spritzing

Yesterday started out wet and cloudy. While the clouds hung around, the raindrops gradually dried up as I tried and retried various compositions and stacks. Late in the day, I borrowed my wife's orchid spritzer and sprayed one clump of Bluebells. I'm debating with myself about posting any of those pictures because to me it feels like making up data. While it may be realistic for earlier in the day, it wasn't true at the time of the pictures. I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this, especially in light of Scott's topic and the issues of good (or great) vs outstanding.

Well Mark it all depends on your intent. IMHO if you're trying for a documentary submission to a Herbarium for example then how it was in nature is what you would need to shoot. I.e. if I was exploring for said plant and I had a picture of it in my hand to help find it, then as close to exactly what was found in nature should be the order of the day. Now, if you're after an emotional response or a look then do what you feel best captures that intent. Don't forget the Dutch Maters of the 17th Century painted their still life florals with flowers that had tremendous variation in seasonal bloom dates that would have never occurred for what was in the painting. I guess there is no right or wrong answer. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Either way works.

Mark, it is interesting that, in this age of PS, you raise a question about the ethics of employing an age old trick from back in the film days. Personally, I have no problem with it, and I have done this on occassion. If you have any personal issue with it, I certainly think it would be resolved via full disclsure. My only reservation with spraying water is that, at least in my experience, it never looks quite as good or natural as the real thing. I can't think of a photo I ever took where I really liked the result, but this may be one of those things where only a, or even the, photographer could tell the difference. I personally have never tried glycerin, and I would be hesitant to use this on wildflowers or those in a public garden.

Disclosed: fine; undisclosed: slightly deceptive; represented as natural: lying.

Agree with Jim. I have taken many flora shots, wetted by dew, rain or watered from sprinklers. Never spritzed. I have too much junk to carry around as it is.

While I try to find blooms with natural dew or rain, by the time I get home and set up, the drops have sometimes evaporated and I will replace them.
Sandy

I like Jim's response, direct and succinct. It feels right to me.

I only stopped in because I thought you guys were talking about some kind of cocktail. Ah, well...

My only question is how to do it. Have tried and had same results as Scott, just couldn't get it to look natural. Tried various nozzle settings etc. with same net effect. It really is quite maddening and a great example of how hard it is to imitate nature. As to the ethics of the situation, add this one to the other esoteric debates (Photoshop, baiting, removing leaves/twigs from a scene, etc, etc.).

I agree with Jim's comments...sort of.
When I see an image with droplets I don't automatically think, "are those real?" So, I don't assume one way or the other. Should we disclose that a speck of dirt was removed prior to the shot? Is placing something like water different than removing a speck? Not in my opinion. However, indicating something is natural when it isn't.....well that's obviously B.S.
The most convincing way to place unnatural droplets that I've found is with a lawn sprinkler, the kind that throws bigs drops. Getting a fine mist to look natural is much more difficult IMO.

Bruce, thanks for the sprinkler tip. I'll have to try that. OK, OK. I'll disclose that they're sprinkler drops.