Intolerance
Gerry Roston
which is the attempted (and possibly succesful) banning of
Maplethorpe's work in Cincinnati, OH. The art director of the
musuem is being tried on two counts of obscenity, or some such.
Anyway, let's begin: Personally, I am not a fan of Maplethorpe.
I have seen one of his books, and the photos, while definitely
dramatic and artistic, don't float my boat. Furthermore, I find
his homo-erotic photos to be distasteful (at best). However, I
strongly believe that these items are art, and that for the
government to ban them is WRONG (actually wrong just barely
begins to describe how strongly I feel about this). As Voltaire
once said, "I disagree with what you say; but I will, until my
death, defend your right to say it." I believe that this attitude,
which is the embodiment of our First Admendment has been lost.
Being the optimist that I am, I would have thought that the
increase communication world-wide would have made people more
aware of their neighbor, and would have made folks more tolerant
of one another. However, we find that just the opposite is
occuring. People are using this medium to flaunt their
intolerance and demand that the world change to meet their view
points. I give as examples: the resurgence of fundemental
religion both in our country and abroad, the abortion "debate",
the increased membership in/vocalization of hate groups such as
the KKK and the American Nazis and now this furor over an art
exhibit. It is my belief that this intolerance of our fellow
man will lead to the destruction of society as it now exists.
Many community cable television networks now refuse to make the
Playbot channel available to their subscribers because of
pressure by local groups. At the same time religious channels
and programs proliferate. In my mind, I find the religious
programming to be offensive and the Playboy Channel's
programming to be at least moderately entertaining. However, I
do not demand that the religious programming be stricken from
the ether, rather I ask that a variety of programming be made
available for all to view at their discretion. Unfortunately,
we are seeing what Jean Jacques Rosseau warned us about two
centuries ago, when he spoke of "the tryanny of the majority".
Certain people will argue that these "offensive" channels are
not broadcast so as to protect the children. I have two
responses for that: First, we should ask the TV manufacturers
for some mechanism to lock out certain channels, ans Second, I
strongly believe that the religious programming is more damaging
to children than the other alternatives which are presented.
(Back to the original point, if parents are concerned about
their children viewing "offensive" photos at the Maplethorpe
exhibit, maybe they should consider a small alcove with "those"
pictures, and not admit children under the age of 16 without
parental escort.)
The notion of what is offensive, vulgar or obscene is a function
of the society. Our's is founded on the freedom of religion and
ideals, however, this appears to be words only. We habitually
proscribe actions because they are rejected by the Bible and for
no other reason. Take for instance, prostitution. It is
illegal solely for religious reasons. Let's be honest,
prostitution is not bad, if the two individuals are consenting
adults, why shouldn't they be allowed to do as they please?
(The question of why a person wants to become/seek the services
of a prostitute is an entirely different issue.)
In sumamry, I am concerned about the growing intolerance in the
world, and the increasing belief in dogmatism, which I feel will
destroy society as we know it. When the government starts
defining what is art and what isn't, we can see the first cracks
in the dam, which is holding back the tyranny of the "righteous"
majority. Those of us who see this as wrong must do everything
in out power NOW, to prevent this actions from occuring. For if
we don't take action now, the future may be lost.
--
gerry roston, field robotics center
robotics institute, carnegie mellon university
pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557
ge...@cive.ri.cmu.edu
Matthew Turk
complex) issues. Let's please stick to things more relevant to
rec.photo here! Thanks....
Matthew
paqu...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
This issue is vital to anyone who is interested in art and photography
and belongs on this list!! Why? Simple; if the state begins to
control what we can produce for public consumption then photographerrs
either amatuer or professional will be subjected to that control and
the pictures we take subject to someone else's approval not on
technical merit but on subject matter. This is a situation that is
intolerable and could even effect the photos in the photo swap.
As the photo swap is a topic on the list anything that effects it is
also a topic.
Bob Ewing
St. John's, Nfld.
donl mathis
By all means! Forthwith, all topics other than the following are to be
considered inappropriate, and are *banned* from rec.photo:
1) Which lens should i buy for my 35mm camera?
2) Which 35mm camera should i buy? Why is it better?
3) Which tripod head should i buy?
4) Why don't we have yet another short-lived attempt at discussing
the artistic aspects of photography, instead of just equipment all
the time?
5) Photoswap information and reviews.
--
- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Andy Cassino
posting:
| I think there are other forums to discuss these important (and
| complex) issues. Let's please stick to things more relevant to
| rec.photo here! Thanks....
| ----------
Somehow, I can't help but think that some smiley faces got left off.
Objecting to a discussion in rec.photo about attempts to control the viewing
of photographs seems... well... intolerant. And awfully ironic.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Andy Cassino %
% uucp: hplabs!hplsla!andyc domain: andyc%hpl...@hplabs.hp.com %
% Hewlett-Packard Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
% 8600 Soper Hill Road Everett, WA 98205-1298 %
% (206) 335-2211 %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
k.d.tentarelli
>
>By all means! Forthwith, all topics other than the following are to be
>considered inappropriate, and are *banned* from rec.photo:
Donl, your frustration comes through loud and clear. There are many
photographic topics which just don't seem to get discussed here
at all.
Topics like - within about the past three years lighting used by the
big names in portrait/glamour photography has changed drastically. Three
years ago they all used the softest possible lighting; now hard
lighting is the vogue. Are net members also gravitating toward hard
lighting for portraits? Will this be a short-lived trend? What will the
next trend be ?
Another - recently I saw a nature slide show. Beautiful pictures of animals,
plants, and landscapes. But eventually a certain similarity became
overwhelming. There were front-lit flowers and side-lit flowers, etc. but
all were for-the-record flower shots. What techniques do net members
use to put variety in their flower (mushroom, or whatever) shots ? What
works well to give variety without being to gimmicky? What triggers you to
take for-record shots as opposed to shots composed strictly for impact, or do
you always do both?
Don't give up Donl. Someday there will be enough people eager to
discuss these kinds of things.
Ken
David Kassover
>> I think there are other forums to discuss these important (and
>> complex) issues. Let's please stick to things more relevant to
>> rec.photo here! Thanks....
>By all means! Forthwith, all topics other than the following are to be
>considered inappropriate, and are *banned* from rec.photo:
> 1) Which lens should i buy for my 35mm camera?
> 2) Which 35mm camera should i buy? Why is it better?
> 3) Which tripod head should i buy?
> 4) Why don't we have yet another short-lived attempt at discussing
> the artistic aspects of photography, instead of just equipment all
> the time?
> 5) Photoswap information and reviews.
I'm going to lead with my chin here, and assume that there were
intended to be some :-) in the above...
Having struck us all dumb with the first blow, here's the second:
In gross violation of #2:
I'm considering getting into medium format photography, and I'd
appreciate some pointers based on the following background.
I have 3 35mm SLR camera bodies, 7 lenses, assorted goodies
like flash, tripod, lens attachments, etc.
I prefer a not-square format. 6x7 or 6x4.5 is preferable
I'd like an eye-level metering finder.
Extreme electronicness and/or automation is not necessary
I will probably want a couple of lenses besides normal,
but not necessarily right away.
I don't mind buying used equipment (my house is already
mortgaged :-), but would want to avoid buying into a soon to be
obsoleted system (All my 35mm stuff is pentax screw mount)
I don't have strong brand prejudice, but out of all of my
35mm stuff, I'm most happy with the Pentax.
Thanks in advance
Dave
--
===================================================
David Kassover
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
kass...@crd.ge.com
Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan
> big names in portrait/glamour photography has changed drastically. Three
> years ago they all used the softest possible lighting; now hard
> lighting is the vogue. Are net members also gravitating toward hard
> lighting for portraits? Will this be a short-lived trend? What will the
> next trend be ?
>
doing? If I wanted to figure out why/when/where/how Mapplethorpe
or others used particular lighting styles, I'd go out and fork
over the dough for their books (and go broke in the process).
Don't sit around jawwing about when/where/how someone is starting
a trend, get up start one yourself!
I want to hear about what the people in this group (rec.photo)
are doing! When you are standing around talking to other photogs,
do you say stuff like: "Gee, I really like what Herb Ritts is
doing with soft light these days."? Hell no, you talk about each
other's experiences. That's the kind of stuff I would like to
talk about here in rec.photo! I like to read about people who
hike their 4x5's up mountains in Yellowstone and get their film
holders stolen by grizzly bears! :-) I want to here about/from
your experience, not about what so-and-so, who is doing the
covers of Time-Life-Playboy this month, probably thinks about
such-and-such a topic.
Down with the 'big guys', let's hear what you people are doing!
I think one of the reasons that 'conceptual' topic discussions
die quickly in this group is that 'conceptual' stories are
pretty dry and boring to most of us. War stories are much
more interesting...
Tim Henrion
t...@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim
donl mathis
> Donl, your frustration comes through loud and clear. There are many
[Actually, i'm not all that frustrated; i just don't take all this stuff
all that seriously! I mean, it's just for fun, right? :) ]
> within about the past three years lighting used by the
> big names in portrait/glamour photography has changed drastically. Three
> years ago they all used the softest possible lighting; now hard
> lighting is the vogue. Are net members also gravitating toward hard
> lighting for portraits? Will this be a short-lived trend? What will the
> next trend be ?
This "new trend" of which you speak looks yucky. I think it goes something
like this.
Start with most everybody making the same kind of photographs; they all
look the same. A small minority of photographers are always on the ball,
and see the sameness, and declare "i will be different". (Not always better,
but at least different.) They make different photographs, and in some
cases, the crowd follows along, and everything looks the same again, except
that the photographs who were being different have now moved on to something
else entirely, and are having a swell time being creative while everybody
else has their head down looking through the viewfinder. Then they have
to change film, and come up for air, and notice, "Hey, everybody's doing
this, but those creative guys are doing something else. *I* can do that,
too! And they follow along.
Me, i don't care much, because i don't usually *like* creative, different
photography that is just different for the sake of differentness. I don't
care to be shocked, and i don't care about photographs who sole purpose for
being is to make me say "My, that photographer is different".
I don't think there every can be a lot of creative photography going on all
at the same time, percentage wise, because good ideas are hard to come by.
Somebody gets more than one per life time, somebody else never gets one,
somebody usually follows along in a pleasant way, and sometime gets lucky.
That's ok. I value photography that serves such a simple role as setting
the atmosphere for a room. Give me cliche sun rays through a majestic
redwood forest over gritty, grimy contact prints of some wacko subject
on type 55 negatives with the perforations still showing any day! I'll
tell you which i'd rather hang on the wall of my office! And i'll tell
you which one looks, well, "better". I don't pontificate much these
days.
- donl
Pauline Ts'o
>
>Another - recently I saw a nature slide show. Beautiful pictures of animals,
>plants, and landscapes. But eventually a certain similarity became
>overwhelming. There were front-lit flowers and side-lit flowers, etc. but
>all were for-the-record flower shots. What techniques do net members
>use to put variety in their flower (mushroom, or whatever) shots ? What
>works well to give variety without being to gimmicky? What triggers you to
>take for-record shots as opposed to shots composed strictly for impact, or do
>you always do both?
>
Abstraction works (for awhile, at least) - abstraction through macro
photography, abstraction through deliberate camera movements. Is this too
gimmicky?
Actually, I haven't taken a flower shot for quite a while because I haven't
been able to think of a way to shoot them that I haven't seen done at least
a dozen times before.
Does anyone else get that feeling that it's all been done before?
--
Pauline Ts'o | Careful the things you say, children
Rhythm & Hues, Inc. | will listen.
INTERNET: celia!t...@usc.edu | Careful the things you do, children
UUCP: ...{lll-tis,mlogic}!celia!tso | will see. -- Stephen Sondheim
Rob Hasker
>Actually, I haven't taken a flower shot for quite a while because I haven't
>been able to think of a way to shoot them that I haven't seen done at least
>a dozen times before.
>
>Does anyone else get that feeling that it's all been done before?
>--
[Those who read rec.photo for equipment info, hit `j' now :-).]
I've been doing some musing about this lately, partly because I've
noticed that I like some of my flower pictures much better than those
I see in the magazines done by leading photographers. I doubt it's
because my pictures really are that much better; it's probably
because (1) I took them and (2) they remind me of what I saw through
the viewfinder before I tripped the shutter. The picture becomes
interesting to others only when they see what I saw was interesting
about the flower. Often this is the way some leaf curls around, the
light, or the particular angle I used. Usually I use the flower to
add color and form, sort of as a very nice backdrop to whatever I'm
really taking pictures of.
I've come to the conclusion that it is a mistake to try to do
something new such that its newness is immediately apparent to others
(especially non-photographers). In fact, it's probably a mistake for
me to try to produce the world's best flower picture. My goal is to
make a picture that _I_ like.
This relates to a comment made in rec.photo almost a year ago (around
July 4) about taking pictures of fireworks. Someone said it was
smarter to just sit back and enjoy the show because so many good
pictures of fireworks had been taken that we mere mortals shouldn't
bother trying to improve upon them. I seriously doubt I'll ever
publish a fireworks picture, but that doesn't mean I should leave my
camera at home. At the very least, I should be able to get some
pictures showing why I enjoyed the show. Hopefully this goes beyond
making touristy snapshots, and possibly I'll get lucky some day and
get a shot that conveys what I thought was interesting to others
besides my immediate family.
In other words, the reason I take pictures is because I like the
results and I enjoy it. I suppose most photographers (and many
artists) have the same reasons. So worrying about doing something
``new'' (relative to the rest of the world) is the wrong goal. I
guess this boils down to saying that the way to make a picture others
want to look at is to make one that means something to you, something
that good artists have been saying all along. (So what I'm saying
isn't really new after all :-).
[Before someone flames me, I suspect that Pauline Ts'o meant to include
a :-) above, but that doesn't mean the issue isn't important.]
--
Rob Hasker University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
has...@cs.uiuc.edu {uunet|convex|pur-ee}!uiucdcs!hasker
Troy Bennet
>> big names in portrait/glamour photography has changed drastically. Three
>> years ago they all used the softest possible lighting; now hard
>> lighting is the vogue. Are net members also gravitating toward hard
>> lighting for portraits? Will this be a short-lived trend? What will the
>> next trend be ?
>
>This "new trend" of which you speak looks yucky. I think it goes something
>like this.
>
>Start with most everybody making the same kind of photographs; they all
>look the same. A small minority of photographers are always on the ball,
>and see the sameness, and declare "i will be different". (Not always better,
>but at least different.) They make different photographs, and in some
>cases, the crowd follows along, and everything looks the same again, except
>that the photographs who were being different have now moved on to something
>else entirely, and are having a swell time being creative while everybody
>else has their head down looking through the viewfinder. Then they have
>to change film, and come up for air, and notice, "Hey, everybody's doing
>this, but those creative guys are doing something else. *I* can do that,
>too! And they follow along.
Stuff deleted
>
>- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
>
>do...@sgi.com
Interesting analysis Don. I see a similar trend with other Fine Arts too.
One point is important in this cycle. The art directors who are usually in
ultimate control of an AD or magazine are the ones who choose the style or
look of what they are doing. There could be a myriad of "New Looks"
happening at the same time as the "Hard" or "Soft" but the one that gets on
the cover is the style that will have the farther reaching impact. Politics
plays a very big role in the "Creative World" or as Tom Wolfe would call it
"Le Monde"
I guess that what I am ultimately trying to say is that following
a creative movement is not always mindless. It is if you do it just to be
hip. Do what is truely fullfilling to you and you will be happy. Who knows,
maybe YOU will start a new trend.
As far as portraiture goes, I think
that the type of portrait is important. A high school portrait is a very
different type of portrait compared to Anrnold Neuman's Igor Stravinsky
portrait. For me, portraiture should adapt to both the situation and the
person being shot (click as opposed to bang! :^}) When I shoot weddings I am
trying to render events and people faithfully to reality. I have freedom to
compose and light to a limited degree. When I shoot portraits of my son I
try to show both his innocents and his developing personality in a way that
also carrys my mark. I want the photo to suggest more than what is there.
Let's explore this topic some more folks! Esthetics is an important part of
photography too.
troyb
Dave Hickernell
>Are net members also gravitating toward hard lighting for portraits?
>Will this be a short-lived trend? What will the next trend be ?
Great topic!
Just to kick things off, have you seen what donl mathis is doing these days?
Dave Hickernell: hickernell%nwaces....@decwrl.dec.com
- or - ...!decwrl!nwaces.enet.dec.com!hickernell
Sorry about this... I couldn't resist. I do appreciate how frustrating it
can be to discuss a visual medium. And donl, ain't it great to be back?
Zoltan Levay
> Abstraction works (for awhile, at least) - abstraction through macro
> photography, abstraction through deliberate camera movements. Is this too
> gimmicky?
>
> Actually, I haven't taken a flower shot for quite a while because I haven't
> been able to think of a way to shoot them that I haven't seen done at least
> a dozen times before.
>
> Does anyone else get that feeling that it's all been done before?
I frequently get that feeling. Sometimes it frustrates me and
sometimes I just say "so what?" It sort of boils down to the reasons
we take pictures. Personally, I think my motivation is a desire to
capture some of the things I see, or think I see. If there is a
particularly pleasing condition of light, or texture, or whatever, I
desparately want to get it in a photograph, despite the fact that it's
usually impossible to do so at the time. It also turns out that even
if I do get the opportunity to take the picture, the result may not be
what I visualized, for a variety of reasons (I usually attribute this
to not enough opportunity to practice :-).
Anyway, I have taken a lot of pictures of flowers. I consider a few to
be successful. Abstraction by getting close (macro) can be quite
effective and is no gimmick. Form, color, and texture are accentuated
by particular conditions of lighting. In particular, backlighting can
be very powerful. I find subtleties of color or contrasting colors to
be quite effective.
By the way, take a look a the latest issue of Outdoor Photographer.
There is an article about photographing gardens and flowers -- some nice
pictures.
--
Zolt
"f/8 and be there!" Bill Garrett
Geoff Allen
>I ruined a roll of film through failure to advance (improper loading).
I did the same thing a few years ago on my honeymoon in Yellowstone
National Park. Talk about a major bummer.
(The lab that processed the rest of my film also screwed up one of my
rolls while processing. I got a nice letter of apology from them and a
replacement roll of film, but it didn't quite make up for it,
knowwhatimean? If it hadn't been for my wife and her sure-shot, we'd
have had some gaps in our documentation of the honeymoon.)
>[good checklist for loading film]
One item to add to your list:
Tear off the end of the film box and put it in the holder thingy
(don't know its ``real'' name) on the back of your camera,
replacing whatever was there before.
I have a tendency to just leave the old one in. This is no problem if
you're using the same film, same speed, and same number of exposures,
but if you change one of these variables and don't change the box end,
you're courting trouble.
>I've done this precisely twice in 20 years or so of photography. It
>doesn't pay to get lazy and hurry and skip basic precautions.
Agreed. I've only done one ``phantom roll.'' I hope that was enough!
--
Geoff Allen \ Many people come, looking, looking,
uunet!pmafire!geoff \ taking picture.... No good....
bigtex!pmafire!geoff \ Some people come, see. Good!
\ -- Nepalese Sherpa, quoted by Galen Rowell
Brian Godfrey
-big names in portrait/glamour photography has changed drastically. Three
-years ago they all used the softest possible lighting; now hard
-lighting is the vogue. Are net members also gravitating toward hard
-lighting for portraits? Will this be a short-lived trend? What will the
-next trend be ?
Most people are not glamorous. I have found that most people like light
that "makes them look good." I recently photographed a somewhat heavy woman
who was just overjoyed that my shot seemed to eliminate her double chin. It
really did de-emphasize her double chin because my umbrella was lower than
that of other photographers and the shadow wasn't in the wrong place for a
normal chin (tell-tale sign of a double chin) because there wasn't any
shadow cast on her neck at all. I wish I could say that I am so smart that
I did this deliberately, but the truth is that the lightstand was as high
as it would go. I did learn from it, though.
When I shoot my mushrooms I usually use flash and try to make the lighting
convey the personality of the mushrooms. I have found that they look best in
hard, directional light for the most part - sometimes back, sometimes
sidelight - although for a record shot I would definitely recommend diffuse
flash or natural light.
Actually, I don't think I have every tried deliberately using hardlight
for formal portraits. Just on-camera flash for snapshots.
I don't generally follow trends. I just experiment and attempt to repeat
what appeals to me. Unfortunately that doesn't always work so well. I still
think the first two side/back lit mushroom photos I took were the best. (I
think one of them made it into a portfolio, but not the best print I have
made of it.) The light of creativity is the most important light of all.
--
--Brian M. Godfrey
Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
{uunet|ogicse|tektronix}!sequent!brian
sequent!br...@cse.ogi.edu -or- br...@sequent.UUCP
Pauline Ts'o
>In article <6...@celia.UUCP>, t...@celia.UUCP (Pauline Ts'o) writes:
>>
>> Actually, I haven't taken a flower shot for quite a while because I haven't
>> been able to think of a way to shoot them that I haven't seen done at least
>> a dozen times before.
>>
>> Does anyone else get that feeling that it's all been done before?
>
>I frequently get that feeling. Sometimes it frustrates me and
>sometimes I just say "so what?" It sort of boils down to the reasons
>we take pictures. Personally, I think my motivation is a desire to
>capture some of the things I see, or think I see. If there is a
>particularly pleasing condition of light, or texture, or whatever, I
>desparately want to get it in a photograph, despite the fact that it's
>usually impossible to do so at the time. It also turns out that even
>if I do get the opportunity to take the picture, the result may not be
>what I visualized, for a variety of reasons (I usually attribute this
>to not enough opportunity to practice :-).
Hmmm, maybe we CAN get a non-equipment discussion to continue.
Someone else replied that he thought I might only be joking when I made the
above comment. Would you settle for half-joking?
Here's my theory:
There are three reasons to take photographs (give or take):
1) to learn or understand ways of seeing that are new to the
photographer,
2) to communicate ways of seeing to others,
3) to make money.
My hypothesis is that for reason #1, having a different style (way of seeing)
is NOT relevant. It is perfectly within the scope of #1 to photograph in
the style of Ansel Adams, Mapplethorpe, Eugene Smith, whomever or a totally
new style, because reason #1 is a PRIVATE motivation. Whatever you want to
do for yourself is fine by you.
Reasons #2 and #3 are PUBLIC motivations. Reason #2 is by definition and
reason #3 is because someone else has to give you the money. Because they
are, having a different style DOES matter TO A DEGREE because now the
photographer is reaching for public forums. Whether a photographer's work
gains access to the public, in the form of galleries, magazines, postcards,
camera club exhibits, whatever, does depend on whether the photographer has
a way of seeing that would interest some part of the public. Being
different is one way to attract interest.
It also helps to have connections. :-)
Mind you, I'm not trying to pass value judgements on which reason is "better".
Comments?
Bob Wakehouse
> 1) to learn or understand ways of seeing that are new to the
> photographer,
> 2) to communicate ways of seeing to others,
> 3) to make money.
I'd say those three reasons could be expanded to many, or reduced to two.
Personally, I'd prefer reducing them to:
1. To gain something directly from photography.
To learn (for its own sake); to change perspectives ("see
differently"); to record events for posterity; and such.
2. To gain something from other sources.
To trade photographs for cash; to show photographs for praise;
to maintain the "photographer" title for prestige; and such.
I don't see any reason that 1 and 2 can't successfully overlap or coexist
in the same photographer or photograph.
I think of art as doing something new, or in a new way, particularly
relative to the artist. If an artist does something new, I'd consider it
art, even if it is then discovered that the "new" thing had been done before.
If a person consciously does an excellent imitation Picasso, I'd probably not
consider it art. That may seem like a bit of arbitrary line-drawing, but I
think the results of art imitating rarely, and maybe never, contain real
artistry, whereas unintentionally duplicated art will probably contain
artistry even if the result seems very familiar.
A work of art need be unique and original in, say, every grain of silver.
It may consciously duplicate parts of other artistry, and still fully
qualify as art.
I don't think that artistic photography of flowers has dead-ended, nor that
it is likely to do so. Imitations may flood the market, and individual
artists may dead-end on flowers, but neither herald the death of photo-
graphic flower art. I don't think art has ever been common or easy to
produce, but it's always been available.
Bob Wakehouse
Beaverton, Oregon
(503)627-6469
b...@cheetah.USS.TEK.COM
Brian Godfrey
>
> Actually, I haven't taken a flower shot for quite a while because I haven't
> been able to think of a way to shoot them that I haven't seen done at least
> a dozen times before.
Here's one that I haven't seen done, but probably has been: do a double
exposure of a flower with bright pedals and dark center portion as the 1st
exposure and a person in the center as the second exposure. Looks kind of
neat. Gimmicky if you are into being kool, but can be a nice effect.
What are your standard flower shots? I would say that the following are
fairly common, though if well done I do not find them tiring to look at from
time to time.
1) Flowers in closeup with background dark green and blurred.
2) Macros of flower parts.
3) Macros of flowers with bugs on them.
4) Flowers in "still life" scenes.
5) Flower gardens.
6) Fields of flowers.
7) Flowers growing in/out-of unusual places.
8) Flowers placed in unexpected places (like in barrel of gun, etc.)
> Does anyone else get that feeling that it's all been done before?
Yeah, but it doesn't bother me. I am pretty independent minded and decide
for myself what is good and what is bad. If I am trying to please myself, it
matters little if it's been done before. Most people don't *study* art or
photography. On the occasions when I happen to be concerned with what pleases
others, I am usually surprised to find that mediocre photos fare quite well.
Tom Gardner
> Actually, I haven't taken a flower shot for quite a while because I haven't
> been able to think of a way to shoot them that I haven't seen done at least
> a dozen times before.
>
Ever tried 3D? The major problem is that although you can see the flower,
you can neither touch nor smell it.