My shoes - still life

JohnBe

I needed a still life shot and came up with this. I am not sure but think it qualifies as a still life. Appreciate any comments.

System

Rule of thirds comes to mind. The shoes are smack dab in the middle of the picture. I might have had the shoes in the lower right corner. What is that splash of light at the top? I would have cropped that out.

Candid Arts

As well as maybe saturate a little more. Maybe try and make the background black versus the brownish gray it is now.

seaain.gray

JohnBe wrote:

I needed a still life shot and came up with this. I am not sure but think it qualifies as a still life. Appreciate any comments.

I like it. That said, I think that the tradition of "still life" by its very definition contains life. Not everything in a still life has to have life, but some flowers in the shoes would I think make it fair game.

Microbial activity aside, I am not sure this is actually a still life.

The following is a definition gleaned quickly from an Art Encyclopedia... I think that in reading through it "life" in some form means something living (and perhaps even soon to die), but that it is integral to the genre/tradition.

Type of work in which an arrangement of diverse inanimate objects, including items of food (especially fruit and game), plants and artefacts is depicted. This arrangement is often apparently random and is usually within a domestic setting. The form is normally associated with oil painting, but other media have been used, including mosaics, watercolour, collage and photography. Despite the existence of still-life subjects in pre-Classical, Classical and Renaissance art, the form was recognized as a distinct genre only in the 17th century, when it reached the height of its popularity in western Europe, especially the Netherlands (where many of the conventions of Renaissance and Baroque still-life painting originated), France, Spain and Italy. Until this time, in inventories and theoretical writings, paintings representing foodstuffs, plants and inanimate objects were usually simply named after the items depicted; and even when the existence of a distinct type of painting became recognized there was still diversity in terminology before 'still-life' became accepted. In France vie coye (Fr.: 'silent life') later became nature morte, analogous to the Italian natura morta and the German Stilleben. In Spain such images were initially called bodegones, after the lower-class inns and eating-places they were painted for. In the Netherlands various terms existed in the 17th century, including ontbijtje (small breakfast), banketje (little banquet) and vanitas, before stilleven gained currency. There has been much discussion among historians of Netherlandish art as to the allegorical content of 17th-century still-life painting, while some 20th-century writers on the subject, such as Norman Bryson, have taken the still-life as the starting point for a broader analysis of the relation between allegory and naturalism and between painting and language.
cf: http://www.answers.com/topic/still-life


Kind regards,

Seaain

JohnBe

My shoes - still life
Thank you for the comments. I will work on the rule thirds suggestion and clean up the background some. I went to the sight with the info on still life and also googled 'still life photos images" . Got lots of ideas.

JohnBe

Still Life - my shoes
Here is my updated effort. I think it is ok but wish the flower were bigger.
It was the only bloom I could find. Please comment.

Candid Arts

The shoes kind of blend in to the back ground for me. I think the back drop needs to be either dark black, or something that will make the shoes "pop" out. Also they are too centered. Either zoom in a bit (or get closer) to the shoes so there is less background, or add some other "stuff" to the photo to fill some space that would be created by putting the shoes in a different part of the frame (i.e. off center).

frel

seaain.gray wrote:

I like it. That said, I think that the tradition of "still life" by its very definition contains life. Not everything in a still life has to have life, but some flowers in the shoes would I think make it fair game.

Microbial activity aside, I am not sure this is actually a still life.

For the few I recall from my graphic art courses back in the days and my frequent visits in museum, still life does not require flowers or whatever.

In still life the important is not "life" but more "still" and more importantly a work in term of composition/organization of the elements. For example Picasso made a lot of still life painting where the main subjects were music instruments (see the guitar for example) and if you look in them you see nothing related to "life" as you sufggest it should be defined.


And this page gives a definition of still life that reflects more what I learnt and what I try to do when doing still life.

Anyway this was just my 2 cents and correction.

frel

Candid Arts wrote:

The shoes kind of blend in to the back ground for me. I think the back drop needs to be either dark black, or something that will make the shoes "pop" out. Also they are too centered. Either zoom in a bit (or get closer) to the shoes so there is less background, or add some other "stuff" to the photo to fill some space that would be created by putting the shoes in a different part of the frame (i.e. off center).

Agreed I would try to put the shoes more toward a corner See where the sunflower is on the shot given on this blog entry on composition for example. I like the color of the bg as it reminds hiking trails but it is true that it is not the best for make the shoes pop. Probably by increasing the shadow contrast you'll be able to extract them more from the background. For "other stuff" I'd say try without before and, if you feel it is empty, try to find something that will complement the message you want to convey while balancing the picture.

Similarly the flower you added is not necessary to do still life and does not bring that much on you latest composition imo. Try to find a better place so people see it and it helps the reading or just forget it. But I also thing that the angle you have taken for the shoes in the second shot is more appealing (esp as we see the dirt providing more information about the subject I guess)

frel

By the way my latest shot posted here could receive simialr critques so don't worry

JohnBe

Thanks for all the replies. I liked my shoes as a subject but it has been tough getting an image I like. A good learning experience.