■ The Photography Megathread ■

[Sirrus]

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by lowering contrast and saturation, though? I mean, there's certainly a time and a scene to edit like that, but I wouldn't think pictures of flowers would be an appropriate one. If you look at a flower and say "wow, this has beautiful value and a beautiful hue", then you would edit in a way that emphasized those values and hues, not diminish them.

[Ad Bot]

[BluetoothBoy]

However, Sirrus, let's say he looked at a flower and instead of thinking, "Oh wow, what a beautiful flower!", he thinks, "This flower looks sad to me, so ill try to capture that feeling." Obviously, I don't know if that's true, but it would fit what both he and you are saying; his reasoning for the coloring, and the general idea for photography is that what is portrayed in the photo is what you were envisioning while you were taking the picture. But don't take my word for it. I'll let Quint decide how close I got to what he meant.

[Sirrus]

If someone looked at a flower and said "that looks sad" then they probably aren't a very good artist.

And if they were a good artist, they either wouldn't think that, or portray it in some way that's more impactful than a typical "oooh look at this flower" shot that's been slightly desaturated and decontrasated.

[BluetoothBoy]

I have to disagree with this. Art isn't always about taking things as they should be; it's often about looking at something in a way most people wouldn't see it at first. I'm not saying it always translates well into good photography, but the intention/idea isn't necessarily wrong. Now, I'm not endorsing splattering paint onto a blank wall; I don't consider that art. But it is very possible to look at a flower, or anything that is usually taken as happy and see it as something that is sad. It depends on the atmosphere, the mood the artist is in, his or her current frame of mind, and many other things. Art isn't something that is supposed to be cut and dry; then it would be boring. And we can see he's not a bad artist just by looking at some of his pictures. However, I think what the dreary flowers need(ed) in order to work is a little bit of context. When you have an idea that isn't part of the way most of society sees things, context is nearly always required to present said idea clearly. The same can be said about photography.

[Tetris]

If someone looked at a flower and said "that looks sad" then they probably aren't a very good artist.

this is incorrect

artists see character and try to personify everything they can.

[Quintano Man]

However, Sirrus, let's say he looked at a flower and instead of thinking, "Oh wow, what a beautiful flower!", he thinks, "This flower looks sad to me, so ill try to capture that feeling." Obviously, I don't know if that's true, but it would fit what both he and you are saying; his reasoning for the coloring, and the general idea for photography is that what is portrayed in the photo is what you were envisioning while you were taking the picture. But don't take my word for it. I'll let Quint decide how close I got to what he meant.

This sums up my intentions pretty well.

Currently I am in a sad, lonely, depressed, and somewhat cold mindset. These are the feelings that I wanted to portray in my pictures. I specifically chose not to deal with some of the happier photographs because I felt they couldn't express my emotions. In my opinion I have expressed my feelings quite well in many of my photos. I am certainly not targeting a joyful, fulfilled audience - I'm targeting an audience with a similar mindset to mine. This, in my opinion, does not make me a bad artist. I think that's a very ignorant comment  considering that the very definition of art, "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture", in no way suggests that a single object must be portrayed the same way by everybody, and if it isn't, that they are a bad artist. Perhaps I should have given context. I think it has to be taken into account that I've been doing this for less than two months, and these are things I'm going to learn along the way - these are things I'm learning on the way. I do, as always, appreciate the criticism. I'm sure that it will help me become a better artist.

Might I add that many of the objects I've photographed have originally seemed to portray my state of mind, and that that is what has drawn me to them.

[Sirrus]

Alright, these are fair points all around and I'll recognize them as valid and furthermore retract my earlier statements. With all that in mind, I understand your creative process and your intent in taking the kind of pictures you do. My only criticism at that point would be that you didn't effectively convey those emotions. I can't offer any suggestions on how to improve in that regard, because it's not my style. However it is suffice to say that a strong photograph will communicate a message effectively without a text accompaniment; I suppose my suggestion to you would be to, when moved to take a photo by something, either when out with a camera or not, to visualize a finished image which conveys your message or your intent in taking a picture perfectly, and use that mental image to inform every decision.

My approach to photography and general creative philosophy is that photography (well, landscape photography at least) should serve to isolate and amplify the beauty of nature. I have served a scene well if someone can look at a finished photo of mine and recognize in no uncertain terms what attracted me to it and why, it's my aim to eliminate distractions and get a "distilled version" so to speak, of my "vision" of a scene.

I'm not one to inject emotion into a scene or to personify any inanimate object. I suppose that is an artistically legitimate (whatever that phrase means) thing to do, but it's not something I do or really identify with. I guess some people can also "read" emotion or personification into my photos or anyone else's for that matter, but my intent in landscape photography is only to recognize, isolate, and convey beauty which strikes a deep chord in me.

I should also say, though, that I think effective art is that which effectively conveys a message, or at least something which can elicit a response in the viewer, that's a fundamental that cannot be avoided.

Thanks also to everyone for the meaningful and respectful discussion which has actually changed my mind on something.

[BluetoothBoy]

Anytime; it helped me too. It's kinda nice to have a meaningful discussion with reasonable people on this forum instead of a flame war or gigantic, never-ending argument.

[Sirrus]

This is the first stab at an image I'm working on.

I got really excited today, because I kind of realized my first opportunity to "make" a photographic work which is similar in complexity to a piece of traditional artwork, such as painting or drawing.

I saw some willow trees blowing in the breeze and I was especially stricken with their motion and long, flowing lines. I essentially pictured a photo which was a massive enlargement (I'm currently planning the photo to be 90" by 40", which is the aspect ratio of the above photo). However, I want the photo to look as close to the above photo as possible with a few changes.

First of all, a 90x40" enlargement presents some problems. At 300dpi, this is an image 27,000 x 12,000. Of course you can just enlarge a photo and lose quality, but it is possible to take a photo which is 27,000 x 12,000... A few posts back I gave an example of the detail of 4x5 film. That image was scanned, if I recall, at 1,200 DPI. A 4x9 aspect ratio image on 4x5 film requires a scan of 6,400 DPI, which, will need to be wet mounted on glass plates in order to get the image in focus (each pixel will represent .00015 inches). Since I don't have access to a wet mount scanner, unfortunately I think I'll need to take a drop to 5,400 DPI.

Of course there's the issue of focusing this on the camera, again, the image on the ground glass will be a 2.11x4.75" representation of an image which will eventually be 40x90". So I think I'll need a 20x loupe and hope that the ground glass on the camera will actually have enough detail.

Then as far as printing goes, I'll need to order six separate 20x30" prints and mount them on something... with something... such that it lays flat and will not move or warp even slightly... I'm thinking of somehow mounting it onto or between glass.

The final image I have in mind is a bit more dramatic, again, the above shot was just sort of a placid moment, a test shot to see if I can make the image work with a 50mm lens, because I only have a 160mm lens (the 160 on a 4x5 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm on a full frame camera). I want the final image to have an almost violent wind, a visual disruption and clear movement.

All in all this is a lot of fun for me. I've never really worked printing and mounting so directly into the creative process, but when I saw this picture in my head I knew it could only work as a huge, huge loving print with violent motion and a whole lot of detail.

[BluetoothBoy]

Sounds like quite the project! If you print it out, take a picture to show us. ;)

[Quintano Man]

However it is suffice to say that a strong photograph will communicate a message effectively without a text accompaniment; I suppose my suggestion to you would be to, when moved to take a photo by something, either when out with a camera or not, to visualize a finished image which conveys your message or your intent in taking a picture perfectly, and use that mental image to inform every decision.

My approach to photography and general creative philosophy is that photography (well, landscape photography at least) should serve to isolate and amplify the beauty of nature. I have served a scene well if someone can look at a finished photo of mine and recognize in no uncertain terms what attracted me to it and why, it's my aim to eliminate distractions and get a "distilled version" so to speak, of my "vision" of a scene.

This is great advice - it's something that will be constantly on my mind from this point forth. I appreciate the criticism and advice. Thanks for taking your time to write such a long response, it helps me a lot.

Thanks also to everyone for the meaningful and respectful discussion which has actually changed my mind on something.

It's been very informative and helpful for all of us, I think. Thanks to you all for helping to keep it respectful.

-snip and long description-

This looks great! Good luck with the enlargement.

[suburb]

Resurrecting this thread

[BluetoothBoy]

Sweet mercy what incredible depth!

I think the only thing that would make me like this photo better would be if you had focused on the foremost crest, instead of the middle area. Still, that provides for a pretty cool effect that couldn't be achieved otherwise.

[suburb]

Sweet mercy what incredible depth!

I think the only thing that would make me like this photo better would be if you had focused on the foremost crest, instead of the middle area. Still, that provides for a pretty cool effect that couldn't be achieved otherwise.

Because you requested so I drove myself out to the road I took that from again, and I decided to shoot in RAW format since I never have done that on my camera before.




I also took a few of different photos and played with some image settings mostly with HDR and filter gallery in CS6, I don't usually mess with my photos this much but I decided to post the results:

[BluetoothBoy]

Awesome. I like the last one, it's almost like a super realistic painting.