Spider Chrysanthemum

"It is impossible for a photographic print to duplicate the range of brightnesses (luminances) of most subjects, and thus photographs are to some degree _interpretations_ of the original subject values. Much of the creativity of photography lies in the infinite range of choices open to the photographer between attempting a nearly literal representation of the subject and freely interpreting it in highly subjective 'departures from reality.' My work, for example, is frequently regarded as 'realistic,' while in fact the value relationships within most of my photographs are far from a literal transcription of actuality. I employ numerous photographic controls to create an image that represents 'the equivalent of what I saw and felt'... . If I succeed, the viewer accepts the image as its own fact, and responds emotionally and aesthetically to it."

 

---Ch 1, "Visualization and Image Values," _The Negative_ (NYGS: 1981)

... what a can of worms I seem to have opened here!

If it matters, although I asked the initial question that brought all this about, I didn't see anything Leslie said as being even remotely dishonest, assuming everything is taken in context. In every case I have seen it, questions of "real" color revolve around use of photoshop or other digital means to falsify reality, and I took Leslie's initial answer to mean only that - this is the actual color of the flower at the time it was shot and was not altered in PS. Changing the film you use, or the color of the lighting, or adding pigment to the liquid running down your drain just before you shoot it: these are all part of setting up the shot - defining your creative vision - and unless you're specifically presenting something as documentary, they come with the territory. I don't see the dye here as anything negative, I was just curious because I had done something like it in grade school, and this flower looked unlike any I had seen.

Leslie, after looking at the other shot you have of the same flower, I must say that this particular one is vastly better at capturing the intensity of the colors there, is much more dynamic to my eye at least, and ends up being much more striking overall. Pretty it is intended to be, and pretty it is.

I've just looked over Leslie's other photos and this one stands out as an exception because there's one thing that hit me about those other ones: the subject either never fills the frame enough, or putting it another way, many photos are not cropped in tightly enough. Or even that there isn't enough of the subject in the frame to begin with.

Interesting and well done from a technical point of view. I saw at first glance that the blue colour is not natural because there exist no blue Chrysanthema. The high saturation makes it even more unnatural to my eyes. Anyway - once in a while they don't need to dye the flowers. They will build new colours with genetic manipulation. They are already working on blue roses (arghh). However - taste changes with ongoing time. Some time ago there were only white and "rose" roses (therefore the name). The introduction of the first yellow and red roses were sensations at their time, then breeded in a natural way. But as long as I live there will be no blue rose in my garden!

Marvelous use of color, angles, grain as an integrated composition. Strong, pleasing photograph.

Cheers,

Alan

Leslie,

this is the most fun I've ever had at photo.net. Thanks a lot! It's a great picture and I thought it was pretty classy that you gave instructions earlier in this thread about how to make it. I've got some great flower shots that I took with a Canon A40. I know where your coming from when you talk about making a shot for the pure enjoyment of it. Congratulations. You seem like a pretty decent guy to me.

I'm having a very strong, negative reastion to this composition. It seems very formulaic to me. It is something a photgrapher who does not really understand classical composition (and god knows there are too many) would do -- I'll have to look at the rest of the portfolio to see if that feeling is borne out.

 

What I mean is, there is nothing to counterbalance the 'strong diagonal' everyone is crowing about, so that it throws your eye off the image in an instant. The imposed viewpoint is so strong that it overwhelms the subject, draining it of inherant interest. I feel you were 'seconds' away from a possibly interesting photograph (in terms of moving your camera a little bit this way or that), but this isn't it.

What's formulaic to you is a balanced compostion to everyone else.

So very simply put ,it ,this is a very good image,now its time to move on and create another!!!!!

I notice with all the macros that get chosen as POW, they still say "One of the most outstanding macros that we've seen!" or something to the effect...LOL

 

This IS excellent though, I really like the colors. Not only that, the composition is strong. Each petal looks like a little colorful tooting pipe. :D

The photograph isn't bad. It reminds be of Bill Storage's macro shot of a lotus dahlia.

The only attribute I'm trying to understand is the seemingly artificial transition of color in the lower right of this photo. The yellow which fades into green just seems painted which is why I'm having a hard time in beleiving photoshop was not used. Tungsten light? I wouldn't think it was have such an effect. Still,very creative and well done. I'm being told this imahe was not enhanced, however being a graphics designer myself leads me to beleive otherwise,

I don't quite see and certainly can't explain the color shift you mention. Take it as given that I deeply regret having checked that "unmanipulated" box. Also the day I was born but there's nothing new in that.

i think leslie deserves to be thanked for stimulating such a great discussion, even

apart from taking the photograph.

 

now why don't we head over to the Featured Portfolio? 39 pics, 39 times as much to

talk about.

Some many words about the flower. Does it really matter that its colors might not be natural? I think we should celebrate the photographers eye, in choosing the flower with an idea in mind on how it could make a pleasing photo. What's important is if this image was made with a lense, or with a keyboard. Both have their place, but its nice to know which one you're looking at. I understand it was made by a lense, which I appreciate most.

 

This photo is nicely composed, and appears to be very sharp, at least on my screen. The subject also provides some interesting texture. I like it a lot, as it reveals more secrets the more you look.

Congratulations, Mr. Hancock. As is often the case, it would seem that this award is really "Photographer" of the Week. This photo, while very good, doesn't measure up to some of the other work in your portfolio.

I will propose a juxtapositioning of the current POW with one that was presented here a while ago, and just for my edification I would be interested to hear a side-by-side critique by comparison between this image and the one I will insert, as referred to above. Storage's photo is scrupulously natural and accurate. The current showing is cleverly manipulated--not, I suspect, digitally; but through backlighting--which explores a far more interesting area. Stuartson excells at this sort of thing.

That's "Dahlia detail."

Leslie,

I think you misunderstand. I find nothing wrong with manipulating an image to achieve a better result, even if it's not the case here. In fact, with the exception of adding elements to an image, enhancing certain aspects of our photo's only to bring to life the image we envisioned during the sensation of creativity felt when it just "lit up" the viewfinder. We don't always get such result from that which we imagined mainly because of the varying degree of light, shadow, and range of color current technology allows. There is something to said about the difference in quality a amateur photographer such as myself can produce with little enhancements from available software compared to what the purist photographer can create. I personally feel in no way does such manipulation lessen the impact or ethical value of our photo's, but promotes creativity and raises the standard on what we expect to see from the many self ordained professionals out there. Most importantly here, what you have done, is create an image which has spawned many differences in opinion and on many different topics otherwise left unheard. That in my opinion is the true purpose and meaning in this incredible form of expression as an art form, we call photography.

Very well done.

Thanks to the elves for picking this photo in the first place and for giving me far more eyeballs than I'd get in a bricks-and-mortar show. I'm having great fun and won't look a gift horse in the mouth. Photo.net isn't perfect, but it rocks. (And no, this isn't irony. I'm sincerely grateful.)

 

:-)

As to the green in the lower right corner of the image, couldn't that just be a shadow from the camera? After all, with a macro lens, you have to hold your camera *pretty close* to your subject for a crisp clean shot.

Leslie,

 

Did you take any other shots of the subject? (I had a look at your portfolio and didn't see any there), because this flat-on pov, with the focal point of the composition being the exact lower right-hand corner just isn't working. I challenge you to show me any rectilinearly-framed image (in any medium) that places its focal point smack on a corner by firing a bunch of diagonals into it, and succeeds as a composition. Such a strategy could only work if there was a contrapuntal element of nearly equal force in the composition -- something that is lacking in this shot. Moving the point towards the middle, even slightly, would have improved this shot. Something, anything, to break that runaway train taking us right off the picture, something to take us back into the picture.

Way back in the early stages of this discourse, Leslie kindly offered a description of his technique in capturing this photo. If I may, I would like to ask a question...

 

Someone obliquely referred to it earlier, and I too wonder if there is any back-lighting here? I'm pretty sure there isn't because then the back blue/violet petals would appear more translucent, correct? However, I can't escape the fact that there appears to be an overall luminescence to this photo that I wouldn't have expected from overhead tungsten light. Was that the only light used? How far were you from the source?

 

Ignorant questions perhaps, and probably best suited for earlier in the week, but I'd appreciate your input Leslie. I have zero macro experience, but might like to give it a try sometime.

Firstly, there is such a thing as taking a risk, which is to say that the "classical rules" are not iron clad and there are exceptions. Sometimes the risk works, sometimes it doesn't. Because an image doesn't follow prescription is not a de-facto pronouncement of failure. There is a point at which whatever science and mathematical properties are inherent in the enjoyment of visual objects are left behind.

 

Secondly, Is the focal point " smack on a corner," the "exact lower right-hand corner?" and is there a "....contrapuntal element of nearly equal force in the composition " which would " ...break that runaway train taking us right off the picture?"

 

I wasn't consulted when the above comments were being written, for instance when it says the compostion takes "us" right off the picture, and other such uses of plurality.

 

Subjectively speaking, the focal point for the train I'm on is indicated by the red mark in the skeleton, above. The contrapuntal element is Color. And my train doesn't leave the picture.

 

I find the end product of my examination of this image on a classic third because the dark blue band of color works to quiet the diagonal force of the lines within it, while the smaller circles do the same within the yellow band. For me, the larger, open circles within the warm pink band of color are the focal point.

I'd like to thank Back Shooter for the dissenting comments. Before I read them, I was swept along with all the positive words about the wonderful composition of this photo, but Back Shooter made me stop and ask myself what I really thought. I'm certainly no expert at photo composition, but B.S. has a point: the diagonal lines do tend to lead the eye off of the picture. However the other elements of the photo (especially the colors, but also the texture) beckon the eye to return for another look. The openings of the individual flowers are focal points that the eye can rest on for a moment before the diagonals again pull it away. But there are enough of them that the eye keeps returning. To me, this is what makes the photo "dynamic and visually exciting" (to quote the Elves). Moving the center of the inflorescence (where the diagonals are leading the eye) into the frame would probably add the "contrapuntal element" that B.S. is seeking, and result in a beautiful, compositionally balanced photo. But I don't think it would be as dynamic, or draw me back to view it every day this week as Leslie's photo has.