Well, Dan, not every day and every situation is going to result in good photos. Sometimes it's OK not to make a photograph. Anyway, the suggestions weren't for what you could have done the day you took these shots, or for this field of flowers, but just as things to think about for the future.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Daniel J. Matyola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/22/2004 1:39:40 PM > Subject: Re: PAW - Poppies > > Thanks for taking the time to comment, Shel. I found your remarks > interesting and helpful. Se my reactions interspersed below. > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >You said it, not me .... trite. > > > > > Yes, and I meant it. I was quite frustrated that a spectacular sight > resulted in such dull pictures because of my lack of artistic imagination. > > >One of the things that's seen so often is a natural result of using a 35mm > >SLR camera. The photog stands there, camera to the eye, frames the shot, > >and there you go. Another one of uncountable shots from the same > >perspective. Use a wider lens to get that vista, cram lots of info into > >the frame. And while the results may be OK, they are just that, OK. > > > > > A wider lens may indeed be the answer. > > >Try another perspective. Lay on the ground, shoot up a bit, include just > >one or a few flowers, grab some blue sky and nice fluffy clouds. > > > As you can see from the second shot, there was no blue sky or fluffy > clouds the day I was there. In the first shot, I deliberately > eliminated the dull sky, and tried leaving it in in the second. Neither > worked. For the second shot, there was an ugly fence between me and the > field, which I shot over to eliminate it. I should have shot through > the ugly fence anyway, just to get something different. I did shoot > individual flowers, which came out better, but in these shots, I was > trying to get a better feel for the place with overviews. There were > also vast hordes of tourists to avoid, some of which can be seen in the > first shot. Perhaps I should have included a interesting tourist or two. > > > Look for patterns or relationships between the sky and the flowers. > > > The dull sky prevented that; I did try to show the patterns of the > flowers themselves. > > > Look for a framing that creates a little tension, or brings one element strongly to > >the foreground. Use a wider lens than you'd usually use. > > > Framing and a wider lens seem to be the things that would most likely > have helped here. > > >Try working with filters. How about flowers in B&W? Everyone uses color, but instead of > >color as the focal point of the photo, look at shapes with B&W. Perhaps a > >red filter, a wider lens than usual, a few red tulips creating a strong > >foreground, a dark, dramatic sky with contrasting clouds. The tulips will > >come out closer to white, and you may end up with something quite dramatic. > > > I do use B&W, but usually not with flowers. Here, I was hoping to show > the colors and patterns that are a big part of the experience of these > fantastic gardens. > > >Or soft focus, also from a low perspective. > > > Soft focus would have been interesting! I tried low perspective, but > that eliminated the various colors and patterns I was trying to show here. > > >Shoot early or late in the day, when the light is soft, enhance the soft light with a soft filter or soft lens (don't overdo it though). > > > I didn't have control over the time of day, unfortunately. > > > Or get real close with a long lens, or long lens and an extension tube, blur the hell out of the background (choose a background with a complimentary color), and do something close > >that's not (another cliche) macro shot. > > > >Avoid sharpness. Go for extreme sharpness. Combine disparate elements. > >Think outside the box, as they say. Add an old shoe alongside a beautiful > >flower. Look for a delicate flower alongside a large, rough rock or tree > >trunk. Use the contrast to your advantage. Make the flower out of focus > >and the background sharp as a tack. Add a hand, as if a flower is about to > >be plucked.Work with a section of a field, filling the frame completely with flowers of just one color. Use back lighting. Use high contrast lighting and > >expose for the highlights. Let the shadows go dark or even black. Think > >more of adding some mystery to your photo rather than the straight > >documentary that appears here. > > > > > Very interesting suggestions! > > >Get up high and shoot straight down. Get up high and shoot at an angle. > >Just get your feet off the ground. > > > I couldn't shoot straight down, because of fences and grass borders, but > it did climb a windmill for a high angle shot. The immediate foreground > was dull, so I didn't get too much of an angle. > > >Think! > > > That's my problem! > > > Think about photos that have moved you, regardless of their > >subject. Can something from those photos be used to transform a photo of a > >field of flowers from the mundane to the marvelous? > > > >Watch your backgrounds and al the elements around the frame of the scene. > >Distractions are often found there. You don't need the people and the trees > >in the background in the first photo. They add nothing and take away much. > >The burnt out sky in the other photo diminishes the impact of the flowers, > >although the soft, hazy background and the trees is a nice touch. > >Unfortunately, you didn't work to include those elements in a positive way. > >Moving a bit to get rid of the awful cinder block building on the left (if > >that's what it is) might have given you a better result. > > > > > You're right. If I moved to the left quite a bit and changed the angle, > I might have gotten a better background, despite the sky and haze. > > Thanks again.
