Meanwhile, Back at the Pond

[John R Smith]

. . . Spring is doing its thing, and the marsh iris is shooting up.

The old 250mm produces some nice bokeh, shooting wide-open with a somewhat wafer-thin DOF.

See what you think . . .

John

[Rob C]

Didn't work for me in b/w.

Maybe colour would have added a great deal more interest in such a subject that, unlike a wider landscape, may need something to define its parts more precisely.

Had you gone for a 35mm camera and a 500 Cat optic, it might have worked a little better because, then, the circles would have done their bit to transform the highlighted water into something mysterious...

Rob C

[John R Smith]

Hmmmm.

All right, then try this - same time, same place, same lens . . .

John

[Bruce Cox]

 In Flag Shoots I like the iris and their composition.  The ground and water don't seem to help quite enough and or go away enough for me.

Bruce

[ethanw]

It is honestly a nice shot but it would be better had it not been in black and white.  It would have presented more dimension to the picture if the colors were present.  You have a specific scene and it would be emphasized more if you can determine which colors are for which aspect.

I like the composition and the idea. You could do away with just the middle portion

[Rob C]

Hmmmm.

All right, then try this - same time, same place, same lens . . .

John

Sorry, John, nothing happens. Might be a classic example of the reality clouding your mind and convincing you that what you saw in colour and in the shimmer of the groundglass has carried through. I remember very clearly being knocked out by focussing long lenses over bushes or flowers to catch the main deal beyond: it's almost a 3-D experience and a pleasure in its own right, even without making an exposure. Intoxicating.

Rob C

[William Walker]

Hi John

Humour me here...

I like the first picture, but, what if you separated a little more of what I see as three different areas:
1) Lighten the inner "V" created by the plants.(But keep the ground with the twigs as is.)
2) Leave the secondary "V" as is, and,
3) Slightly darken the outer area and "despeckle" the darker water?

I think what you saw there is worthy of a picture, but, as it is now my eye is darting all over the place, I am battling to define the picture.

I hope that makes sense.

William

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I like both images.
I like they are b/w.
Maybe you could re-take the image when the water is calmer and the reflections of the plants stand out clearer or try the suggested steps in post to bring the inner picture you had more to the point.
IMHO it is absolutely not mandatory to introduce color here.

[Rob C]

I like both images.
I like they are b/w.
Maybe you could re-take the image when the water is calmer and the reflections of the plants stand out clearer or try the suggested steps in post to bring the inner picture you had more to the point.
IMHO it is absolutely not mandatory to introduce color here.

This reminds me of a conversation that Gauguin is reputed to have had with Van Gogh, where the former told the latter that he (VG) painted with his dick.

Rob C

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I didn't say John was taking the photograph with ... oh crap ... forget it !

[John R Smith]

Well, as usual thank you all for your comments and opinions.

Putting aside the issue of whether the picture(s) are crap or not just for the moment, can I just say that if they were in colour it would definitely not improve them. There is only one colour in the frame, and that is green (not a terribly interesting green either), so they would effectively be monochromatic anyway. And as you know, I do not do colour photography (in fact, I am such an old curmudgeon that I do not regard colour photography as actually being photography at all  ).

I like the first picture, but, what if you separated a little more of what I see as three different areas:
1) Lighten the inner "V" created by the plants.(But keep the ground with the twigs as is.)
2) Leave the secondary "V" as is, and,
3) Slightly darken the outer area and "despeckle" the darker water?

William

Now, William, this comment is extremely perceptive, because these steps detail pretty much exactly the editing strategy I adopted. The original file has in fact had all those things done to it. You might well say that I should have done them a little more aggressively, but I stopped at the margins of what I felt was the boundary of good taste. What is interesting here is that both you and I felt it was necessary to do all of this, and that perhaps is the key to the problem with this picture.

I think I basically agree with you all that the picture does not work very well. The reason for this is I think that I got caught up in the quality of the light (which was beautiful) and I was sloppy about framing the picture. Consequently, the composition is altogether too busy, there is no clear subject, and the eye is not drawn in or led through the frame in a satisfying fashion. The editing that I did and that William suggests was really just a forlorn attempt to salvage something from the wreckage.

So if I score this one against my own self-imposed criteria -

* Light - Brilliant

* Subject - Potentially interesting

* Composition - Pants

John

[William Walker]

Hmmmm.

All right, then try this - same time, same place, same lens . . .

John

The second picture reminds me of this picture: http://www.williamneill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/201101_4252-Edit.jpg

I keep going back just to look at it!

William

[John R Smith]

The second picture reminds me of this picture: http://www.williamneill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/201101_4252-Edit.jpg

I keep going back just to look at it!

William

Yes, it's kind of good, isn't it?

John

[popnfresh]

I see what you were going for in the first picture and you almost got it, but not quite. Nature should have cooperated and provided you with a nice little island of irises surrounded by dappled water. As it is, the composition pretty much falls apart in the right quadrant of the frame. Next time, I recommend sacrificing chickens or something else to appease the god of landscape photography before setting out with your camera.

[John R Smith]

I see what you were going for in the first picture and you almost got it, but not quite. Nature should have cooperated and provided you with a nice little island of irises surrounded by dappled water. As it is, the composition pretty much falls apart in the right quadrant of the frame. Next time, I recommend sacrificing chickens or something else to appease the god of landscape photography before setting out with your camera.

Pop

You would be amazed by the number of "almost got it, but not quite" pictures that I have. Sacrifices to the gods could certainly be a future strategy . . .

Still, we've had some fun debating all this, and as usual learned things along the way 

John

[Dick Roadnight]

Pop

You would be amazed by the number of "almost got it, but not quite" pictures that I have. Sacrifices to the gods could certainly be a future strategy . . .

John

When you start thinking you get it right... you stop improving!

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

When you start thinking you get it right... you stop improving!

[sic!]

[Rob C]

When you start thinking you get it right... you stop improving!

Yeah, right: when you get it right means you're there. Improving is a term designed to confuse; once you know the how, the quality depends on the message, the budget and your personal interest in the project. Unless you are hopelessly altruistic, of course, which will see you close in six months.

These little sayings are often quite silly, and I believe that after a certain level of competence, everything else depends on factors outwith your control. All you need is for a single, important internal change to take place within a great client's company structure and you can see the fruits of a few years of dilligent labour vanish in smoke. I have gathered several such T-shirts.

Rob C

[Jeremy Roussak]

Yeah, right: when you get it right means you're there. Improving is a term designed to confuse; once you know the how, the quality depends on the message, the budget and your personal interest in the project. Unless you are hopelessly altruistic, of course, which will see you close in six months.

These little sayings are often quite silly, and I believe that after a certain level of competence, everything else depends on factors outwith your control. All you need is for a single, important internal change to take place within a great client's company structure and you can see the fruits of a few years of dilligent labour vanish in smoke. I have gathered several such T-shirts.

Rob C

I agree. By analogy, it seems that the one of the worst sins of which a politician can be guilty (in the UK, at least, and obviously apart from fiddling his expenses) is "complacency". It's an accusation levelled against anyone, in any circumstances, who observes that something actually seem to be going reasonably well.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

I agree. By analogy, it seems that the one of the worst sins of which a politician can be guilty (in the UK, at least, and obviously apart from fiddling his expenses) is "complacency". It's an accusation levelled against anyone, in any circumstances, who observes that something actually seem to be going reasonably well.

Jeremy

You're on good, solid ground here, Jeremy; it's akin to the psychology that every company should show growth every year! What bullshit! I would have been perfectly happy to retain the turnover I had in good years. The only reason we have inflation is because people think they can beat the system and get ahead of the curve by asking for more. Nope, you only beat the system by finding promotion. Simply raising salaries across the board does nothing but drive up prices. Neither people nor jobs nor clients are equal in this world. Accepting that things are different and of different values, too, makes for a calm, settled environment.

Rob C