”Parting Words from Moristotle” (07/31/2023) tells how to access our archives of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues, essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….
Usually, when I try artistic filters on a photo, one or two of the effects are far more appealing than the other eight or so. This photo was amazing in that most of the effects were very appealing (to me, at any rate). And I discovered with this photo that you could even apply the filters additively (which should have been obvious, but I'd never tried it). For example, the second photo has been "sponged," and the fourth "smudge-sticked." The one in between (the third) has had the smudge stick version sponged, and I prefer it personally to the sponged version of the original (the second). The initial smudge-sticking seems to have softened the effect of the sponge. (I see that I need to caption each photo to make this easier to follow.)
I think you can get more gratifying flower photos if you make the your pictures more about the flowers and less about the backgrounds. Of course, time-consuming work is required.
Ken, thanks for the compliment, which means a lot coming from a photographer of your class. What you suggest is of course possible, depending on what one finds gratifying. But I don't think I'd sign up for the exhausting work that I believe you have in mind. However, it has occurred to me that I might explore the aperture features of my Nikon rather than use the automatic settings. That is, by using the widest aperture-opening possible for light available, I might blur out the backgrounds more by shortening the depth of field (I hope my terminology is correct). To think that I have a camera (whose purchase you know you inspired, for which, again, many thanks) whose capabilities I have not fully explored yet (if I ever do). I suspect that the approach I just mentioned might not be as difficult as I imagine, for I vaguely recall that even the A and S settings have some things done automatically for me (which are not done in the M setting).
Mo, you might want to learn what "exhausting" really means by working on just one picture. For example, you might try removing the wiring in the clematis picture by using the Clone Stamp. It's painstaking, but you'll discover that you can "see" the flower so much better.
Achieving a satisfying depth of field is elusive. The A setting is the right one, but you'll see that when you get close, focus softens with a very small difference in depth. That means you want bright sunshine. Then you can turn the aperture into a pin hole.
Well, I've done some clone-stamping, and I think I know already what "exhausting" means. But perhaps I need to remove the wiring to test your statement about how much better I could see the flower (why do you put "see" in quotation marks? I'm afraid that I may not see the point you're making), for I've tried to imagine the wiring's not being in the photo, and I can't see that its absence makes any difference to my ability to see the flower. My brain is extraordinarily good at ignoring most of the field. To hear my wife tell it, I fail to see almost everything around me that I don't specifically attend to.
Oh, one more thing. Depth of field. A pinhole would give me the longest depth of field possible, right? You seem to be saying that in the situation we're talking about (objects close to the camera), I should ignore depth of field? (That is, not try to shorten it by using the openest possible aperture?) I think I need to try the A setting to get a feel for what's involved, especially in less than bright light and for close objects.
If you get close and use the widest opening, you will have the anthers in focus (or whatever is closest to the lens) and nothing else — nothing deeper in the flower and certainly not the petals. If you use a very small opening, you'll get much of the flower in focus and the background will still soften quickly, giving you the background fuzziness you want.
PS. So long as your eyes are open, you see (barring blindness). However, if the photo has a subject, everything else in the photo creates interference, and the brain will attend to more than the subject. Simplicity creates a more attentive seeing. You may have an unnatural ability to filter out visual interference, but most of the people you share your work with will not.
THANK YOU, Ken. I appreciate the counsel of your experience, and I hope to merit it by the good I do with it. I had wondered why parts of my flowers were not in focus! I do take a lot of photos out of full sun, so perhaps I can't entirely avoid this. Aha! I could use a tripod and set my aperture! Unfortunately, another problem where I live is that the wind is often fairly strong, so besides shaking camera I have to contend with shaking subject. And good point that I'm showing my photos to others, whose eyes (brains) may be more "normal" than mine. If I were still being quizzed by parents about what I learned today, I'd have a lot to tell them at dinner this evening.
Looks like you had some fun with photoshop. I like how the bottom one looks like a poster.
ReplyDeleteA true artist without using a brush.
ReplyDeleteUsually, when I try artistic filters on a photo, one or two of the effects are far more appealing than the other eight or so. This photo was amazing in that most of the effects were very appealing (to me, at any rate). And I discovered with this photo that you could even apply the filters additively (which should have been obvious, but I'd never tried it).
ReplyDeleteFor example, the second photo has been "sponged," and the fourth "smudge-sticked." The one in between (the third) has had the smudge stick version sponged, and I prefer it personally to the sponged version of the original (the second). The initial smudge-sticking seems to have softened the effect of the sponge.
(I see that I need to caption each photo to make this easier to follow.)
Nice treatment of the clematis, Morris.
ReplyDeleteI think you can get more gratifying flower photos if you make the your pictures more about the flowers and less about the backgrounds. Of course, time-consuming work is required.
Ken, thanks for the compliment, which means a lot coming from a photographer of your class.
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest is of course possible, depending on what one finds gratifying. But I don't think I'd sign up for the exhausting work that I believe you have in mind.
However, it has occurred to me that I might explore the aperture features of my Nikon rather than use the automatic settings. That is, by using the widest aperture-opening possible for light available, I might blur out the backgrounds more by shortening the depth of field (I hope my terminology is correct).
To think that I have a camera (whose purchase you know you inspired, for which, again, many thanks) whose capabilities I have not fully explored yet (if I ever do).
I suspect that the approach I just mentioned might not be as difficult as I imagine, for I vaguely recall that even the A and S settings have some things done automatically for me (which are not done in the M setting).
Mo, you might want to learn what "exhausting" really means by working on just one picture. For example, you might try removing the wiring in the clematis picture by using the Clone Stamp. It's painstaking, but you'll discover that you can "see" the flower so much better.
ReplyDeleteAchieving a satisfying depth of field is elusive. The A setting is the right one, but you'll see that when you get close, focus softens with a very small difference in depth. That means you want bright sunshine. Then you can turn the aperture into a pin hole.
Well, I've done some clone-stamping, and I think I know already what "exhausting" means. But perhaps I need to remove the wiring to test your statement about how much better I could see the flower (why do you put "see" in quotation marks? I'm afraid that I may not see the point you're making), for I've tried to imagine the wiring's not being in the photo, and I can't see that its absence makes any difference to my ability to see the flower. My brain is extraordinarily good at ignoring most of the field. To hear my wife tell it, I fail to see almost everything around me that I don't specifically attend to.
ReplyDeleteOh, one more thing. Depth of field. A pinhole would give me the longest depth of field possible, right? You seem to be saying that in the situation we're talking about (objects close to the camera), I should ignore depth of field? (That is, not try to shorten it by using the openest possible aperture?) I think I need to try the A setting to get a feel for what's involved, especially in less than bright light and for close objects.
ReplyDeleteIf you get close and use the widest opening, you will have the anthers in focus (or whatever is closest to the lens) and nothing else — nothing deeper in the flower and certainly not the petals. If you use a very small opening, you'll get much of the flower in focus and the background will still soften quickly, giving you the background fuzziness you want.
ReplyDeletePS. So long as your eyes are open, you see (barring blindness). However, if the photo has a subject, everything else in the photo creates interference, and the brain will attend to more than the subject. Simplicity creates a more attentive seeing. You may have an unnatural ability to filter out visual interference, but most of the people you share your work with will not.
THANK YOU, Ken. I appreciate the counsel of your experience, and I hope to merit it by the good I do with it. I had wondered why parts of my flowers were not in focus! I do take a lot of photos out of full sun, so perhaps I can't entirely avoid this.
ReplyDeleteAha! I could use a tripod and set my aperture!
Unfortunately, another problem where I live is that the wind is often fairly strong, so besides shaking camera I have to contend with shaking subject.
And good point that I'm showing my photos to others, whose eyes (brains) may be more "normal" than mine.
If I were still being quizzed by parents about what I learned today, I'd have a lot to tell them at dinner this evening.