digital is not only easier but much more productive. This last month I have shot about 100 floral macros digitally, and oh about five on LF (with a monorail extension). I haven't developed the 4x5 sheets yets, but if they come out exposed and focussed well enough I would be able to make poster size pics of those shots. Not so with the 6mp digital images. Another bonus with LF is that I am able to obtain much more dof with a lens which stops down to f45. Do any digital or 35mm lenses stop down that much? I don't honestly know. This might not be important for a single large bloom shot horizontal to the plane of film, but if you are shooting at an angle where the subject is not horizontal, or have a group of small flowers (delicate alpines for example) and you need to get in as close as possible to fill the frame with their tiny heads, there will be dof problems even at f32. The reduced dof from close distance or alternative angle means you may well appreciate an extra stop to obtain the sharpness of all elements at their various distances to the lens. Both digital and M/LF have their respective advantages.

So, art v nature, digital v M/LF? I say arguments that take an either/or approach can be very restrictive in outlook and can only serve to limit your vision. Although impossible due to lack of opportunity, who amongst us given the opportunity, would not say yes to having it all?! A phenomenal aspect to nature captured skillfully and creatively, using a collection of various format cameras to work with? You couldn't get better than that now could you? ... Well ok, after world peace, happy children, good health, and the Dummies Guide to Internet Communication. Come to think of it, a POW thread that submitted your comment first try would be nice too ....

'tis nice ... But it still looks "digital". At least to my eyes. This is not to detract from its artistic value, by the way.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what it means to "look digital" anymore.

 

Anyway, Leslie, thank you not only for the photos but for the informed and intelligent commentary actually written in grammatical English--a rarity these days!

Geraldine,

I think we can have it all, at least in some distant epistemological sense, if we consider that everything is natural. After all, we people are natural phenomena too, and what we make by artifice is therefore a natural product.

Believe me, I'm on your side when it comes to admiring what folks usually call "nature" (as in Mother Nature) it's endlessly fascinating to me. I marvel at it like a two-year-old. But for that very reason I don't want to make photos that rely on "natural beauty" for their effect that's like an actor getting the audience to cry by murdering cute animals onstage.

As to DOF, yes, the Sigma 50/2.8 macro I use does stop down to f/32, but I hardly ever go beyond f/22 not necessary. DOF depends on both the aperture and the size of the sensor, whether CMOS, CCD or film. Digital P&S cameras like the Canon G3 have tiny sensors and therefore inherently great depth of field, and their smallest aperture's usually f/8. The D30 (or D60 or 10D) has a sensor a bit smaller than an APS negative, so its DOF is greater than that of a 35mm SLR using the same lens to get the same coverage. That's why DOF is so problematic for large formats, which really need the legendary f/64.

Lannie,

 

Thanks for the kind words. And speaking of words, it's my shame as a photographer that I write better photos than I take. Anyone who can stomach more of the same will find a bellyful at my website.

Had Leslie used Velvia or 100VS the ratings on this image would have gone up dramatically simply because it would have produced obnoxious colors as a result of those same carnival dyes, but used in film instead. Those type of images are a dime a dozen.

So once again from the peanut gallery; it's OK for film to distort the colors in an image, but not OK for digital or simply prepping the subject.

Pretty macro flower picture. Dig your other work too, Leslie. Keep the images

coming!!!

 

ps... that "sheesh" quote has me ROTFLOL! "sheesh" "sheesh" "sheesh" ... I'm

adopting that one!

You're right. Those velvia flower images are a dime a dozen, yet people continue to shoot them, trying to come up with a better composition or SOMETHING to make the shot stand out. If you want to use PS or dyes or various in and out of focus multiple exposures or clever lighting, or whatever, that's your choice, but sometimes people like Geraldine and me and a whole slew of others like to see what can be done within certain parameters. You are aware, I assume, that PS gimmicks, more than velvia, drive up the 'originality' ratings dramatically because people have lost the ability to see subtle differences in reality and to appreciate them for being unusual, if not truly unique.

Yes! Glad to see this pic recognized. Of all the pics in the gallery, this is the one I showed a friend last week as a notable example of the kind of macro photography I hope to achieve someday. It's nice to know that even if I'm not there yet, at least I know it when I see it. :-)))

First of all, congratulations on this POW, Leslie... but you deserve many more POWs anyway, so no point making a fuss about it...:-) What I'm more interested in is to comment on your comments. I must say that I am enjoying greatly this thread, mostly thanks to you, Leslie. I like your clear vision about what life is and what photography is, and I love the way your work always revolves around the 2 antipodes (that are not antipodes) of natural and artificial. Finally, I like your sense of humor and your way to phrase things. It's a real pleasure to read your prose, I must say, and just for that, the Elves should give you a POW per week...:-)

You wrote: "In my SFP (strictly-for-pretty) photos I'm doing what any oyster does, reducing irritation by making a pearl."

I love this statement. :-) And what I love even more is that your "SFP" picture posted at the top of the present page has at least the great merit of being REALLY pretty. Trust me, it's not every day that I rate a flower macro a 7 in aesthetics. I feel this is not just a flower macro, but a bit more than that: it's almost an homage to the extreme heights of overdone aesthetics. What I mean by that is that I personally could be bored by the more traditional and natural looking flower pix with real colors etc. Nothing wrong with such images AT ALL, but the ink splash I see in this particular dyed supermarket product - whether done in PS or with Inks or whatever -, amuses me tremendously and picks my brain quite a bit - a bit like Peter Greenaway's lighting in his movies.

This leads me to try to understand this flower shot in the context of Leslie's other works - many of which I like better than this one, as a matter of individual preference... To me, Leslie's Art is real Art in the sense that he is always looking for a way to break a wall, for a way to QUESTION any pre-conceived or learned notion we have about this or that. Leslie has a brain, and Leslie uses it. That's imo the 1st label that belongs on this Hanckok Pixbox...:-)

Leslie has a style, and this style is present in this POW just as much as in his "more risky" works. This style consists in pushing things to the extreme in such a way that every successful image in the end picks our brain and invites us to meditate about this false "duality" we have learned there is between Nature and Artefacts. Every new shot by Leslie is a shot I personally try to understand with this grid in mind. It so happens that this Duality is as well the center of my personal interest in Arts in general.

More about Leslie...:-) I think Leslie's work can be extremely ugly - but always for a good reason...:-) I also think of some other works by Leslie wich really made me smile and think, but which were also very nicely executed - such as this squirrel in a plastic bag... Here is the duality of Nature (the squirrel) burried in an artefact (the plastic bag)... When Leslie says that this flower shot belongs to the SFP folder, I am therefore forced to conclude that it's not totally right. Not that Leslie would play a trick on us, no, but I think Leslie is so deeply involved in his meditation about this duality thing, that without him even knowing it, his legs would bring him naturally to THIS flower in the supermarket ! :-) Leslie, your subconscious mind is what brought you there... Be aware...:-)

What I like about this POW, besides the "strictly-pretty" aspect is just that: the fact that I recognize a choice of a subject, that I believe wasn't accidental at all. As a stand-alone, this is a pretty picture, fullstop. But given the rest of Leslie's portfolio, I enjoy this image a lot more... and I smile looking at it...

What puzzles me, though, is the fact that the Elves decided to have THIS particular picture on the frontpage of Photo.net this week. Nothing wrong with the picture - all the contrary -, and it's a perfect choice because it's a perfect picture, but man, are we far from the real Leslie ! :-)) As Leslie more or less said himself, he would have prefered a real discussion - and even a real bashing, I'm sure - about his most risky works - and there are plenty. Same here. What I thought when I saw this picture on the frontpage was "we are bound here to have a peaceful week"... But a peaceful week with a picture by Leslie is exactly what I wouldn't expect...:-))Interestingly enough, and thanks partly to Geraldine, Leslie, and Kelly Loverud, we are now seeing an interesting development in this discussion, which is that we are back to the Nature vs. Artefact dilemma...:-)

If I had to pick one single shot as Leslie's POW, my pick would be the following image:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1154711

Why ? Because, in my view, this image represents Leslie's work in an absolutely perfect way... The duality between nature and artefact, the duality between what's repulsive and what's incredibly beautiful, and the duality of Life and Death, all of which are central in Leslie's work, seem to be all present in this other image. I also believe that to make what seems to be "blood" so unbelievably beautiful and disturbing is a most incredible challenge, which Leslie mastered perfectly. I am not joking when I say that this "blood" picture is imho an absolute masterpiece worth any museum. This flower picture, in comparison, looks, indeed, mostly VERY pretty, and gets an extra dimension only if it is seen as part of Leslie's body of work.

Some saving instinct whispers that it would be dangerous for me to comment on Marc's own comment philosophers call it the "quit-while-you're-ahead" strategy. So I'll (uncharacteristically) keep my mouth shut, except to say that my overarching intention is ironic, and that if I could choose my own POW it would (still) be "Human Waste".

Many of us enjoy an ironic approach, yet it's clear that most viewers missed the irony completely on this shot. Is it their fault for not understanding the colors better? Is it somehow yours for not offering more information in the picture space? Is it OK to present an image that requires explanation. Do we create images that work best when presented with other images that reinforce the idea?

Scott, what has a preference for accurate description and labelling by the author got to do with digital v velvia colour?

I don't know about you, but I have different criteria for judging photographs of different genres. Nature or documentary photographs have much stricter criteria for depicting reality than do most other genres. Having read the statement by Leslie earlier that "Yes, the colors are natural" it led me to believe I was looking at a documentary nature shot and I judged it accordingly as a brilliant one. However it has since transpired it is not a nature shot, but rather a pretty colourful abstract, and art for arts sake.

Now, had I been aware this was the case earlier I would not have viewed it as a nature shot in the first instance, or applied any such criteria about naturalness or reality. I may still have judged this image as brilliant example of the relevant category ie pretty macro abstract, which has less strict criteria where the depiction of reality are concerned. Altered colour by the use of velvia or whatever may at this juncture be relevant, but it was not the issue I was addressing.

Labelling accurately by the author is more important for published documentary shots granted, so perhaps members do not see it as a serious issue for PN. But, had this shot been a commission for a horticultural magazine, or a book of botanic species, the truth would be far more critical. "Simply prepping the subject" would not be acceptable without it being clearly stated at the outset, before even being accepted for publication. There is a reason, it's not just petty fussiness. It is so that the viewer knows whether what they are looking at is natural phenomena or not. Whether it exists in the real world or not. For me, it is a very important distinction.

Ok this isn't for documentary publication, that is clear now. But, if I had mistaken the colour as a natural phenomenon owing to the authors statement, and classified the image to be a nature photograph, then it is perfectly conceivable that others may have also. Perhaps even the elves themselves judged this as a spectacular example of a nature shot when they awarded the POW. Everything in the elf description still stands even if it is not a nature shot, but the fact remains that the viewers need to know what genre and what criteria to use when judging a photo.

Wonderful photo! It's on my desktop for the week Leslie!

I particularly noticed your equipment. With amateur photographers constantly insisting that you can't take quality photos without the most expensive everything from cameras to lenses, I was so happy when I saw you used a lens I own too (a NON-Canon)!

Your photo is beautiful and gives me something to strive for!

Carl R. writes: Many of us enjoy an ironic approach, yet it's clear that most viewers missed the irony completely on this shot. Is it their fault...?

Hey, you won't catch me blaming anybody for liking my pictures, unless it's that guy in the back who keeps finding Darth Vader's face in the clouds and bushes. By "overarching" I meant as a general motif or point of view, not something hidden in every photo like Al Hirschfeld's "Nina."

Is it OK to present an image that requires explanation? For PJ or documentary photos, sure, but otherwise, well, it's not to my taste, and if I did it I'd consider it a mistake.

Do we create images that work best when presented with other images that reinforce the idea? You bet we do. Many of Cartier-Bresson's photos wouldn't get a second glance if nothing else of his had survived. But as his portfolio accumulated over the years, it became clear that they deserved that second glance, which (usually) brought to light subtle qualities that give even his banal shots a boost.

But wait, is that, well, is it fair? Couldn't some wag "discover" a forgotten C-B photo and praise it to heaven, and get lots of nods and applause, then reveal that he took it himself, in high school, while winding the film, by mistake? Yes, some wag could. Me, I try to be skeptical. Much as I admire some great artists, I suspect that most of what they did is undistinguished and wouldn't make the nut if published anonymously.

A work of art or craft that's enriched by explanation isn't the same as one that requires it. By me, at least, every photo's on its own and has to stand on its merits or fall because it has none. My "ironic" photos are meant to be pretty otherwise they wouldn't be ironic.

Lindsay: The Sigma's a good macro lens optically, but as you've probably noticed it won't win any prizes for build quality.

...photography has always been what I'll loosely term a hybrid mediumt: Part art, part science, part historical document, etc. If we are to enjoy Photo.net as an industry/Internet leader among sites devoted to photography and photography discussion, some of us had better get over this anathema towards use or non use of manipulations, whether post- or pre-exposure, and others of us would do well to get familiar with how digital cameras have impacted traditional photogaphic methods.

 

Some one dislikes your image because it's been photoshopped? Oh well. Come back in 15 years if you don't like it. Some one loves an image you hate because it's been photoshopped? Oh well. Come back in 15 years if you don't like it. This kind of rejection, based on digital criteria, I'm afraid they're simply a part of the transitional period we happen to be living in. Each of us has embraced or rejected digital image stimulation, from abject hatred of it to full blown fractal image creation we have opinions ranging across the board. But really-- What's the point of arguing about it anymore? Low ratings and discontent based on digital stimulation of an image are a fact of life that every digital enthusiast will encounter and have to accept. Personally, I would rather be on the vanguard of the digital revolution than one who quits altogether, or who lays down his mouse to come back when the climate is less hostile. Post your images and weather the critics.

 

If or if not stimulation of this image was by digital or other means: What's the point of the argument? Will Leslie throw it out because someone here objects to the fact that the flowers were dyed? Will the digital industry quit making digital cameras because of those who prefer photography as a purely chemical process? If so, throw out every photograph of wood that's been painted, etc because you can't have one, and not the other. Photography is digital and the only thing that will prevent it from gaining more digitality is if all computers everywhere were suddenly to stop working and disintegrate. Why waste our time arguing over these repetitive and circular points. A beautiful photograph, recognized, conceived and executed in the eye and mind of a photographer. So, you like it, or you don't like it. That should be good enough and shouldn't give anyone any reason to look disdainfully on someone with an opposing point of view.

This is a good image,does it warrent a couple of paragraphs,of wonder and excitement ,I personally don't think so,that said well done!!!

Michael: Thanks. You're onto something there. We probably shouldn't try to parse images into words, any more than we'd try to photograph a poem. "Whereof one may not speak, thereof must one be silent." Many of us have a bone to pick with critics, even when we agree with them. But it's hard not to talk about something that enthuses (or disappoints) you, and talk keeps us breathing.

Actually, Michael's comment leaves me scratching my head. . . . "well done" communicating what? a pretty picture? an ironic one? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had critics say how much they like an image . . . and then ascribe attributes that I never saw or intended. It's a strange feeling.

This picture could be regarded as one of the images where the expression "less is more" does apply!

Hoping to quell passions before the burning issue of food-dyed flowers pushes SARS and Iraq off the front page of the New York Times, I'm posting herewith a different photo of the guilty flower. Is it dyed? Is it dead? Was it ever alive? You decide.

I would like to propose using this photo for a public service campaign to highlight the need for truth in advertising. On second thought are you sure this is not a composite of two flower photos taken moments apart that illustrates the photographers thoughts and emotions as he struggled to choose an appropriate subject to illustrate the embattled small farmer at the local supermarket?

 

When I first saw the thumbnail, I thought this might be a photo of multicolored fireplace matchsticks. Oh well, another uninspiring weekbut wait! Its that old fart Leslie Hancock. At least we dont have to wonder what the photographer thinks about the photograph (and everything else). Its always fun to watch an old friend support the weight of the world single-handedly, not to mention truth, justice and the American way.

 

I suppose I am obligated to say something about the POW though it is more fun listening to Leslie talk to himself. Hmmmnice colors dude.

 

Its a good thing that words are cheaper than film or you would be a lot poorer. Have fun, you deserve it. Thanks for a small diversion from this crazy world. In exchange, I promise not to obsess about what constitutes natural verses implants or colored plants or pants or rants

excellent. . . champagne. perfect. or perhaps beer. yes. beer. perfect. let us all drink beer and champagne and look at great photos of dyed flowers. it all sounds so glamorous.

 

but in all seriousness. i agree with marc. this is not the perfect leslie hancock pow, but a perfect pow, at least in its current state. oh, and leslie, i think the aliens dropped your dog off at my house. hes a german shepherd dyed to look like a poodle. . . right?