i i i i i i i

An ordinary shot everyone has done. Gloppy looking and not interesting.

Here is another from Art's own site:

[LINK]

I like the variations myself, and, as many flowers as I have shot, I haven't been able to get these impressionistic effects.

--Lannie

Who was it that essentially said that focus is overrated?

Sitting back and just looking at this image, it has a pleasing aesthetic to it and I could see a really big print of it sitting in someone's house or doctor's office or the like. I think it would demand to be really big or it would lose its impact.

The only thing that bothers me is what appears to be some over burning along the right side and across most of the top--a semicircle effect. This area has become a bit muddy and distracting. It feels much more like a burning issue than a natural one but would need some attention regardless, IMO.

This is very beautiful photo. It`s nicely taken, and also color is beautiful.
http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

I like this picture. The extremely limited DOF, brings the "points" forward giving a 3-D feel against a creamy warm-against-cool field of color. The random direction of the in focus points are visually interesting. The entire image has a splendid impressionistic feel. Nicely done, Art!

It is interesting for the point it illustrates to me that focus is in the wrong place .... that I want the bright yellow tip-thingies to be sharp and not the stems ... or at least enough of the yellow thingies to hold my attention. This is the photographers greatest decision choosing a focus point that the viewer will want.

I find the picture quite pleasant.

More interesting to me is that Art cropped it to his aesthetic preference which makes me wonder what the original frame looked like.

I cropped it further to a more expected outcome for images of this type for comparison, and to me, Art's square crop with those stragglers at the bottom-third adds to the aesthetics by introducing a little chaos.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17138634-lg.jpg

I appreciate when a photographer can make work a focusing decision that viewers don't expect. I like when photographers lead me rather than fulfilling my expectations. In this case, I think the stems work nicely in the picture, as a staccato kind of focus, while the yellow tips act as afterthoughts or echoes. The stems and the manner of focus provide the play with foreground and background that is at work here, a sense that the stems are both in the foreground and the background, dancing among the layers.

Overall, the photo doesn't do much for me in total. I don't care for the color palette which seems a little too much like candy, yet I suppose it goes with the subject to a large extent. I like the observation Michael made about the square crop and agree that I like the square crop better but that lower left quadrant does bothers me. It seems a little off key, and not in a good way, which off key can be sometimes. Yet I would not crop it out because, as Michael says, that takes away more than leaving it in.

I think that even the lower left quadrant that Fred noted as being a bit weak works better if the photo is viewed large. I wonder how this would look printed out at 20"x30" or so, with a white mat and silver or chrome frame.

I see now that this is not a mimosa but a closely related species. Even so, there are enough mimosas growing around the country that I almost want to go out and find some if see if I can get similar effects on a somewhat simpler flower. I see that the photographer used a 100mm f/2.8L IS on this shot. I have used that lens and love it. I wonder if we could find out if it was shot at max. ap. It appears that it was. Was there any special lighting? Distance between subject and lens? Background considerations? This could be some worthy terrain to explore, but I am not sure that I would want to try to reinvent the wheel if Art has already figured out what does not work.

--Lannie

I think the bigger you print this picture, the more problematic the white, out-of-focus, fluffy lower left area becomes. Why would this get better if you print it bigger?

Unless you have a whole lot of room to step away from it (and even then), I think printing this at 20x30 would be a mistake. Without more work, it would show off more profoundly the irregular burning(?) issue that John observed and would make the green blobs in the lower left quadrant appear even less organic to the photo. I do always view the larger versions of photos before commenting. Most times, they get better because of less technical compression. Sometimes a photo works better smaller despite the lack of compression.

As to frames, I often find that chrome or silver frames add a lack of refinement to photos. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Here, I think such a frame would enhance the already pop nature of the color palette and would make me think more of cheesy tourist galleries than something I'd want to put on my wall. Chrome often gives off a very ready-made feel. Regardless of matting and framing, getting a good print of this would likely be tricky, especially because of the prominence of the white area, which has a lot of off whites and grays in it which, especially made any larger, might not be as acceptable to many eyes as when seen smaller, on a backlit screen.

[Disclaimer: I understand there will be those that don't think talk of frames or print size is relevant here. To those people, I apologize in advance if you become irritated. I think presentation concerns are vital to photos, so that's why I'm happy Lannie mentioned it. If this is not something that you deem appropriate here or that bothers you, please ignore this line of thinking.]

Martin, we were writing simultaneously. I obviously agree with you.

OK, so if we are going to go there, I think it is a fair area to discuss.

First of all, you never really know how an image will hold up at any given size until you try it. My sense is that this one needs to be big but that doesn't mean it can be made big (file size) or that it will otherwise hold up. I think big here because it would take it out of just another flower shot. It is sort of like taking it from just something we look at to something that is beheld or confronted. That is the basis of a lot of the top photography today and there is a distinct psychological difference between looking at a 5x6 inch image on screen and being confronted by a 5x6 foot print. (not suggesting it would be good to go that far here though) I know that images I print even 20x20 that were first printed at 6x6 take on a completely different feel.

Second, white can be problematic in printing. It is more an issue when printing with inks than when one prints with a light/silver based process. With inks there is often a distinct edge where a pure white appears and, on lustre/gloss papers, a gloss differential. These issues can be dealt with in various ways, some successful and some more of a compromise. But, in this case, although the whites appear pure white, they are actually quite a bit lower in value than that. My sense is that they would not exhibit the same issues a pure white would (the edge thing in any case--the gloss differential can be managed without compromise), although there certainly could still be individual preference issues to large white spaces. I wouldn't anticipate that in my case, but then you only really know it when you see it. That is why you run many different proofs before deciding.

Metallic frames are probably somewhat out of vogue these days, but it is important to match a print with a frame that doesn't fight it but complements it. Personally, I rarely find the popular (generally metal) white frames that museums often use these days to be attractive.( In many cases, though, these are actually chosen by the artist. ) On some things, they can work well, but in most cases I find them distracting and ineffective. On an image like this, I do think there are probably some different ones that might work well--black isn't one of them while I do think, in a large print, there are (or have been in the past) some chrome mouldings that could work well. A simple natural, blond wood might also be a good fit. These sorts of things are personal preference as well as dependent on other display considerations as well--place and purpose as well as the choices of matting, floating etc. Like the success of a big print, it often isn't until we get there that we know the best solution.

While many photos might benefit from a large print (or view), I don't think it will do much in this instance.

Everyone knows this is a macro flower shot so there is an intrinsic expectation as to how it should "look" in the same way that a recording of a solo violin played back through a concert-size sound system will not necessarily do it justice because the sense of scale is all "wrong".

To further the audio analogy, regardless of scale (volume), the audience is ultimately called to immerse themselves in the performance - in this case, the flower's composition and rendering - and bigger won't necessarily be better.

Printing at epic size seems to produce an effect of grandeur that has nothing to do with a picture's merits on its own. Have you ever seen a blurry picture of an old structure printed very large? For some reason, when printed very large, pictures can seem freed of the ordinary photographic constraints of sharpness, grain, etc. The same picture of your town's first gas station, or old train station, printed as an 8x10, might prompt nothing more than a yawn apart from its historical value.

So I guess the wow factor of size might trump the more ordinary photographic considerations in this picture too. But I think it says more about the effect than about the picture.

I think the last two entries seem to ignore the medium here, visual impact is a large part of the photographic process.

Michael, I don't agree with your analogy or much of your rationale here. I was listening to a talk recently--Thomas Ruff as I remember--and he talked about how the psychology of his viewers changed when he reprinted portraits that had been what we might consider normal viewing sizes to very large prints. People stopped referring to photographs as "that's Joe" when they were small but rather that "that is a photograph of Joe" when large. This may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a shift in perception when an image is large versus small as there is in the way we embrace it.

Martin may actually have nailed the whole point in his words, we just don't look at the same thing the same way at different sizes. That isn't necessarily a bad thing and is something we should consider with our work.

<<<the psychology of his viewers changed when he reprinted portraits that had been what we might consider normal viewing sizes to very large prints. People stopped referring to photographs as "that's Joe" when they were small but rather that "that is a photograph of Joe" when large.>>>

I agree with you, John, insofar as the medium is often crucial to a viewing experience. And I have no doubt that what Ruff reported happened, but that only carries so much weight. We all can affect viewers by a variety of choices we make in presentation. But, just like different ways post processing can be handled, there are different ways to handle presentation. Many viewers prefer the heavily post processed look (oversaturation and oversharpening) that many of us here really dislike and its higher impact on a lot of viewers does not persuade me that it's a good choice. As well, many people will be wowed simply by a large print over a small one, but that means it's more popular and has more of a particular kind of impact. A lot of more refined viewers want something else. We might want subtlety in given situations. A lot of non-opera lovers love hearing opera on recordings because it's often highly amped and easier to listen to. But easier access doesn't mean better. Opera is divine when listened to live with no microphones. It's about breath and the tonality of a voice soaring through the air, not through speakers. Were I after a wider audience, I might amplify live operas. Were I after good opera, I'd keep microphones far away from divas.

I think many people would consider this photo "better" if they saw it printed larger, because they'd be missing a lot of nuance that a more savvy viewer might pick up. So, Ruff's experiment is very dependent on the viewing caliber of his audience. There are some viewers, more expert at viewing photos, who would know the difference between Uncle Billy and a portrait of Uncle Billy regardless of the size of the photo. I'd trust them more to help determine photographic and presentational choices.

To be clear, I think long and hard about what size I'll print what photo at, because I know how much difference that can make. But I don't do it based on the generic impact a bigger photo will have on most people. I do it based on what I want each photo to express in a particular context and sometimes based on the limitations of my photos to be printed large and meet my own visual needs of print quality.

I don't know Fred that we disagree about anything you wrote here and really don't see how it in any way is related to what I said. I never suggested popularity as a motive only that many popular artists print large and their images are done so to require a different way of looking at them, which is part of their art process.

The viewer's level of sophistication is not a factor IMO in why we should do that, although certainly there are some who will be impressed by the size.

John, sorry, I'll try to make it clearer. Ruff said that printing large helped people to see the portrait as a portrait rather than a person. That carries little weight for me because I already see portraits as portraits and not as people. So, for me, the importance of printing big lies elsewhere and would be dependent on the photo. In other words, there's not one particular thing that printing large accomplishes. It accomplishes different things in different contexts. That it enables the barrier to be broken down between portrait and person among a sizable group of people would in no way persuade me to ask Art Lionse to print his photo big.

While it may be true that printing at a large size can accomplish getting a viewer to see differently than he might otherwise, it can also be a negative in a given situation. I have no doubt that printing this photo large would get viewers to see it differently. I also think it would make it look worse.

I see a certain chaos and madness in the lower left, and, whether viewed as a flaw or not, it might be seen to elevate the picture from being merely "pretty" or even "cloying." It begs to be blown up, so that one can figure it out (if that makes any sense), but it might be that blowing it up would resolve nothing while diluting everything. I would have to see it to say for sure.

Thank you, Fred, for drawing attention to the lower left quadrant. I would not have seen it at first glance as worthy of analysis. Now I can even imagine it as a cloud of interstellar gas, a nebula, from which spring forth the prettier and more finished elements of the picture--but the picture will forever remain unfinished, and I think that that is part of its appeal for me.

The lower left reminds me of wanting to get closer to a cloud, only to find that, when one gets there, there is only mist and formlessness--and that would probably be the sense that one might get if it were to be blown up too much.

--Lannie

Fred, you were clear the first time, it is just that I had already covered that pretty clearly, I think, when I wrote "First of all, you never really know how an image will hold up at any given size until you try it." Certainly, one needs to be sure an image works at any size, some don't actually come to life until they hit 16x20 or larger, while others sing at 4x5 inches.

Oddly, Gursky had a show not long ago where his images were printed much smaller than his norm--I really am not sure why he did that--but afterwards, he said that he was amazed at how different the images seemed and that he had to consider that in the future. Size does make a difference.

I simply disagreed with you, John. With decent pre-visualization skills, I think many photographers can make determinations about things they might do before they actually do them. Sure, I might change my mind when I see this print at 20x30 but, at this point, I honestly don't feel I'd need to, any more than I often need to see something in black and white before I make the decision when shooting it that it will be a black and white photo. I don't find your reasoning compelling because it's generic. What you say can apply to ANY photo. ANY photo might have a different impact when printed large. Yet, it's rare to hear it suggested on this forum. I assumed there was something about this particular photo that would inspire a desire to see it large, not just the fact that ANY photo seen large would have a different impact. Lannie has explained what, about this photo, inspires him to see it large. I disagree but it makes sense that he would have a particular reason that's related to the photo in question.

Appealing because it is unusual, and I think it may raise the pulse rate of those excited by the puff candylike colour palette, but after looking at it a while I find the composition of the image just troubling. The plethora of nearly featureless white ("featured" only very minimally, by virtue of their erratic appearance and repetition throughout the image) is probably at the root of that troubled feeling. For me, featureless regions of white or black (or any other tone or colour) have to be composed or structured more in balance with each other and less erratically than here to have good visual impact. Negative space is best put in balance or in tension with the other spaces, forms or features within an image. Here I find it not adding anything that works well in a compositionally interesting sense. Maybe a good sub-title (the title is nonetheless a good one) would be "entropy unleashed".

It resembles a photo of a flower, but sorry to say, that's where it ends for me. There are times when the "Rules" are broken successfully. This, for me, is not one. There is no real subject and the eye just wanders aimlessly. The lower third appears a washed out white that can't really even be burned in. Where does the eye always go? To the brightest spot or section. Here when the eye gets there, there really is nothing

I would go so far as to say that that sense of chaos at lower left implies motion: most of the photo is static, but the chaotic lower left quadrant implies to me a dynamic component. The stems (or whatever they are called) seem static in most of the picture, but at lower left they seem to be shooting outward or even in random directions. They could even be interpreted as leaving trails of some sort as they move.

This one requires more than a prima facie interpretation of a macro of a flower in order to be appreciated. The implication of motion triggers the imagination--or can. I have already mentioned the metaphor of stars being born, even though I have no reason to think that nascent stars would be shooting out in all directions from an interstellar cloud. That does not trouble me.

I simply like the implication of motion in an otherwise static presentation.

--Lannie