Comments wanted.
Joe Addona
I am an amateur photographer who until now has been mainly interested in
sports. I have had some success with sports (I actually got some work
published), but I am looking to get into landscape/nature/flower
photography.
I have started reading up on this and realize I have a lot to learn. The
comments from people who have done this before is very valuable. To that end
I have posted 4 photos of flowers that I took at a recent trip to our
botanical gardens. Your comments and critique is greatly appreciated,
especially in the area of composition, angle, color, etc.... And please, if
you don't like them - say why. I won't learn anything from comments like
"they S%$#%".
Thanks in advance,
Joe
All pictures were taken with a Nikon D100 and Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens @
f2.8
http://www.jmatecharch.com/photo/img_001.htm
http://www.jmatecharch.com/photo/img_002.htm
http://www.jmatecharch.com/photo/img_003.htm
http://www.jmatecharch.com/photo/img_004.htm
Berry
space around your subject ie remove distracting backgound objects so that
the space around your subject is more symetrical and complementary in colour
and/or contrast. Just a notion.
Jack
com
Other than that, nothing.
Try first to get b&w pics where you won't be helped by the ahhhs and ohhhs of
colors then, gradually, go back to color.
Anyway, Achile's heel is still the b&w photography where you have to depict
colors through shades of grey.
So far, no art in ant of them; the only art is Mother Nature's creation and
motion freezed by your pics.
Lee
In article <AIbg9.7332$EZ2.2...@wagner.videotron.net>,
caddi...@videotron.ca says...
Rachael Nex
"Berry" <drb...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Lsdg9.312778$Ag2.15...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
I would agree. Though with plants you can't always do this (they tend to
grow where they want to, not where you want them to). Obviously looking for
better blooms composition-wise is the best idea - but sometimes this clashes
with the quality of blooms - i.e. a good one in a good composition space
might not be a good flower - it could be slightly damaged or dying or
whatever.
Some subtle touch-ups in post processing can sort this out - the clone tool
in your phot editing program (for getting rid of unwanted background
clutter - though obviously this doesn't always work - in the case of
composition errors or prettying up blooms in the case of petal damage) is
your friend ! I went to a botanical garden this weekend and have a few shots
that need abit of tweaking in this area. I find the more I do this sort of
editing the better I get at it - so give it a whirl (if you haven't already,
this is) and see how you get on. It can sometimes turn a good shot into a
great shot. Getting rid of the background clutter in your shots would
certainly improve them no end, IMHO.
Rachael
Rachael Nex
<l...@attbi.dot. com (Lee)> wrote in message
news:7rgg9.252282$kp.8...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> All your pics are neat, clean, vibrant and...they have lots of colors.
> Other than that, nothing.
> Try first to get b&w pics where you won't be helped by the ahhhs and ohhhs
of
> colors then, gradually, go back to color.
> Anyway, Achile's heel is still the b&w photography where you have to
depict
> colors through shades of grey.
> So far, no art in ant of them; the only art is Mother Nature's creation
and
> motion freezed by your pics.
Always an interesting point, is "art", in photography of static things. What
is art ? How do we define it ? What makes a picture have "art" over one that
isn't ?
I often wonder if I'm getting any "art" in my shots. Is it the same thing as
"having the eye" ? Some people say I "have the eye" but I'm not sure. How
would I know ? I think I know something with "art" when I see it, but I
don't exactly know how to define it.
What do you guys think - what do you define as "art" in photography ? Could
you look at two pictures side by side and say "That one has art, the other
doesn't" and then say why ?
Discuss !
Rachael
Marvin Margoshes
side-lighting because it leaves shadows in the front, but the shadows in
your pix add to the composition. I've learned something about photographing
flowers.
"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:AIbg9.7332$EZ2.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
Marvin Margoshes
side-lighting because it leaves shadows in the front, but the shadows in
your pix add to the composition. I've learned something about photographing
flowers.
"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:AIbg9.7332$EZ2.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
Gordon Gekko
> Always an interesting point, is "art", in photography of static things. What
> is art ? How do we define it ? What makes a picture have "art" over one that
> isn't ?
>
> I often wonder if I'm getting any "art" in my shots. Is it the same thing as
> "having the eye" ? Some people say I "have the eye" but I'm not sure. How
> would I know ? I think I know something with "art" when I see it, but I
> don't exactly know how to define it.
Art is anything that's displayed in an art museum or an art gallery.
If you can imagine your picture being in a display in an art gallery,
then it's art. Hint: a picture of your kid playing soccer ain't art.
Frank S
Neither is a picture of Sunday In The Park By George, unless . . .
--
Frank S
Tom Pfeiffer
composition was exactly the same in every shot, same perspective, same
relative subject size and position. You show a good understanding of the use
of sidelighting, now try for some alternate framing techniques.
Tom P.
"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:AIbg9.7332$EZ2.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
Ron Hunter
It COULD be, if it communicates something beyond the representation of the
specific object. Much of what is art is in the eye of the beholder.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Rob Davison
"Rachael Nex" <often...@theendofthebar.com> wrote:
[...]
> Always an interesting point, is "art", in photography of static things. What
> is art ? How do we define it ? What makes a picture have "art" over one that
> isn't ?
I'd say that any picture that evokes reflection and/or emotion in the
person looking at it is art.
> I often wonder if I'm getting any "art" in my shots. Is it the same thing as
> "having the eye" ? Some people say I "have the eye" but I'm not sure. How
> would I know ?
If enough people tell you that you "have the eye" then I'd say it was a
fair bet that you do.
> I think I know something with "art" when I see it, but I
> don't exactly know how to define it.
Art is that which disappears when you try to define it. ;-p
> What do you guys think - what do you define as "art" in photography ? Could
> you look at two pictures side by side and say "That one has art, the other
> doesn't" and then say why ?
I think a picture can be interesting to look at and have a documentary
value without managing to be "art". The photos I like most have both
documentary and artistic value (to me).
Unfortunately if I ever manage to capture one of those it'll probably be
down to luck and practice rather than any natural ability.
> Discuss !
...and of course art is subjective, what is one mans (or womans) chalk
is another persons cheese...
Rob.
--
Rachael Nex
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vEyg9.4923$AR1.2...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Gordon Gekko wrote:>
I didn't get Gordon's post so I'll quote it through this one.
"Rachael Nex" <often...@theendofthebar.com> wrote in
> message news:<r4kg9.4892$7x3.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> >
> >>Always an interesting point, is "art", in photography of static things.
What
> >>is art ? How do we define it ? What makes a picture have "art" over one
that
> >>isn't ?
> >>
> >>I often wonder if I'm getting any "art" in my shots. Is it the same
thing as
> >>"having the eye" ? Some people say I "have the eye" but I'm not sure.
How
> >>would I know ? I think I know something with "art" when I see it, but I
> >>don't exactly know how to define it.
> >
> >
> > Art is anything that's displayed in an art museum or an art gallery.
Eeeum - that wasn't exactly what I meant. I meant what is art *in*
photography - the orignal poster who prompted my comments said there was "no
art in" the pictures under discussion. He didn't say "they are not art." You
see the difference ?
> >
> > If you can imagine your picture being in a display in an art gallery,
> > then it's art. Hint: a picture of your kid playing soccer ain't art.
<chuckle> I don't have any kids. Now, a pic of my dog playing football is
another matter entirely....
>
> It COULD be, if it communicates something beyond the representation of the
> specific object. Much of what is art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
That's what I was trying to ascertain, yeah, but what gives "art" in an
image rather than what *is* art (I think there is a difference as explained
above) - what was an individual's idea of art in photography. What makes one
shot have art yet not another ?
Rachael
Rachael Nex
"Rob Davison" <rdav...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:45629b764...@xtra.co.nz...
> In message <r4kg9.4892$7x3.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
> "Rachael Nex" <often...@theendofthebar.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Always an interesting point, is "art", in photography of static things.
What
> > is art ? How do we define it ? What makes a picture have "art" over one
that
> > isn't ?
>
> I'd say that any picture that evokes reflection and/or emotion in the
> person looking at it is art.
>
> > I often wonder if I'm getting any "art" in my shots. Is it the same
thing as
> > "having the eye" ? Some people say I "have the eye" but I'm not sure.
How
> > would I know ?
>
> If enough people tell you that you "have the eye" then I'd say it was a
> fair bet that you do.
>
> > I think I know something with "art" when I see it, but I
> > don't exactly know how to define it.
>
> Art is that which disappears when you try to define it. ;-p
>
That much I agree with for sure.
> > What do you guys think - what do you define as "art" in photography ?
Could
> > you look at two pictures side by side and say "That one has art, the
other
> > doesn't" and then say why ?
>
> I think a picture can be interesting to look at and have a documentary
> value without managing to be "art". The photos I like most have both
> documentary and artistic value (to me).
>
> Unfortunately if I ever manage to capture one of those it'll probably be
> down to luck and practice rather than any natural ability.
Oh, I dunno - the infamous emu face shot fits both those requirements as far
as I'm concerned.
>
> > Discuss !
>
> ...and of course art is subjective, what is one mans (or womans) chalk
> is another persons cheese...
>
Indeed. I suppose if we could exactly define it absolutely the world would
be a pretty boring place.
Rachael
bi...@pippinf.com
The eye of the beholder.
Art is extremely subjective. If you see art in a photograph, then
there's art in the photo.
If you don't see art there, that doesn't mean it's not there, just
that you don't see it.
Contradictory in a sense, but not in another, simply because art
itself is so subjective. Each person sees it differently.