new flowers

[photophorous]

This is a little different from my usual stuff, so I'd like to hear what you think of it.

Thanks!

Paul

[photophorous]

Apparently, I did a bad job with this one, but I would really appreciate some critique. Maybe if I explain what I was doing you'll have a better idea of what I'm looking for.

I've been going to the park where this was taken for years, but I've never seen these flowers before. We've had a drought for most of the summer, but recently got some rain, and these flowers just popped up in a matter of days. They're about 4-5 feet tall, sticking up out of 2-3 feet of grass. I wanted to illustrate how these flowers seemed to spring up from nothing. So with the camera on a tripod, I tilted it downward during a 1/15 sec exposure to give the flowers a slight vertical blur. Not exactly an original idea, but it's something new for me.

Please let me know what you think, even if it's negative.

Thanks!

Paul

[Loupey]

Hi, Paul

Thanks for the info. In general, getting wind swept nature shots are difficult to convey. And, in general, you want to have a good stationary object within your frame to provide the foundation against which the flowing subjects can be compared. Your shot seems to flow too much - even the distant trees have blur in them.

Also, there is too much empty space in the bottom half of the image IMO.

Being more of a macro guy, my suggestion would be to concentrate on just a few strands. Then you don't need so much wind and can use higher shutter speeds.

But I applaud your efforts to try something new :thumbsup:

[drg]

You might want to tilt the camera the other way or alter the horizon so that it sweep upward slightly from right to left to 'lift' the eye through the image.

I feel when blurring a picture it should be for a reason such as an indication of speed or to lend confusion, but something in the photograph needs to still be clearly (not sharp necessarily) recognizable.

The proportion between flowers grass and background/sky just don't work. A different crop might work but I feel you need to recompose when shooting.

Trying some variations with the contrast and brightness could help.

If this was a conversion from color, use different filters or channel mixing combinations to enhance the flowers and grass.



For a new flower you have not seen, why not just take a standard flower shot to start with? Then play from there. Or include more of them (get way back, use a wider lens, etc) to add some scope and breadth.

Standard ideas, but they might be of assistance?

[Greg McCary]

Can you crop it just above the lower flower and put color back in it? I do like the shot....

[photophorous]

Thanks for the comments Loupey and DRG. I really do appreciate it, but I have to be honest. I still don't think you get what I was trying to do, which is completely my fault. I wanted to give a sense of the speed with which nature can change. My method was to make it appear as though the flowers are actually flying up out of the grass...in motion...an abstract concept. In reality, everything was perfectly still. There was no wind. I moved the camera (during the exposure), so there would be streaks below the flowers, hoping that would make them appear to be moving upward...the direction they grow. Movement in another direction would confuse the idea of rapid growth, and it would have blurred the grass beyond recognition. When moving the camera vertically, the vertical nature of the stalks of grass shows less blurring than the flowers, and I wanted to include that as a somewhat static point of reference. I know it all appears blurred anyway, but the point was for the flowers to appear more blurred than the grass, and for the out of focus background to simply provide contrast to the flowers. I removed the lighter toned sky so the blurring of the background trees would be less noticeable (at the transition to the sky).

Is this idea just too abstract?

[Greg McCary]

No it's not to absrtact. I have seen this done before.I have not tried it but it's a neat concept if you practice a little. You must be reading Mike Orton...

[photophorous]

Can you crop it just above the lower flower and put color back in it? I do like the shot....

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the comment. I think I agree about the crop. Maybe I should have shown less foreground. I can add the color back too, but I doubt you'll be impressed. The flowers are white, the background is dark green, and the foreground is a scorched grass yellow. I'll post it both ways, but I'll have to edit it at home tonight (I'm at work..shhhh).

Paul

[photophorous]

No it's not to absrtact. I have seen this done before.I have not tried it but it's a neat concept if you practice a little. You must be reading Mike Orton...

No, I'm reading Freeman Patterson's, "Photography and the Art of Seeing." Great book so far! He did a similar shot to blur trees in a forrest, but his is actually more blurred than mine. I'm glad you don't think it's too abstract.

[Greg McCary]

Mike Orton did this with some Daisies. Check him out. He does a lot of this. When you get it down I want tips.....

[photophorous]

I'm kinda slow getting back with this, but here are the croped versions we talked about the other day. Let me know if you think this is any better.

Thanks,
Paul