Technically of some merit, but not what I would call N.H.. Black velvet backgrounds equals pictorial to me, also I would like more space for the Gooseberries to breath within the frame.
Sorry, but as you will have guessed, not for me on this forum.
Ken
I agree entirely. Pretty though isn,t it ?
Just trying to spread a little interest around as opposed to the same old birds on a twig , and puddle stuff.
John - I wasn't being critical of birds on sticks! And if I gave you the impression I was, I apologize!
Far from it, nowt wrong with a good b.o.s. pic. And puddles are fine too.
Taking my comment out of the context of Chris's post (and abstract landscape) is to miss the point - which I tried to make as clear as possible - that these off-the-wall shots such as Chris presented, force us to consider 'ordinary' scenes or subjects in a new way. And thats not an easy thing for some folks, but its a good thing because it forces you to think differently. You may come to the conclusion that you dont like the image, but you've still had to have a taste of it to find that out, and that process is all a part of developing visual literacy and expanding your visual 'vocabulary'.
Fwiw I dont entirely agree with Ken. Yes a wee bit more space all round, but nothing wrong in my opinion with presenting a natural subject as you've done it - there have been numerous posts of captive subjects - in aquariums, vivariums and whatever other receptacles you care to think of, some with light backdrops, others dark, and all perfectly valid ways to portray a subject.
Presenting subjects as you've done here removes the clutter and mess that often intrudes in such shots taken outdoors, and this presentation really forces you to look closely at the subject, and I for one realized in doing so that these are incredibly detailed and hugely attractive berries which I have obviously overlooked when outdoors.
Quote from John Macpherson regarding abstract images. "all a part of developing visual literacy"
Does that mean if i dont like abstract, blurred photography, i'm visually illiterate ?
I like the wild gooseberries, and especially the way they have been separated from the background, and cannot see how they aren't nature. To me it is far more natural than insects kept in a fridge overnight and posed on a flower with an artificial background. I just wish i could get to grips with focus stacking myself.
Delete whichever is not applicable to you. I have no idea about you, your work, how you see, what you see and how you interpret it.
Here's a part definition, you decide where its appliocable to you:
"Visual literacy is the ability to evaluate, apply, or create conceptual visual representations. Skills include the evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of visual representations, to improve shortcomings, to use them to create and communicate knowledge, or to devise new ways of representing insights. The didactic approach consists of rooting visualization in its application contexts, i.e. giving the necessary critical attitude, principles, tools and feedback to develop their own high-quality visualization formats for specific problems (problem-based learning). The commonalities of good visualization in diverse areas, and exploration of the specificities of visualization in the field of specialization (through real-life case studies)."
And so on.
Read the whole blurb I've quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_literacy
But for another consideration try this:
“Visual Literacy refers to a group of vision-competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication.”
...from the International Visual Literacy Association.
They have a web portal where you can read lots more, here: http://www.ivla.org/portal/intro.htm
Image stacking is probably something I will never try John, so hats off for giving it a go, I like the image as presented and the detail and depth that the stacking has captured.
Andy...
Posted by Kim Connolly on July 29, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Again a very striking image John.You've certainly taken to this stacking business.I'd say like a 'duck to water' but I probably shouldn't mention 'birds in puddles' at the moment.
Good to see you trying something different John and its a dam good result as well.
Major.
Posted by David Taylor on July 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM
As someone who used to grow over 120 different gooseberry culivars, now down to one ,
I can appreciate this image. I hope you are allowed to take some cuttings from the bush, they look worth growing even if they wouldn't win any prizes for being the biggest.
As someone who regularly risks the wrath (or no comment) of the more, shall we say, conventional, amongst us by posting 'something different' it is good to see you doing the same.
Thanks all.
Let's be light hearted in this cruel world anyway.
Every time I sell a pic of a Bird on a twig or a puddle shot I feel oh so guilty and I donate my proceeds from selling the pics to a stair lift company who keep sending me all these leaflets. I need a hide that goes upstairs anyway so I can take pics out me bedroom window. The danger is ever looming though. After been sat in a hide for a few hours the other day - I thought " What.s it all about ? "
I had just got another first at this pool- a redstart- but then I thought - Who gives a shit anyway ?
Why do we bother.
So that's why I,m on the gooseberry stuff
Hi John.
Don't forget me when the stair lifts are due ,don't forget its only a few photographs let's keep it light there are far more important things in life,at least a bit of controversy generates more comments.By the way the Berries look very nice. Keith.
I like it so much John that I'm off down Tescos to buy me some for tea.
Posted by Derek Bonsall on July 30, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Hi
I have been following this post, and others, with great interest as I am thinking of joining, but the above has made raised a slight doubt in my mind.
Firstly I agree with Ken, the above image isn’t what most would call natural history, and neither was the shelled peas, the only difference being, one is cultivated and the other isn’t. Basically to my eye both are effectively still life, and are as valid to this forum as a rose in a vase. Please don’t get me wrong, as I do like it very much, it’s just on the wrong forum.
I sense within some of the replies, some sarcasm directed towards Kens post, why is this ?? After all, he appears to be the only one who actually said anything, specifically about the image, rather disconcerting.
I don’t wish to be disruptive, but it is how I’m seeing things at the moment.
Please put me right, if I’m wrong, and reassure me as to why I should join.
Derek - as I'm the only one (as far as I can see - could be wrong though?) who referred to Ken's comments I'll presume you mean me when you mention "sarcasm".
Just so you're clear, and can feel free to post, my remarks were not sarcasm, simply an observation and an opinion. I like John's work, a great deal, and applaud the effort he puts into setting up and obtaining his images, I also feel that the definition of what should be posted here is way too narrow, as occasionally is the appreciation - hence my comments on 'visual literacy'.
I dont think taking a natural subject out of (its natural) context devalues it in any way, and the pejorative use of the word 'pictorial' smacks too much of camera club judging for me.
What I value about forums like this, and this forum in particular, is that its a broad church with a hugely active congregation, and I think we should have broad enough shoulders to be able to consider work for what it is, rather than what we'd like it to be.
And no, I dont think you're disruptive, perhaps slightly misinterpreting what you're reading into this, but I applaud you for being bold enough to comment - we need nore of that!
Ken is probably best placed to answer how he feels and whether he considers he was the target of sarcasm (I hope he thinks not), but I'd hate to see YOU not participate because you think theres something going on here thats isn't.
Derek
Derek
It’s a long story which I won’t ellaborate on here. Send me a private E mail.
First of all – it is not a “Natural History “ forum- it is “Nature Photographers” There is a subtle difference. Such pictures can be very usefull in learning tricks of the trade that can be put to very good use in the field. All the time I have been on here there have been pictures posted of studio type flowers and other things etc, and there has not been a problem. I feel and others do that it keeps things alive and prevents monotony. I also feel I have posted enough “natural history “ pictures to have earned perhaps a tiny bit of latitude .
If people don’t agree then the moderators can soon remove them – no problem.
I personally don’t think landscape is “natural history” but I am sure its Nature !!
Thanks for your interest.
I would join if I were you- I think everyone should.
JR
Discussion
20 repliesVery tasty !
Seven stacked images
Sigma 50 mm
20th @f6.3
CZ
background darkened.
JR
Sorry, but as you will have guessed, not for me on this forum.
Ken
I agree entirely. Pretty though isn,t it ?
Just trying to spread a little interest around as opposed to the same old birds on a twig , and puddle stuff.
JohnR
PS Black felt by the way.
Far from it, nowt wrong with a good b.o.s. pic. And puddles are fine too.
Taking my comment out of the context of Chris's post (and abstract landscape) is to miss the point - which I tried to make as clear as possible - that these off-the-wall shots such as Chris presented, force us to consider 'ordinary' scenes or subjects in a new way. And thats not an easy thing for some folks, but its a good thing because it forces you to think differently. You may come to the conclusion that you dont like the image, but you've still had to have a taste of it to find that out, and that process is all a part of developing visual literacy and expanding your visual 'vocabulary'.
Fwiw I dont entirely agree with Ken. Yes a wee bit more space all round, but nothing wrong in my opinion with presenting a natural subject as you've done it - there have been numerous posts of captive subjects - in aquariums, vivariums and whatever other receptacles you care to think of, some with light backdrops, others dark, and all perfectly valid ways to portray a subject.
Presenting subjects as you've done here removes the clutter and mess that often intrudes in such shots taken outdoors, and this presentation really forces you to look closely at the subject, and I for one realized in doing so that these are incredibly detailed and hugely attractive berries which I have obviously overlooked when outdoors.
Nice one!
No problem. I didn't see your comment you refer to anyway.
Cheers
John
Does that mean if i dont like abstract, blurred photography, i'm visually illiterate ?
I like the wild gooseberries, and especially the way they have been separated from the background, and cannot see how they aren't nature. To me it is far more natural than insects kept in a fridge overnight and posed on a flower with an artificial background. I just wish i could get to grips with focus stacking myself.
Delete whichever is not applicable to you. I have no idea about you, your work, how you see, what you see and how you interpret it.
Here's a part definition, you decide where its appliocable to you:
"Visual literacy is the ability to evaluate, apply, or create conceptual visual representations. Skills include the evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of visual representations, to improve shortcomings, to use them to create and communicate knowledge, or to devise new ways of representing insights. The didactic approach consists of rooting visualization in its application contexts, i.e. giving the necessary critical attitude, principles, tools and feedback to develop their own high-quality visualization formats for specific problems (problem-based learning). The commonalities of good visualization in diverse areas, and exploration of the specificities of visualization in the field of specialization (through real-life case studies)."
And so on.
Read the whole blurb I've quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_literacy
But for another consideration try this:
“Visual Literacy refers to a group of vision-competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication.”
...from the International Visual Literacy Association.
They have a web portal where you can read lots more, here: http://www.ivla.org/portal/intro.htm
Enjoy!
Phil.
Andy...
Phil.
Major.
I can appreciate this image. I hope you are allowed to take some cuttings from the bush, they look worth growing even if they wouldn't win any prizes for being the biggest.
http://www.gardeningmasterclass.co.uk/h01-04-87-00.html
National collections of cultivars
http://www.gardeningmasterclass.co.uk/h02-01-99-04.html
Beats a BOAS any day, IMO.
As someone who regularly risks the wrath (or no comment) of the more, shall we say, conventional, amongst us by posting 'something different' it is good to see you doing the same.
Let's be light hearted in this cruel world anyway.
Every time I sell a pic of a Bird on a twig or a puddle shot I feel oh so guilty
I had just got another first at this pool- a redstart- but then I thought - Who gives a shit anyway ?
Why do we bother.
So that's why I,m on the gooseberry stuff
Don't forget me when the stair lifts are due ,don't forget its only a few photographs let's keep it light there are far more important things in life,at least a bit of controversy generates more comments.By the way the Berries look very nice.
I have been following this post, and others, with great interest as I am thinking of joining, but the above has made raised a slight doubt in my mind.
Firstly I agree with Ken, the above image isn’t what most would call natural history, and neither was the shelled peas, the only difference being, one is cultivated and the other isn’t. Basically to my eye both are effectively still life, and are as valid to this forum as a rose in a vase. Please don’t get me wrong, as I do like it very much, it’s just on the wrong forum.
I sense within some of the replies, some sarcasm directed towards Kens post, why is this ?? After all, he appears to be the only one who actually said anything, specifically about the image, rather disconcerting.
I don’t wish to be disruptive, but it is how I’m seeing things at the moment.
Please put me right, if I’m wrong, and reassure me as to why I should join.
Derek.
Just so you're clear, and can feel free to post, my remarks were not sarcasm, simply an observation and an opinion. I like John's work, a great deal, and applaud the effort he puts into setting up and obtaining his images, I also feel that the definition of what should be posted here is way too narrow, as occasionally is the appreciation - hence my comments on 'visual literacy'.
I dont think taking a natural subject out of (its natural) context devalues it in any way, and the pejorative use of the word 'pictorial' smacks too much of camera club judging for me.
What I value about forums like this, and this forum in particular, is that its a broad church with a hugely active congregation, and I think we should have broad enough shoulders to be able to consider work for what it is, rather than what we'd like it to be.
And no, I dont think you're disruptive, perhaps slightly misinterpreting what you're reading into this, but I applaud you for being bold enough to comment - we need nore of that!
Ken is probably best placed to answer how he feels and whether he considers he was the target of sarcasm (I hope he thinks not), but I'd hate to see YOU not participate because you think theres something going on here thats isn't.
Derek
It’s a long story which I won’t ellaborate on here. Send me a private E mail.
First of all – it is not a “Natural History “ forum- it is “Nature Photographers” There is a subtle difference. Such pictures can be very usefull in learning tricks of the trade that can be put to very good use in the field. All the time I have been on here there have been pictures posted of studio type flowers and other things etc, and there has not been a problem. I feel and others do that it keeps things alive and prevents monotony. I also feel I have posted enough “natural history “ pictures to have earned perhaps a tiny bit of latitude .
If people don’t agree then the moderators can soon remove them – no problem.
I personally don’t think landscape is “natural history” but I am sure its Nature !!
Thanks for your interest.
I would join if I were you- I think everyone should.
JR