My VERY FIRST artistic attempt... link

[Jeffrey Stetz]

DISCLAIMER: any BASHING (substitute any synonym in here) of the given
image will only be DEstructive. This is my absolutely FIRST artistic
attempt at a photo, taken in the process of "self-discovery,"
discovering the concepts of "manual focus," "shutter speed,"
"aperture," etc....

I know it's out of focus, but at the time I didn't realize that I
wouldn't be able to hold my hand steady at the 1/30 speed that the
Rebel G [+kit lens] gave me and I don't yet have a tripod. And this
was totally unprecedented, I was just trying to consciously understand
what the hell I'm doing with a camera in my hand and kept taking
pictures as prescribed to me by many here in another thread. [Rebel G
thread]

OK, now that I said all that, you know not to expect much... but I
thought this picture had some (maybe little) budding artistic quality
to it... [whew, I'm so scared]

anyhow, LINK: [url]http://www.rit.edu/~yxp2578/unkn_flower2.JPG[/url]

[Al Denelsbeck]

[email]yevsnews@hotmail.com[/email] (Jeffrey Stetz) wrote in
news:7df4caf3.0307102006.29558754@posting.google.c om:

> DISCLAIMER: any BASHING (substitute any synonym in here) of the given
> image will only be DEstructive. This is my absolutely FIRST artistic
> attempt at a photo, taken in the process of "self-discovery,"
> discovering the concepts of "manual focus," "shutter speed,"
> "aperture," etc....
>
> I know it's out of focus, but at the time I didn't realize that I
> wouldn't be able to hold my hand steady at the 1/30 speed that the
> Rebel G [+kit lens] gave me and I don't yet have a tripod. And this
> was totally unprecedented, I was just trying to consciously understand
> what the hell I'm doing with a camera in my hand and kept taking
> pictures as prescribed to me by many here in another thread. [Rebel G
> thread]
>
> OK, now that I said all that, you know not to expect much... but I
> thought this picture had some (maybe little) budding artistic quality
> to it... [whew, I'm so scared]
>
> anyhow, LINK: [url]http://www.rit.edu/~yxp2578/unkn_flower2.JPG[/url]

Hmmmm. Can we define 'bashing' a bit closer? ;-)

Okay, now that I made you exceptionally nervous, let me disclaim that
I may be a bit hardassed in critiqueing, but it's intended constructively.

First off, if you're doing something 'artistic', what are you
attempting? Expression, emotion, a pleasing play of colors or shapes? Or
are you trying to duplicate something that was called 'art' somewhere else?
If the latter, avoid that, and make your own expression.

Overall, the image is a bit plain. You did good by getting the two
bloom clusters at an angle that works well in the frame, and the stem at an
opposing angle. The light on the flowers is soft, not contrasty (generally
good for flowers). Your depth-of-field isolates the flowers well.

The colors are washed out a bit - not sure if this is how the flowers
normally look, but in this case brighter light might have boosted it some.
The background shows that the light is muted, probably overcast, and this
gives a mood to the photo. One that you wanted?

The background highlights are not good. The bright points of light
are confusing and distracting, and show some unpleasant bokeh (a term
you'll find mostly on newsgroups, referring to the appearance of out-of-
focus highlights). You'll notice that these lights have a bit of a hard
edge to them, and look slightly misshapen. Sometimes this is simply a lens
property, sometimes it can be helped with a larger aperture, getting the
background more out-of-focus. Either way, it can be helped tremendously by
not shooting with highlights in the background at all. Without them, the
other background details would become totally insignificant.

To me, the subject isn't compelling. Why this flower? It dominates
the frame, but isn't interesting in any particular way. Nothing breaks the
pattern or adds a bit of character, like an insect, and nothing gives the
viewer something stunning to look at, even color.

So, some suggestions:

1) Get rid of the background somehow, different angle should work.
Try for more color.

2) Use the flowers to emphasize some concept. Are they in a field of
similar flowers? The try to use that field as a background, showing the
fine detail in one example of a large number. Even better, pick one that's
unique in some way. If they're alone, then use the space in the frame to
enhance that, and give an idea of nothing else around them.

3) Use the shapes, or the lines, in some constructive way. Let the
round shapes contrast against something else, or get the sun directly
behind the blooms for a powerful halo - be creative. Say something with the
image, or provide contrast, or develop a mood.

4) Don't just photograph something, make a scene. Your subject can be
a strong part of the scene, but shouldn't *be* the scene unless you're
trying for stock photos, used for identification. Say something more if you
can, especially if you're trying for art.

Fair enough?

- Al.


--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at [url]www.wading-in.net[/url]

[William D. Tallman]

Jeffrey Stetz wrote:

> DISCLAIMER: any BASHING (substitute any synonym in here) of the given
> image will only be DEstructive. This is my absolutely FIRST artistic
> attempt at a photo, taken in the process of "self-discovery,"
> discovering the concepts of "manual focus," "shutter speed,"
> "aperture," etc....
>
> I know it's out of focus, but at the time I didn't realize that I
> wouldn't be able to hold my hand steady at the 1/30 speed that the
> Rebel G [+kit lens] gave me and I don't yet have a tripod. And this
> was totally unprecedented, I was just trying to consciously understand
> what the hell I'm doing with a camera in my hand and kept taking
> pictures as prescribed to me by many here in another thread. [Rebel G
> thread]
>
> OK, now that I said all that, you know not to expect much... but I
> thought this picture had some (maybe little) budding artistic quality
> to it... [whew, I'm so scared]
>
> anyhow, LINK: [url]http://www.rit.edu/~yxp2578/unkn_flower2.JPG[/url]

Hey, Mon, you got lotta bokeh!!!

Figure out what that is and acquire some effete photography patter to
impress people with your arcane knowledge... lol!!!

Seriously, I think you've got it!

Keep shooting and learning and somewhere in that process, you'll discover
that you've become a photographer. See what you like in pictures others
make, and go hunting them in the world, and you'll discover images in the
world you haven't seen in pictures. That's usually when it
happens...<grin>

Don't worry about mistakes. Worry when you don't learn from them. Don't
quit, and always have fun!!!

Bill Tallman

[mike k]

I prefer the background to the subject if you are
going for something "art" orientated.

Maybe shoot some hard edged steel/glass sculpture/item/construction with
your existng background and get the background circles and highlights to
clash with straight edges in the foreground.
Just a thought, nothing to do with flowers really.

Mike

[Lewis Lang]

>Subject: Re: My VERY FIRST artistic attempt... link

>From: Al Denelsbeck [email]news@wadingin.net[/email]
>Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2003 7:22 AM
>Message-id: <Xns93B5225D03361sandalsatwadinginnet@65.32.1.6>
>
>yevsnews@hotmail.com (Jeffrey Stetz) wrote in
>news:7df4caf3.0307102006.29558754@posting.google. com:
>

>> DISCLAIMER: any BASHING (substitute any synonym in here) of the given
>> image will only be DEstructive. This is my absolutely FIRST artistic
>> attempt at a photo, taken in the process of "self-discovery,"
>> discovering the concepts of "manual focus," "shutter speed,"
>> "aperture," etc....
>>
>> I know it's out of focus, but at the time I didn't realize that I
>> wouldn't be able to hold my hand steady at the 1/30 speed that the
>> Rebel G [+kit lens] gave me and I don't yet have a tripod. And this
>> was totally unprecedented, I was just trying to consciously understand
>> what the hell I'm doing with a camera in my hand and kept taking
>> pictures as prescribed to me by many here in another thread. [Rebel G
>> thread]
>>
>> OK, now that I said all that, you know not to expect much... but I
>> thought this picture had some (maybe little) budding artistic quality
>> to it... [whew, I'm so scared]
>>
>> anyhow, LINK: [url]http://www.rit.edu/~yxp2578/unkn_flower2.JPG[/url]

>
>
> Hmmmm. Can we define 'bashing' a bit closer? ;-)
>
> Okay, now that I made you exceptionally nervous, let me disclaim that
>
>I may be a bit hardassed in critiqueing, but it's intended constructively.
>
>
> First off, if you're doing something 'artistic', what are you
>attempting? Expression, emotion, a pleasing play of colors or shapes? Or
>
>are you trying to duplicate something that was called 'art' somewhere else?
>
>If the latter, avoid that, and make your own expression.
>
> Overall, the image is a bit plain. You did good by getting the two
>
>bloom clusters at an angle that works well in the frame, and the stem at
>an
>opposing angle. The light on the flowers is soft, not contrasty (generally
>
>good for flowers). Your depth-of-field isolates the flowers well.
>
> The colors are washed out a bit - not sure if this is how the flowers
>
>normally look, but in this case brighter light might have boosted it some.
>
>The background shows that the light is muted, probably overcast, and this
>
>gives a mood to the photo. One that you wanted?
>
> The background highlights are not good. The bright points of light
>
>are confusing and distracting, and show some unpleasant bokeh (a term
>you'll find mostly on newsgroups, referring to the appearance of out-of-
>focus highlights). You'll notice that these lights have a bit of a hard
>
>edge to them, and look slightly misshapen. Sometimes this is simply a lens
>
>property, sometimes it can be helped with a larger aperture, getting the
>
>background more out-of-focus. Either way, it can be helped tremendously
>by
>not shooting with highlights in the background at all. Without them, the
>
>other background details would become totally insignificant.
>
> To me, the subject isn't compelling. Why this flower? It dominates
>
>the frame, but isn't interesting in any particular way. Nothing breaks the
>
>pattern or adds a bit of character, like an insect, and nothing gives the
>
>viewer something stunning to look at, even color.
>
> So, some suggestions:
>
> 1) Get rid of the background somehow, different angle should work.
>
>Try for more color.
>
> 2) Use the flowers to emphasize some concept. Are they in a field of
>
>similar flowers? The try to use that field as a background, showing the
>
>fine detail in one example of a large number. Even better, pick one that's
>
>unique in some way. If they're alone, then use the space in the frame to
>
>enhance that, and give an idea of nothing else around them.
>
> 3) Use the shapes, or the lines, in some constructive way. Let the
>
>round shapes contrast against something else, or get the sun directly
>behind the blooms for a powerful halo - be creative. Say something with
>the
>image, or provide contrast, or develop a mood.
>
> 4) Don't just photograph something, make a scene. Your subject can
>be
>a strong part of the scene, but shouldn't *be* the scene unless you're
>trying for stock photos, used for identification. Say something more if
>you
>can, especially if you're trying for art.
>
> Fair enough?
>
> - Al.

Good attepmt. I agree w/ everything AL says except for the bokeh part. The out
of focus circles of confusion/highlights in the background have good bokeh -
nice evenly illuminated, circular discs. Also, in this shot it is the
background bokeh that gives it its "magical quality", not bad for a kit lens
(as I would have expected more donut shaped outof focus highlights/"bad bokeh"
w/ a kit lens). Which kit lens was used? Possibly more interest could be added
(something appropriate or unappropriate added to the shot) but I am not a
flower photographer and what would work as an idea escapes me at this point for
this shot (rare for me, as I'm usually full of ideas), so using Al's other
suggestions may be a good starting point for developing your own ideas. Also,
to be honest, flower photos don't do it for me as a subject, no matter how
beautiful, flowers are OK but flower photographs I find usually rather average
to boring in appeal as its all formalistic (pretty shapes and colors and
"bokeh") - I find people and/or conceptual photographs to be far more
interesting. Most flower photographs to me say only "here's a pretty flower,
you may ooo and ahhhh now" ;-).

This is a good first start, keep up the good work, develop your
technique/skill, but most importantly and look for a subject that's close to
your heart, that means something to you, that is something "more than pretty"
or "just art", make shots that say something and move you/others and "speaks
from your heart". Be less concerned w/ "is it art?" and more concerned with "is
it me?" Anybody can make a pretty photograph, a moving/memorable one that says
something in a personal/unique way is far more lasting regardless of its status
to you/others as "art". Go beyond the "generic"/stock shot and say something
interesting/personal in a unique way(s) that goes beyond the merely
picturesque/"photogenic" surface beauty to show other hidden qualities/ideas
that only you could see. An idea(s) that popped into my head (not necessarily a
good idea or even a possible idea for these flowers as I don't know their
environment) might be to show the flowers growing naturally out of the hole(s)
an old tire in a field as sort of an ironic/comical unintentional man made
(tire as) vase or show the flowers against a similarly shaped old gas pump(s).
At least these would be showing contrasts if not making statements between the
manmade and the natural. But that's only one area of possibilities. Don't be
afraid to think of other areas of visual thematic inquiry/possibilities.
Photography is far more than just pointing alens at a pretty subject or scene.
You need to think, That's where the real vision takes place. Not in the camera.
Not in the subject. But in how _you_ uniquely see/show that subject.
"Photography is more than just a record of the world, its an expression of your
vision."

Regards,

Lewis

This post is...

© 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

[url]http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm[/url]

Remove "nospam" to reply

[Jeffrey Stetz]

Well, ok, since you didn't absolutely hate it and can find at least
something at all interesting in it for a first try, I can say a few
more words...

I had no real scheme in mind, just looked at the flower from different
angles through the lens and liked this angle the best. The background
is the sky. Time of day ~ around 7:30 pm, and it was already quite
dark outside, but I felt it didn't matter as long as I had a conscious
understanding and record of what I was doing and the results it gave,
so that I could then consciously change something and see what
develops (pun intended). So, that's about it... the flower itself was
pretty plain, not colorful at all, but I liked the idea I read on many
sites about getting up close with the camera, and I think here I
didn't use a zoom, and got up around 5-6 inches from the flower, just
to see what would happen. The film was a plain consumer Fuji 200 Super
HQ... Well, what did I learn? Most importantly, do not ever attempt to
hold a camera steady at a 1/30 speed. Or maybe it was even slower, I
don't remember now. Anyways, thanks for your comments... I'm learning
slowly :)

[stan]

Jeffrey Stetz wrote:

> Well, ok, since you didn't absolutely hate it and can find at least
> something at all interesting in it for a first try, I can say a few
> more words...
>
> I had no real scheme in mind, just looked at the flower from different
> angles through the lens and liked this angle the best. The background
> is the sky. Time of day ~ around 7:30 pm, and it was already quite
> dark outside, but I felt it didn't matter as long as I had a conscious
> understanding and record of what I was doing and the results it gave,
> so that I could then consciously change something and see what
> develops (pun intended). So, that's about it... the flower itself was
> pretty plain, not colorful at all, but I liked the idea I read on many
> sites about getting up close with the camera, and I think here I
> didn't use a zoom, and got up around 5-6 inches from the flower, just
> to see what would happen. The film was a plain consumer Fuji 200 Super
> HQ... Well, what did I learn? Most importantly, do not ever attempt to
> hold a camera steady at a 1/30 speed. Or maybe it was even slower, I
> don't remember now. Anyways, thanks for your comments... I'm learning
> slowly :)

Keep it up! Get a bit tough skinned about critiques. But always try to
learn something from them. Ignore those whose sole purpose is to tear you
down (haven't seen any in this thread yet). But practice!! My first
"artistic" shot was of a pack of cigarettes someone discarded on a beach.
It was red against the light brown sand. It was about 30 years ago. I
showed my prize to my best friend who simply said "It's stupid".
It really was a lame attempt. So keep shooting. Some of my shots now
aren't near as lame!
Stan
Visual Arts Photography

[mike II]

Jeffrey Stetz wrote:

> OK, now that I said all that, you know not to expect much... but I
> thought this picture had some (maybe little) budding artistic quality
> to it... [whew, I'm so scared]
>
> anyhow, LINK: [url]http://www.rit.edu/~yxp2578/unkn_flower2.JPG[/url]

Striving for an 'artistic' quality in anything is a waste of time and
best reserved for the arts and crafts crowd who make cardboard winged
angels out of empty dish detergent bottles.

What a photographer or painter or poet or writer or musician or
mathematician does is express and share something they have seen.
Whether that vision was in the outer world or the mind's eye makes no
difference. The problem lies with conveying this discovery or insight
and that's where the technical aspects of whatever the art come into
play. An apprenticeship of sorts is needed. Once you have the tools,
your expression becomes easier and more accurate.

Sometimes this expression finds an appreciative audience or following.
They can call it 'artistic' if it suits them. You, as the creator, can't
or at least shouldn't. Call them little windows into your personal
journey. Don't be frightened of anything except an unwillingness to
learn from your mistakes.

I have to go now. It' my turn to sweep cell row number twelve. Annika's
soiled the floors again.



mike

[William D. Tallman]

mike II wrote:

> Jeffrey Stetz wrote:
>

>> OK, now that I said all that, you know not to expect much... but I
>> thought this picture had some (maybe little) budding artistic quality
>> to it... [whew, I'm so scared]
>>
>> anyhow, LINK: [url]http://www.rit.edu/~yxp2578/unkn_flower2.JPG[/url]

>
>
> Striving for an 'artistic' quality in anything is a waste of time and
> best reserved for the arts and crafts crowd who make cardboard winged
> angels out of empty dish detergent bottles.

Hey, hey, hey!!! (Originally: Hear, hear!!)

> What a photographer or painter or poet or writer or musician or
> mathematician does is express and share something they have seen.
> Whether that vision was in the outer world or the mind's eye makes no
> difference. The problem lies with conveying this discovery or insight
> and that's where the technical aspects of whatever the art come into
> play. An apprenticeship of sorts is needed. Once you have the tools,
> your expression becomes easier and more accurate.

Well said!

The whole idea of being an artist is to present, in a given medium, a work
that strikes a resonance in the observer. Obviously, such resonance occurs
within one's interior reality and so is necessarily subjective. While
there are observed "rules", they are largely the result of analysis of what
has been judged successful (as art). If you are serious about working in a
medium (here, photography), learn the rules. They will give you guidelines
about how (given) work was made successful, but they may or may not apply
to *your* offering.

So, rather than "do art", just work in your chosen medium. Learn from what
you do, practice, but above all things, never threaten the reward you get
from doing the work. Make sure it stays fun and rewarding, because if it
doesn't, your work will suffer (and you'll eventually quit, if only from
boredom).

> Sometimes this expression finds an appreciative audience or following.
> They can call it 'artistic' if it suits them. You, as the creator, can't
> or at least shouldn't. Call them little windows into your personal
> journey. Don't be frightened of anything except an unwillingness to
> learn from your mistakes.

You, as the creator, have all you can effectively do just to do the work you
do. Anything other than "doing the work" (taking pictures, and all the
rest of what you do as a photographer) can only get in your way, can only
dilute your attention and waste your energy.

And, any unwillingness to learn from your mistakes is a sure sign that some
other consideration has tampered with your work process. Willingness to
learn from mistakes is a matter of natural interest in what is going on.
Mistakes can only be defined as a failure to get the results you sought, so
you sole owner of the mistakes and everything that defines them. You're
also sole owner of what you learn from them.

So listen to what others have to say, but take it as optional views that may
or may not resonate with your own. If you don't understand what someone is
telling you, take the time to investigate, because you'll learn something,
but only you can define what you learn.

> I have to go now. It' my turn to sweep cell row number twelve. Annika's
> soiled the floors again.
>
>
>
> mike

Like your thoughts, Mike!

And I should probably shut down this philosophical hose I seem to have
unleashed on this NG....

Bill Tallman

[William D. Tallman]

mike II wrote:

> William D. Tallman wrote:
>
>

>> And I should probably shut down this philosophical hose I seem to have
>> unleashed on this NG....

>
>
> I certainly see why the fame of your modesty has preceded you!
>
>
>
>
> mike

ROFL!!!!!!!!!

Bill Tallman