Going nuts

Interesting idea and execution. The only thing, upper left nuts out of focus

The nuts were all sharp in the original scan but I blurred some of them to mimic depth and motion. I agree that this does not work quite well here: although some of them are blurred, they still look too static.

The technique: the leaves are inserted into a single scan image. Some

postprocessing is added to the resulting composite.

 

Any comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Thank you for an excellent idea for the next theme: "The squirrels and the nuts" ;-))

Well done.

nice composition and color. i like it.

First of all, thanks for the dedication and welcome to the Photo.net Madhouse ! :-))

Then, let me ask you a madly stupid question, which I'm really ashamed of... I don't know what in this frame is called a "nut" in English. Simple language problem, but it is somehow embarassing because I can't really understand the idea behind what I see.

Now... aesthetically...

1) The red is really beautiful. Yet I have a problem with the black portion at the bottom. I think the entire background should be red, so as not to attract the viewer's attention to the border.

2) I like the leaves at the top. Less the ones at the bottom. I'm talking about their shape and their position. Their position makes me wonder, by the way whether there shouldn't be more red background at the bottom.

3) I would delete the very last "screw" - or maybe that's what's called a "nut" ? - bottom left corner of the "frame". Maybe even the 2 last. Simply because it's a bit full down there...

Now, in general I'd say it's well executed. Reading the comment above I'd just have to agree that what's sharp should be really sharp.

And I'll be looking for your explanation about the overall meaning. Does this rectangular square represent the bondaries of logic ? What surprised me a lot is that the title says "Going", whereas the image is pretty static... Basically, I like it visually, and I feel it's fun, but I'm still looking somehow for a way to make sense out of this.

I'll be back to check on this one. Cheers.

Marc, thanks for the constructive comments and the welcome message. ;-))

 

 

It's hard not to agree that the image suffers from a disastrous flaw of being static while the captions says "going". Nonetheless, I believe there is some basis for the chosen title. When I stare at the image long enough, it becomes apparent that "going" and, to a lesser degree, "nuts" refer to something that is beyond the frame and, perhaps, not even in the plane of the image ;-))

 

As for the inner "frame", yes, it does underscore existence of the nuts within a certain utilitarian frame (which is actually a cube-shaped basket) of logic that withstands violent forces playing around. It looks like the frame is ready to melt though. The black patterns at the bottom are supposed to symbolize "dark energy" igniting the whole ordeal but I agree that they introduce visual disharmony. Of course, the lively green leaves symbolize resilience and hope. But I agree that the bottom ones are visually redundant.

 

Finally, all the comments that identified the good and the bad about this image helped me to create a couple of new versions. The International Edition of Going nuts attached here contains sharper nuts, the upper leaves only and an extended space at the bottom ;-) Unfortunately, I failed to remove those several nuts overcrowding the left bottom corner (need to improve my PS skills). I also uploaded Going nuts II with a somewhat different composition, tones and colors .

 

Regards,

 

Ok. All this is getting clearer and your dictionnary definition helped me a great deal, as my dictionnary did't include the last part...:-) It was also interesting to read your explanation. I did feel more or less what you are describing - mostly thanks to the vivid red. Yet, to me, the leaves that are supposed to be a symbol of hope is the one thing that I'm ot very convinced about. After reading your post and seeing your "international Edition", I also feel that indeed the black part at the bottom was not necessary, and the extension of the red area at the bottom works better for me, as expected.

Now, all this being said, my conclusion would be that this image needs to evolve imo. I've seen Going Nuts II, but so far the best would be the attachment on the present page. Yet, I would suggest a version 3, but only after a lot of thinking, basically trying to add to the existing symbolism in order to clarify the concept for the viewer. For example, you may want to replace the leafs by something more meaningful... you may want to use Van-Gogh-like spinning strokes in your red background... you may want to keep only the circular items and not the "butterfly-nuts" or what ever that is called... you may want to add "nuts" that are far larger than other, to give the impression that they are nearer to the camera... you may want to have these nuts flying all over the frame like an explosion, creating depth and movement in the frame... Etc. The simple fact that you used a direct scan of something flat resulted in the first place in an image that is flat with flat shadowless lighting... This original decision was already dubious imo. The "flatness" of the image, on the other hand is also interesting, but the picture might still benefit from some sort of movement or depth... Basically, it's an image that needs more ambition, more precise conceptualization in my view, and probably more work at the computer after that, to achieve exactly what you would wish.

As far as execution is concerned, I would recommend to take 1 scan of the future "amended" version, but also to shoot the same composition with a camera anda good lighting. It might be interesting in the end to combine element of the camera-generated image with element of the direct scan, for example. It would allow you to create a sort of mixture of 2D and 3D that would grab the viewer's attention visually and make him somehow dizzy...:-) It could also be interesting to shoot several close-ups in various positions and under various lighting, and then combine all these element in a final montage.

Basically, the more you'll think about this idea before executing anything, and the more work you will involve in the execution, the better this will be.

I have a few PS works on PN that took me up to 200 hours work (at 300 dpi), and if I showed you the first drafts of these images, you would just laugh. :-) Meaning: most people don't realize that wild concepts and the corresponding PS manipulations take a huge amount of time and effort before reaching something satisfactory enough...

Personally, I'd rather spend 200 hours on one PSed image, than 1 hour per image on 200 images. Why ? Simply because it is a lot more rewarding. Very fortunately, most PS creations take about 30 to 60 hours, not 200 ! :-) Here, I just feel you had a great inspiration, but maybe didn't give it enough thought and time. I'd be curious to know at what resolution and image size you worked, and how much time you spent on this. More time, more work often allow useful fine-tuning, and that's the point... Cheers.

i appreciate what your trying to do....so i give you credit for trying something....now....keeping that in mind i think you need to tone it down a touch....i feel like you put "all your tricks in one basket"....theres alot of filters used here and honestly you should let the art speak for itself...and trust me it is a strong image and i firmly believe it could be better going on the "less is more" idea...

I appreciate your comments but would like to point out that only two "tricks" (they are by no means filters) were used to create this image:

(1) Inserted leaves (I agree that there is some redundancy in them - see my comments above);

(2) Some strokes with a "smear" tool applied to the background and some of the nuts.