Another "invisible" flower ;)
NeilL
Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
Maybe someone likes orchids rather than tulips? :wink
#1 bluewaterlady
#2 whitemagic
#3 greenskirt
#4 deep
#5 kisspink
#6 orchidmoon
#7 glide
Yes, it's spring downunder!
Neil
#1 bluewaterlady
#2 whitemagic
#3 greenskirt
#4 deep
#5 kisspink
#6 orchidmoon
#7 glide
Yes, it's spring downunder!
Neil
"Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
0
Comments
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Well, I'll jump in and say I like these shots. I think the composition, particularly in the first one, could be improved upon. That said, though, I think getting composition right in flower shots might be a tougher task than in other cases. While still a beginner, I've gotten into growing orchids. They're amazing plants....some of their fragrances are unbelievable.
Thanks for breaking the drought, bm.
Interesting that you've gotten into growing orchids. I took these shots yesterday in the conservatory in Hobart Royal Botanical Gardens. Outside a cold front was beginning to blow through, with snow up on the mountain. But when I walked into the conservatory the air was like the air from Paradise, warm and scented with the mixed scents of hundreds of different types of orchids!
I am beginning to feel that shooting flowers is the same as shooting portraits, the same rules and techniques. The same aims, even. Just as a super closeup portrait is quite different in character to a head and shoulders, to a full length, so it is with flowers. You see a different thing depending on the crop.
Yes, there is something offbeat about these compositions, they are not entirely conventional, but I hope they come through, with the processing style too, with a feel for the nature of those flowers.
Thanks for your comment.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
C'mon guys, thumbs up or thumbs down?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Good on yer, mate!
Wouldn't care to elaborate, would you? What you like, what you don't like?
Thanks.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
A quality flower picture is a fine thing. Which leaves me wondering if I have
actually ever taken one in all the times I have ever tried.
Still, I persist for that time or two that may yet come for me.
Meanwhile I'll just lurk and see what comes up for you and ponder methods
and outcomes seen here and there... like yours.
Thanks, Michael. I was talking to someone today (owner of the Goulburn Street Gallery in Hobart, and photographer) while looking at these (I've now edited the imperfections I can see in them, like the too-bright petal upper right, the bit of crud on the coloured part of the central lower petal and the specular spots in the third photo - DGrin always shows me the faults!), and he mentioned Mapplethorpe's flowers. It is a long time since I saw those photos. Then I come and read your comment, Michael, and I'm reminded of Mapplethorpe again!
So I went and had a look at his flowers again. Mapplethorpe shot his flowers as decorative objects in a studio with studio lighting, backdrops and props. In doing that he removed them from the vegetable kingdom and brought them half-dead into his fetish factory. At the same time, he expected the viewer to see these abstracts as his homage to primal instinct and subconscious life. Well, there is a nice contradiction, I should say.
Without intending to place these shots of mine in competition with Mapplethorpe's icons, I would point out that for my shots I went to where the plant was living and used the same light that fed it. The being that I photograph is in the context which gives it its identity - leaves, other flowers, soil, water. Those things, not studio hardware, create the glows and the shadows in which the flower appears. What I see in these images of mine is the mystery of a creature as alive as me in the same world, but so alien. Unlike Mapplethorpe I don't make it a symbol of me and my life. I look at it without destroying the devide between it and me. It is the devide that fascinates me.
I said a couple of comments up that I am beginning to approach portraits and flowers in a similar way, and what I say above about flowers relates to portratis as well. How often do we see that a photographer creates a "product" for his own purposes using the image of a person! I think it is less narcissistic, and narcissism is the whole of Mapplethorpe, and more valuable to capture the mystery, the devide between the subject and the viewer, just as with flowers.
What do you say? What flower photographs do you admire?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I've not had exposure to Mapplethorpe's works, but I have often seen a similar approach taken by a photographer / artist I know. She does a beautiful job: exquisite mountain flowers, staged wonderfully to highlight their particular appeal, and all presented in a masterfully orchestrated fashion.....and just about as sterile as they can be. There's no sense of life. Beautiful art work? Definitely. But there's no feeling of connection to " reality " there for me.
We all bring our individual prejudices and artistic inclinations to our work....can't be avoided no matter how hard we may try. Our best work results when we recognize that truism and and operate within it's framework. One of my hangups is that I like to see things as a totality; no partial shots. When viewing flowers, I want to see the central blossom of attention presented in its fullness. I suffer the same restriction when I'm doing the shooting.....come hell or high water, I'm going to show the complete bloom of the central " character ". In real life, I see the entire blossom and my prejudices make me want to see it in a picture. There are certainly instances, as in macro work to emphasize delicate details, where this predilection of mine doesn't hold up.
My self-imposed inhibitors don't keep me from appreciating the colors and textures of these beautiful flowers you have presented. They do, however, leave me feeling somewhat unfulfilled. And that's a shame. I wish I could shed these cords that bind me.
I'm looking forward to seeing more from you in this vein.
Tom
I've been talking about the similarities that I feel there are between portraits and flower photography. It's one of those personal individual "prejudices" that you can develop, just as you describe, Tom. Not everyone is going to understand or value my particular approach in this matter. I reckon, however, that all my verbalising is incidental, and that if an image has a powerful enough "voice", it will be heard by even the deafest ears. In other words, I think my job here is not to bash viewers over the head with a manifesto, but to shoot the subject in such a way that the subject speaks for itself.
When I was there shooting these flowers, I found myself more and more drawn in to a closer and closer view. This is exactly what these flowers are designed to do in the case of insects, draw the insect into their centres with irresistible colour, perfume and design. Amazingly the same thing was happening with me! These flowers have a siren's power to lure with their secret intimacy. Some people have the same power, and I don't need to be too graphic in describing what that leads to!
So I started with more of the complete flower in the viewfinder, and ended with the lens fertilising the flower, I swear!:D The longer shots and the intimate shots speak differently, the same as the way very tight crops in portraits do compared with half and full body shots. Same things are there, but the "voice" is quite different. Don't people speak differently when you are close in and intimate?
You both have made me search for some middle point of view, the "face' as well as the "lips".
Thanks.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I really like the first 2. It's the colors are drawing me in, but #2 is my favorite
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Thanks, Mary! I also like #2, it has the most "charm" (as in witch's) for me.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Well, I can't deny you!
Now there are five! Catching up with the comments.:D
#5 "kisspink" is dedicated to Stephany and Tom, who inspired me. Thank you, guys!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Doug
http://dougsphotos.smugmug.com/
<o:p></o:p>
Kisspink is a winner. In my eyes, the photo is perfect in every way. You have captured its beauty, sensuality, strength… It is truly lovely. American Orchid Society (AOS) should publish it. <o:p></o:p>
I also enjoy taking pictures of orchids. They are amazing flowers, can't wait for the local orchid show at the gardens by me next year.
www.munchkinphotos.smugmug.com
I really don't know anything about a flowers sensuality, lips or face...
but I do like image #5
Tnx for the encouragement, Doug!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thought you might like it, Stephany!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Thanks for your very nice comments!
Orchids are a tropical creature, and have a more "latex" look and feel than the tissuey higher latitude, colder climate flowers. I think that comes through with the heavier shadow and colour treatment I have used. Glowing in deep shadow is part of their nature. What do you think?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
That's a good observation about #2, thanks. I can see it now, and appreciate that one a little more (being sold on my own stuff is a very temporary state of mind for me).
If we take it in turns as the seasons change, Heather, Dgrin will have orchids all year!rofl
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Well, glad I hit "the spot" with that one, Randy!wink:D
Appreciate your comment!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
(Seriously, Randy's Rose isn't half bad. Do you think he's a bit of a dark horse?)
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Acknowledging my prior-stated personal preference, I have a lot more affinity for those shots wherein the primary blossom of interest is presented in its entirety....as is the case here.
A word to the wise: Keep a close eye on Randy....he's a crafty dude and will be on you before you know it.
Tom
<o:p></o:p>
my friend likes the velvety look and colors of #2, and the composition of #5. May I ask why most flower photos use black background? Is there a technical reason for going that route? <o:p></o:p>
PS: I have been trying to Google Cymbidium ‘orchidmoon’, ‘kisspink’, etc. but these crosses do not seem to exist. <o:p></o:p>
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks for the feedback, Stephany, there's nothing like it as fuel for thought and inspiration!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
My titles are only my pet names for these images.:D
Here is the original of #6 (well a tiny and approximate jpg). You can see that the bg is the natural setting. Behind the plant there is shadow. The processing I used (which includes a version of Benjamin Kanarek's basic fashion formula) has the effect of pushing the bg into shadow. The original was very pretty. Whether my development is more interesting and pleasing is a matter of personal taste.
I'd be really interested in your opinion. And of other viewers, of course!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
Yes, the original plant is simply stunning, I think. Would love to have one. Thank you muchly for telling me how the bg is done. <o:p></o:p>