Posted by Wayne Rhodus on September 27, 2006 at 9:57 PM
Drug my sorry, you know what, out of bed this morning to meet the dawn. I shot for about 1.5 hours and it was absolutely refreshing and great to be out in nature with a camera in hand! I kind of like the simple well defined elements of this shot but I'm not sure how others will feel about it. I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments. Thanks!
Posted by Tim Buchanan on September 28, 2006 at 2:07 AM
Wayne – I recently had the great joy of watching two art professors critique some photographs for our camera club. Teaching artists how to make art is what they do day in and day out, and it was really fascinating to watch them break the picture down and voice their very insightful opinion of its strengths and how it might be improved.
I can’t provide even close to the same level of criticism, but I’ll give my opinions for what they’re worth. You’ve chosen a very nice subject, and I like how you’ve presented it – with a very slight diagonal line and the horizon falling in the lower 1/3 of the image. Could this diagonal be exaggerated? If it could, it might add more interest to the image. This could be done by cropping the right just a bit (but I’m not sure I would like the result).
I like the softness of the trees, but they’re almost sharp enough to compete with the subject – my eye has some trouble distinguishing between them in a few places. Is the horizon necessary even necessary? It might simplify things to lower the camera angle and shoot up to get just the flower and interesting clouds in the image. Burning the corners slightly could also help keep the eye in the picture. Have you thought about converting to lack and white?
Thanks for posting!
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on September 28, 2006 at 9:59 AM
Tim, thanks for the in depth critique. You raise some very valid and interesting points.
I actually did shoot the sunflowers with only the sky as a backdrop (from a slightly different orientation laterally) and I wasn't quite sold on the comp. So I decided to include the distant hillside trees and their subtle early color change to anchor the sunflowers. I purposely wanted them to be slightly oof which I thought would help "separate" them from the lower portion of the sunflower stem and hopefully not compete too much with my subject. Maybe I should have openned up to f/8. I'll have to check my files to see if I did shoot one wider open.
I personally like the diagonal angle of the sunflowers moving through the frame and I positioned the upper portion so that it occupied the blue (nearly cloudless) portion of the sky. Other than those compositional thoughts, it was pretty much a grabshot!
I really appreciate the thought and time you put into your response. Suggestions and comments like those will help me continue to improve my photography. BTW, I drove by your house last week on my way to Branson, did you hear me honk?
Posted by Don Kurz on September 29, 2006 at 8:11 AM
Hey Wayne,
The botanist in me wants to i.d. that sunflower. You may already know that it is Maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximilianii). Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.
Best,
Don
Posted by Bill Dark on September 29, 2006 at 8:56 AM
Wayne - Glad you found some time to get out with a camera. The next two months are going to be awesome! My favorite time of year, without a doubt.
I tend to agree with Tim's earlier critique. The trees are somewhat of a distraction for me, but may not be to others.
As I've mentioned before, I think for an image to be really good, the three elements of dramatic light, clean bg, and emotion are critical. One of the topics of conversation with Tim E the other day out at the crag included emotion. If you're wanting to market your work, the element of emotion is probably the most important. Unless the image strikes a chord with someone, they're most likely going to pass it up. I think the most improvement with this photograph might have been to omit the trees, and to have chosen a better time of day for your light. But I still like the subject overall - just needs a little tweaking. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on September 29, 2006 at 9:41 AM
Don, your inciteful, knowledgeable comments are always welcome on my posts, flora or not! I feel lucky that we have someone with your experience willing to contribute to this forum.
Bill, thanks for commenting. I'm glad you raised the point about emotion, it is a subject I've long contemplated and struggled with when trying to encorporate into my nature photography. I am surprised you don't like the light. This was shot just at sunrise with a thin veil of clouds filtering the direct light. Interesting ...
My personal experience tells me that eliciting an emotional response from a viewer of an image like this will almost never be attainable. This is more of an environmental shot than anything.
Specific to flowers, I do think an emotional response can be achieved more often with macro/closeup shots of flowers, but the key will always be the viewer's personal experience to what they are seeing. In other words, they may look at a gorgeous shot of an orchid and like it for the aestetic qualities but have no personal experience with it to draw from and therefore not feel an emotional connection to it.
On the other hand it has been established over time (by the great masters) that sweeping scenic landscapes in glorious light will almost always draw an emotional response of the "appreciation of the intrensic beauty" itself without a direct connection to the scene being viewed. Something about the vastness of the outdoorss captivates all of us.
To summarize my personal feelings, the ability of the photographer to elicite an emotional response to any image is more dependent on the viewer's personal life experiences (and the ability to relate to it) than of the aestetics of the image itself.
See, I told you I thought about this a lot! I'll stop talking now ....
Thanks everyone, I appreciate your commets!
Posted by TIMERNST on September 29, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Funny you should bring up the bit about macro vs. vista shots. It has been my experience that while folks love my macro stuff - and tell me that is one the biggest things I am known for - they hardly ever will purchase a print. I have fought and struggled for more than 30 years using the finest and most expensive equipment to capture and output every bit of tiny detail possible from macro shots, and people will stand and ohhh and ahhh all day long - but then they will walk over to the point-and-shoot vista shot and put down their money. Go figure.
I continue to be torn between getting the new 160mp pano camera (that is actually a scanner) so that I can get even more detail in my images (or one of the 39mp medium-format backs), and putting all the heavy stuff away and shooting everything with this new point-and-shoot camera that I just got. In the end it really is mostly just the subject matter and how you photograph it rather than all the detail you capture that matters to most people. If the truth be known, few people could ever tell the difference in an 11 x 14 print between 16mp (or even 39mp) and 8mp (assuming you shot and processed correctly). The only real issue comes when you go to sell a really large print, like in the 30 x 40 and up range, and even then I have made good 40 x 60 prints from a handheld 8mp point-and-shoot camera. Of course, I have also seen some really dredful 16 x 20's that were shot with a $40,000 camera rig.
The bottom line is not what you shoot with, but WHAT you shoot, HOW you shoot it, and how you PROCESS and print.
Speaking of that - Bill, I just finished your first 11 x 14's and they look pretty terrific...(If anyone wants a set of great prints for free I will be leaving them in my mailbox for Bill to pick up this evening - just beat him to the box!)
I will probably continue to use the latest and greatest (and heaviest) equipment, however I will now always have something with me that will produce very nice images (my new point-and-shoot Sony) no matter where I am and I hope to be able to capture a few extra good images a year as a result. My wife still wants me to buy a 600 f4 though, but I think that is just so she can use it sometimes too....
Posted by Don Kurz on September 29, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Tim Ernst wrote "...(If anyone wants a set of great prints for free I will be leaving them in my mailbox for Bill to pick up this evening - just beat him to the box!)"
Good to know, Tim. I live five hours away but I am headed to my vehicle right now and I'll see if I can beat Bill to the prints!
Best,
Don
Posted by Bill Dark on September 29, 2006 at 2:03 PM
Ha! Better watch out Don - Bob Chester told me he's been seeing that big ol' bear snooping around Tim's mailbox lately... must be thinking it's his now, since it has three bears on top.
Posted by Tim Buchanan on September 29, 2006 at 3:38 PM
The available cameras these days really do boggle the mind (I drooled over that 160MP scanning back as well!). My 20D is starting to really feel quite old. I had hoped that Canon would announce some nice new 12+MP crop camera during Photokina this year, but alas I'm still waiting.
What's really exciting me at this point are the newly introduced pigment based inkjet printers that are putting Epson on notice. Both Canon and HP have finally entered into the fine-art market in a big way. I can't wait to hear more about entries from those vendors. I need to replace my Epson 2200 pretty soon and now, finally, there's a choice!
Posted by TIMERNST on September 29, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Tim:
I've been using the new HP 9180 and it is OK - the prints are basically identical to the Epsons current K3. The Canon 5000 is OK but is a nightmare to use - the one big point to it is the fact you can print in 16-bit, although in the prints it can do (17" wide) I'm not sure you can tell any difference. The 44" Canon that was just announced should be nice, and you can get 700ml ink tanks with it! (about six grand) HP has four new printers coming, although I really think the two Z2100s will be somewhat of a waste - only 8 inks. But the Z3100's should be something nice with 12 inks, although once again the actual print quality won't be much different than what we are getting with the K3 Epsons - it looks like we are near the top of the hill already as far as actual print quality goes. The rest is more user interface and features - like with the HPs built-in EyeOne calibrator. The new Epson 3800 is really a step backwards, although it is smaller than the 4800 and has both black inks installed, there is still a hardware switch required and dumped ink when going from mat black to photo black (I don't use mat so not a problem with me) - the price on this is one of the best for a 17" printer though, however NO ROLLS allowed, so you are limited to making a 16 x 20 print (cutting down rolls is not really an option). What else? I expect Epson will up the anty but not until late next year.
I will probably get one of the 12-ink HPs when they hit the streets in early 2007, until then my Epson 4800 and 2400, HP DJ 130, and the new HP 9180 will just have to do!
For the money, if I were you, I would probably either get the 2400 or the 9180, or if you want to do some larger prints and can justify the extra cash, the 3800.....
Discussion
10 replies10D, 24-70 @ 40mm, ISO 200, 1/90 sec @ f/11, polarizer, curves, hue/sat, sharpen
I can’t provide even close to the same level of criticism, but I’ll give my opinions for what they’re worth. You’ve chosen a very nice subject, and I like how you’ve presented it – with a very slight diagonal line and the horizon falling in the lower 1/3 of the image. Could this diagonal be exaggerated? If it could, it might add more interest to the image. This could be done by cropping the right just a bit (but I’m not sure I would like the result).
I like the softness of the trees, but they’re almost sharp enough to compete with the subject – my eye has some trouble distinguishing between them in a few places. Is the horizon necessary even necessary? It might simplify things to lower the camera angle and shoot up to get just the flower and interesting clouds in the image. Burning the corners slightly could also help keep the eye in the picture. Have you thought about converting to lack and white?
Thanks for posting!
I actually did shoot the sunflowers with only the sky as a backdrop (from a slightly different orientation laterally) and I wasn't quite sold on the comp. So I decided to include the distant hillside trees and their subtle early color change to anchor the sunflowers. I purposely wanted them to be slightly oof which I thought would help "separate" them from the lower portion of the sunflower stem and hopefully not compete too much with my subject. Maybe I should have openned up to f/8. I'll have to check my files to see if I did shoot one wider open.
I personally like the diagonal angle of the sunflowers moving through the frame and I positioned the upper portion so that it occupied the blue (nearly cloudless) portion of the sky. Other than those compositional thoughts, it was pretty much a grabshot!
I really appreciate the thought and time you put into your response. Suggestions and comments like those will help me continue to improve my photography. BTW, I drove by your house last week on my way to Branson, did you hear me honk?
The botanist in me wants to i.d. that sunflower. You may already know that it is Maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximilianii). Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.
Best,
Don
I tend to agree with Tim's earlier critique. The trees are somewhat of a distraction for me, but may not be to others.
As I've mentioned before, I think for an image to be really good, the three elements of dramatic light, clean bg, and emotion are critical. One of the topics of conversation with Tim E the other day out at the crag included emotion. If you're wanting to market your work, the element of emotion is probably the most important. Unless the image strikes a chord with someone, they're most likely going to pass it up. I think the most improvement with this photograph might have been to omit the trees, and to have chosen a better time of day for your light. But I still like the subject overall - just needs a little tweaking. Thanks for sharing.
Bill, thanks for commenting. I'm glad you raised the point about emotion, it is a subject I've long contemplated and struggled with when trying to encorporate into my nature photography. I am surprised you don't like the light. This was shot just at sunrise with a thin veil of clouds filtering the direct light. Interesting ...
My personal experience tells me that eliciting an emotional response from a viewer of an image like this will almost never be attainable. This is more of an environmental shot than anything.
Specific to flowers, I do think an emotional response can be achieved more often with macro/closeup shots of flowers, but the key will always be the viewer's personal experience to what they are seeing. In other words, they may look at a gorgeous shot of an orchid and like it for the aestetic qualities but have no personal experience with it to draw from and therefore not feel an emotional connection to it.
On the other hand it has been established over time (by the great masters) that sweeping scenic landscapes in glorious light will almost always draw an emotional response of the "appreciation of the intrensic beauty" itself without a direct connection to the scene being viewed. Something about the vastness of the outdoorss captivates all of us.
To summarize my personal feelings, the ability of the photographer to elicite an emotional response to any image is more dependent on the viewer's personal life experiences (and the ability to relate to it) than of the aestetics of the image itself.
See, I told you I thought about this a lot! I'll stop talking now ....
Thanks everyone, I appreciate your commets!
I continue to be torn between getting the new 160mp pano camera (that is actually a scanner) so that I can get even more detail in my images (or one of the 39mp medium-format backs), and putting all the heavy stuff away and shooting everything with this new point-and-shoot camera that I just got. In the end it really is mostly just the subject matter and how you photograph it rather than all the detail you capture that matters to most people. If the truth be known, few people could ever tell the difference in an 11 x 14 print between 16mp (or even 39mp) and 8mp (assuming you shot and processed correctly). The only real issue comes when you go to sell a really large print, like in the 30 x 40 and up range, and even then I have made good 40 x 60 prints from a handheld 8mp point-and-shoot camera. Of course, I have also seen some really dredful 16 x 20's that were shot with a $40,000 camera rig.
The bottom line is not what you shoot with, but WHAT you shoot, HOW you shoot it, and how you PROCESS and print.
Speaking of that - Bill, I just finished your first 11 x 14's and they look pretty terrific...(If anyone wants a set of great prints for free I will be leaving them in my mailbox for Bill to pick up this evening - just beat him to the box!)
I will probably continue to use the latest and greatest (and heaviest) equipment, however I will now always have something with me that will produce very nice images (my new point-and-shoot Sony) no matter where I am and I hope to be able to capture a few extra good images a year as a result. My wife still wants me to buy a 600 f4 though, but I think that is just so she can use it sometimes too....
Good to know, Tim. I live five hours away but I am headed to my vehicle right now and I'll see if I can beat Bill to the prints!
Best,
Don
What's really exciting me at this point are the newly introduced pigment based inkjet printers that are putting Epson on notice. Both Canon and HP have finally entered into the fine-art market in a big way. I can't wait to hear more about entries from those vendors. I need to replace my Epson 2200 pretty soon and now, finally, there's a choice!
I've been using the new HP 9180 and it is OK - the prints are basically identical to the Epsons current K3. The Canon 5000 is OK but is a nightmare to use - the one big point to it is the fact you can print in 16-bit, although in the prints it can do (17" wide) I'm not sure you can tell any difference. The 44" Canon that was just announced should be nice, and you can get 700ml ink tanks with it! (about six grand) HP has four new printers coming, although I really think the two Z2100s will be somewhat of a waste - only 8 inks. But the Z3100's should be something nice with 12 inks, although once again the actual print quality won't be much different than what we are getting with the K3 Epsons - it looks like we are near the top of the hill already as far as actual print quality goes. The rest is more user interface and features - like with the HPs built-in EyeOne calibrator. The new Epson 3800 is really a step backwards, although it is smaller than the 4800 and has both black inks installed, there is still a hardware switch required and dumped ink when going from mat black to photo black (I don't use mat so not a problem with me) - the price on this is one of the best for a 17" printer though, however NO ROLLS allowed, so you are limited to making a 16 x 20 print (cutting down rolls is not really an option). What else? I expect Epson will up the anty but not until late next year.
I will probably get one of the 12-ink HPs when they hit the streets in early 2007, until then my Epson 4800 and 2400, HP DJ 130, and the new HP 9180 will just have to do!
For the money, if I were you, I would probably either get the 2400 or the 9180, or if you want to do some larger prints and can justify the extra cash, the 3800.....