Myra's earring hopefully new and improved?

[Stagecoach]

Kim, Christina and Dave

Your words are too generous, I simply try to pass on the limited knowledge I have, which is gained from experience whilst learning from others in a practical way. Thank you.

Grahame

[rpcrowe]

I see the reflection of a good looking guy in the gold balls.

[JBW]

I see the reflection of a good looking guy in the gold balls.

well you know what a distorter of truth the camera is.

[Loose Canon]

Go away for a couple of days and miss the party!

Very nice demo, write-up, and illustrations Grahame! Awesome of you to take the time to work it up!

[JR1]

You don't need a lot of background with just one object

[mknittle]

Hi Grahame,
I too would like to thank you. The timing is perfect as I will be stuck inside for a couple days.

[JBW]

You don't need a lot of background with just one object

For me the amount and type of background is as much dependent upon the story or feeling I am trying to create as anything else.

Te first shot of this earring spoke of solitude and aloneness to me. Your thumbnail speaks to me of enclosed and limited horizons. Either story is good but one must decide which story to go with.
B.

[flashback]

Fear not the ideolog, for them comfort is found within the box.
JP

[JR1]

Fear not the ideolog, for them comfort is found within the box.
JP

Well that is ok IF you know someone is trying to tell a story !, all that has been shown is an earing, a still life, not a story,

[JBW]

Well that is ok IF you know someone is trying to tell a story !, all that has been shown is an earing, a still life, not a story,

why would anyone take a shot that didn't have a story?

[JR1]

why would anyone take a shot that didn't have a story?

Ok my closing comment is, it is all very well taking a shot but if people don't get what you are trying to put over then you have failed, I will refrain commenting on your images in the future as they are so much of the same. Much the same backgrounds is what I mean,

JR

[JBW]

Ok my closing comment is, it is all very well taking a shot but if people don't get what you are trying to put over then you have failed, I will refrain commenting on your images in the future as they are so much of the same.

JR

Okay by me.

[Stagecoach]

I will refrain commenting on your images in the future as they are so much of the same.

JR

Well Jeremy, that really has to be the understatement of the year so far.

You obviously do not follow Brian's work, it changes just about every day and rather than accept people are different, throw your toys out of the pram if others do not agree with you.

[Loose Canon]

I’m kind of in the same boat as Jeremy! And probably sinking just as fast!

why would anyone take a shot that didn't have a story?

I guess my response to that if asked would have to be: “why does an attempt at story-telling have to be a prerequisite for taking a shot?”

The shot I posted on the other thread (that you said you liked) of the glass paperweight has no story to tell as shot. It is a beautiful piece, I hope beautifully lit, or at least lit in such a manner as to bring its beauty to the viewer. That is the sole purpose of the shot and the lighting thereof.

Brian, I respect your work, imagination, and whatever direction you want to take with it. But I’ll be honest. A shot of an earring on a vast expanse of surface doesn’t automatically speak to me of any feeling of solitude or lonliness or evoke any other emotion for that matter. Nor should you necessarily expect it to for anyone else in all fairness. It’s just too subjective. Probably my sad loss but there is no way to know your intent as we are commenting. So, in my case, I comment on what is obvious and tangible. Which would be the lighting, surfaces, BG’s, etc. as they affect the subject(s), not the unknown story or intent.

Since you have taken up studio work I have been giving this a lot of thought because I am enjoying watching it and consciously trying to understand where you are coming from with this. I feel there is something here that I need to pay attention to. And whether or not I should refrain from commenting, too.

What I have come up with is that I wish I had more of what you have. I am thinking I might, at some point, further explore this Theory if I get more into what could be considered “still life” as it pertains to story telling.

But (and ain’t there always a stupid “but”! ), there is absolutely no question that successful still life absolutely requires a good understanding of good lighting, how it works and how to get it, how it affects the elements in the frame, which means good techniques. It is also going to have a huge impact on how your story is told. And this is the technical side. A perfect example of this is Grahame’s work-up using diffusion/reflection techniques, which I see you are putting into action. Maybe Jeremy's assessment of use of BG. Or maybe even my suggestion of backlighting/under lighting. And those are just a tip of the iceberg.

So the other side of the coin is getting a good, workable grasp of the technical side as well. You can’t bring your ideas to best light (pun intended!) if you don’t have good techniques to make them sparkle. Painters, sculptors, writers, photographers, name it, all have to have both to some degree.

Anyway, just a Theory! I hope you will be patient with the technical comments that seem to interfere with your vision. I feel pretty sure they are not written to interfere.

[JR1]

I’m kind of in the same boat as Jeremy! And probably sinking just as fast!



I guess my response to that if asked would have to be: “why does an attempt at story-telling have to be a prerequisite for taking a shot?”

The shot I posted on the other thread (that you said you liked) of the glass paperweight has no story to tell as shot. It is a beautiful piece, I hope beautifully lit, or at least lit in such a manner as to bring its beauty to the viewer. That is the sole purpose of the shot and the lighting thereof.

Brian, I respect your work, imagination, and whatever direction you want to take with it. But I’ll be honest. A shot of an earring on a vast expanse of surface doesn’t automatically speak to me of any feeling of solitude or lonliness or evoke any other emotion for that matter. Nor should you necessarily expect it to for anyone else in all fairness. It’s just too subjective. Probably my sad loss but there is no way to know your intent as we are commenting. So, in my case, I comment on what is obvious and tangible. Which would be the lighting, surfaces, BG’s, etc. as they affect the subject(s), not the unknown story or intent.

Since you have taken up studio work I have been giving this a lot of thought because I am enjoying watching it and consciously trying to understand where you are coming from with this. I feel there is something here that I need to pay attention to. And whether or not I should refrain from commenting, too.

What I have come up with is that I wish I had more of what you have. I am thinking I might, at some point, further explore this Theory if I get more into what could be considered “still life” as it pertains to story telling.

But (and ain’t there always a stupid “but”! ), there is absolutely no question that successful still life absolutely requires a good understanding of good lighting, how it works and how to get it, how it affects the elements in the frame, which means good techniques. It is also going to have a huge impact on how your story is told. And this is the technical side. A perfect example of this is Grahame’s work-up using diffusion/reflection techniques, which I see you are putting into action. Maybe Jeremy's assessment of use of BG. Or maybe even my suggestion of backlighting/under lighting. And those are just a tip of the iceberg.

So the other side of the coin is getting a good, workable grasp of the technical side as well. You can’t bring your ideas to best light (pun intended!) if you don’t have good techniques to make them sparkle. Painters, sculptors, writers, photographers, name it, all have to have both to some degree.

Anyway, just a Theory! I hope you will be patient with the technical comments that seem to interfere with your vision. I feel pretty sure they are not written to interfere.

You have raisd two pointe that I have said time and time again, first NOT all images need a reason or story that is daft, there are record shots images of collections, stamps, coins, I shoot sports there IS NO "story" just a record of "something, a boat/car"

And as you have also said an image of a coin, pin, ring, ear ring on a cloth is just that something on a cloth.

I have three samples of still life on this thread, where I spent, time included in the freezing, and re freezing of the Mars bar, pouring hot water on it to get just the right amount to come through the ICE, about 12 hours.

I don't do landscapes because they are in my opinion far too hard so I don't keep, keep, keep trying in the hope I will one day get it right.

I also gave links to sites for advice on still life.

No matter how much time and effort is put into this shot it is an ear ring on a cloth, my honest opinion and I am sorry

[JR1]

Well Jeremy, that really has to be the understatement of the year so far.

You obviously do not follow Brian's work, it changes just about every day and rather than accept people are different, throw your toys out of the pram if others do not agree with you.

Hmmmmmm, so read by you and totally mis understood.

I refrain from further comment to avoid upsetting him and others, as my honest opinion, and I have also offered advice and links NOT just negative comments, my honest opinion would be to perhaps leave still life for a while and try another area of photography, outside, the shot from his garden was very interesting indeed.

[Loose Canon]

And as you have also said an image of a coin, pin, ring, ear ring on a cloth is just that something on a cloth.

Not only did I not say that but I also don't believe that is necessarily the case Jeremy.

For that matter I never said there didn’t need to be a reason for a shot. What I said was in the form of a question asking why an attempt at story-telling has to be a prerequisite for taking a shot.

To this response of yours to me I would have to say:

Hmmmmmm, so read by you and totally mis understood.

[JBW]

I’m kind of in the same boat as Jeremy! And probably sinking just as fast!



I guess my response to that if asked would have to be: “why does an attempt at story-telling have to be a prerequisite for taking a shot?”

So the other side of the coin is getting a good, workable grasp of the technical side as well. You can’t bring your ideas to best light (pun intended!) if you don’t have good techniques to make them sparkle. Painters, sculptors, writers, photographers, name it, all have to have both to some degree.

Anyway, just a Theory! I hope you will be patient with the technical comments that seem to interfere with your vision. I feel pretty sure they are not written to interfere.

Terry, I cut out most of your comment not because it doesn't make sense but to save bandwidth. First off let me state for the record that I agree with you that for my shots to become better I have to understand the technical scientific dare I say Geek side of photography.

My strong suit is my eye and my imagination. My weakest suit is the technical side. I joined CiC so that all areas of my then new hobby and my now new passion would be enhanced. I believe that they have been. Many people, yourself included have given me excellent pointers in all areas of photography. The technical side, the practical side, the eye side and perhaps most importantly the fun side.

We all have our own way of understanding what we do. My way is no better than your way nor is it any worse. You did not take the paper weight shot to tell a story. But when I saw the shot a saw a story. It is the way I am. I wondered at the beauty of the glass, I wondered what made you decide to shoot it as you did. Your shot created a story for me. And I am richer for the shot.

Please don't stop commenting. It is always positive and always paid attention too.

I can offer you a hint about my still life shots. When I am in the garden I try to respect what I see and photograph. I believe that everything is interconnected and that everything has sacredness within. Or to put it another way the Buddha Nature exists within everything. But when I began setting up the shots, when I began to create my own little world for the camera I found that I needed to open up to what was within myself. What is it within myself that is touched by a single earring.

There is also the time in my life when I was a pastor. Story telling was a very important tool.

I hope that helps?

Finally, technical pointers and suggestions do not interfere with my vision. They enhance my ability to express it! I will read and think about whatever anyone says. But I reserve the right to pay less attention to some comments than others.

Brian.

[Loose Canon]

Cool Brian. I appreciate you responding. I was hoping what I wanted to convey would be well received! What you are saying to me is being very well received.

That’s why I’m trying to take a good look at where you are coming from Brian. I am just the opposite and I hope I can get a better understanding of the side of the coin I am lacking in. You’re side. That’s why I said what I did in the fourth paragraph about paying attention. I’m going to take something away here too and I’m looking forward to finding out what that will be!

And like it or not Brother you are going to help me do it! So like it or not Brian, thank you in advance!

[JR1]

Not only did I not say that but I also don't believe that is necessarily the case Jeremy.

For that matter I never said there didn’t need to be a reason for a shot. What I said was in the form of a question asking why an attempt at story-telling has to be a prerequisite for taking a shot.

To this response of yours to me I would have to say:

Ok, mis read then