Impressionistic Photography

[Katy Noelle]

#1

AV 1/100 f5.6 55mm ISO100 pattern metering

#2

AV 1/500 -2 f5.6 55mm ISO100 Pattern metering

#3

AV 1/640 -2 f5.6 55mm ISO100 Pattern metering

#4

AV 1/200 -1.33 f5.6 55mm ISO200 Pattern metering - I liked this one, rather than the one with spot metering. The bokeh with the pattern metering had the circles and the spot was just creamy.

#5

AV 1/400 -1.67 f10 55mm ISO100 pattern metering


#6

AV 1/100 -1 f5.6 ISO100 55mm spot metering and the end of the storm.


We had an ice storm on Friday. The storm cleared out very quickly with "gusts" up to 25 mph. It was frigid (which, I've noticed, makes it hard for me to think ) and I was being pelted with ice crystals from the trees (although, it didn't hurt - I just had to duck. ) I only had to think for about 15 seconds about attempting to get something studio, tack sharp. Instead, I put the camera on constant focusing (AI Servo), for the first time, and attempted to not get blown into the pond. What I'm trying to say is, I did these this way on purpose - they're something that I've been thinking about - but they turned out better than I hoped they would.

I used Pattern metering on these because of all of the different elements involved with them and because they were TOSSING in the wind. I tried to get the bokeh with simple background that was farther away than my camera was to this weed and shallow dof.

Is there such a thing as "impressionistic photography"?


I'd love to know what you all think! See what it says just below? C&C extremely welcome - always!

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Katy,

I believe there is impressionist photography and it can come in many forms from blur to motion including deliberately moving the camera to create motion, which I often do after too many red wines sitting around a camp fire.

Some quick thoughts.

The overall light and colour is superb and I personally like shallow DOF.

The branches in 1, 2 & 3 cut the image in two and lead me out of the picture. Particularly so in this case, as the sharpest part of the image is on the branch where it leaves the image. With shallow DOF the viewer is drawn to the sharpest part of the image and it is too close to the edge.

Compare this to #5 where you lead me along the branch down to droplet of water just hanging there – beautiful. I am left to explore the rest of the image.

I do like #4. The shimmering specula highlights and the tonal change in the background offset the dead flowers on the branch. The colour contrast and DOF is just right.

#6 is too messy for me. The DOF is insufficient to blur the background to a straight tonal range and I don’t think the limb is strong enough to carry the shot.

Having said all that if I was out shooting the scene I probably would have taken or tried all these shots, so nothing is wasted. Reviewing the shoot is the only way to help your vision and if you hadn’t taken all these shots one might just have worked and you would have missed it.

I enjoyed looking at these.

[Donald]

Nothing to add to what Peter has already said, except that I agree all he has written.

[mythlady]

These are beautiful, Katy. I agree with Peter's comment about the branch, but I don't know how that could have been avoided, except maybe to clone out the left side of the branch in #3 (but then you'd have kind of a stump left, no?).

I like #3 and #5 the best. The bokeh in #4 is stunning -- looks almost like a gradient effect -- but the subject is less appealing than in the other pics. The colors in all are gorgeous.

[carregwen]

very good indeed, Katy. The colours, clarity, composition, and bokeh are the strength of these. Did you have the mitts on?

[Katy Noelle]

I want to add some of my own C&C but, first, thank you very much for all of your input! Thanks, Peter, for taking the time and effort to share with me your thoughts and so much sound advice in detail. All of your insights are really invaluable. I, also, had a super discussion with my sister (the artist.) Talking with her is great - she's really a gold mine of insight, experience and artistic training.

I just want to say that, when I run things by everyone, I realize that different people will see things differently - some will like things and others won't and, then, sometimes, there's consensus. THEN, there's what I think - ummmm, sometimes it doesn't match what others generally say.

What I'm trying to say is that "love is blind!" I just LOVE these. (Rob's comment said what I like about these with a blessed succinctness.) Hearing what everyone has to say and what they see is vaaaaary helpful. I'm doing a balance of trusting my instinct, learning from the input and just waiting to see what I think in a month.

Anyway, I wanted to share a few of the things that my sister and I talked about. It was illuminating for me and I learned! We have an understanding that we just throw our thoughts and opinions out there and we can take or leave them. We have major respect for each other.

#2


She was pretty "harsh" with this one. I thought that there was a rhythm to it, with all of the details, that pulls me in. I, also, love the creamy bokeh on it and it gives me the happy feeling that I have when I see pinecones (anyone know what I'm talking about?) Anyway, she agrees that the line - being the darkest and boldest thing there - just pulls one in and right off again. Alas, I think that this is what most people see. Maybe there's another use for this somewhere.

#1 is the one that she said had rhythm. I asked about the bold line and she observed that the white flower on the left of the branch stops the line from leading out of the frame and pulls the viewer down and around and up and down. However, she thought it wasn't an arresting photo.

#1


This next photo, although she said it wasn't exciting, I observed her gasp when she came to it. I've seen others have the same reaction to it. Her insight was that the blue dot of specular highlight is what makes it "sing" because it's the complementary color to the mustard. She, also, noted that, not only is there a strong line leading off but that there's a huge "X" right in the middle which she noted is generally boring.

#3


Well, she agreed with the consensus of everyone else that these next two are good but, although I like them, I think they're a little boring. The very important thing that she had to say was that these have contrast and contrast (i.e. a color next to it's complement) makes for a strong image.

#4



#5


I can't remember what she said about this but I love it's delicate "lacyness" and how the context isn't just blurred away. Either, I'm a genius or I just have to learn or it's a matter of taste. I'll sleep on it.

#6

Well, now, I wonder! I wonder about opposites and things that are the same - i.e. complements and subtle monotones. I just wonder but I don't know what it is that I'm wondering, yet. I've read, somewhere, that when you get a good contrast of ideas or colors or textures or subjects that that can be very powerful. I've noticed that, often, photos that really grab me are ones that have that tension. Don't know what to do about it, though. It's been November - a subtle month. I love that. Isn't there a place and time for both to "speak"?

So, all of your advice and thoughts go into the pot to simmer and I keep growing and practicing and exploring.

Thanks for reading all of this (if you got this far ) and thanks for your words of encouragement. This was so fun!

[mythlady]

Could your sister come over to my house? I really like the things she had to say. I think all of this artistic stuff is so complex, and especially complex in that we have 1/600 of a second to capture it, sometimes, before the bird flies away or whatever, while a painter can sit there and fiddle for weeks. I think over time we get better at "seeing" what's in front of us, what's in the viewfinder, but still, I'm often surprised at what comes out when I get things up in Lightroom. These are beautiful.

[Donald]

Rob's comment said what I like about these with a blessed succinctness.

What? You mean - Did you have your mitts on !!?

However,... it's interesting to read the perspective of an artist who doesn't work in photography.

I remember reading (don't think it was on here) some advice that a budding photographer, in order to learn about shape, texture and colour, should lay down his/her camera and sign up to an art course at college. And that reminded me that one of the few things I was goos at in school (all those years ago), was art.

[Katy Noelle]

Could your sister come over to my house?

Yeah, sure.

I really like the things she had to say. I think all of this artistic stuff is so complex, and especially complex in that we have 1/600 of a second to capture it, sometimes, before the bird flies away or whatever, while a painter can sit there and fiddle for weeks. I think over time we get better at "seeing" what's in front of us, what's in the viewfinder, but still, I'm often surprised at what comes out when I get things up in Lightroom. These are beautiful.

After listening to Suzy for the last couple of months: A) It has certainly helped when I have time to frame and choose my composition. In this case, I had a strong general gist but half of the photos that I took had nothing in them because the wind kept whipping it up out of the frame. (I was thinking a lot of Kay and sports photography, at that very moment. ) I certainly was choosing these for the colors and the moment for the light and atmosphere. B) Then, afterwards, it's so helpful to have an idea of all this in editing. She said something about a painting by a local artist that I had bought, "it doesn't have enough white." I've been ruminating on this mystery for a couple of years, now, even as I PP my photos.

Rob's comment said what I like about these with a blessed succinctness.

What? You mean - Did you have your mitts on !!?

You mean, "oven mitts"? Nope, I was swearing solemn vows to get some - anything! - next time I went out! I always have the strap around my neck when carrying my camera but, when my hands are so cold, I have horrible flashes of my numb fingers dropping my camera in the pond. !!!

However,... it's interesting to read the perspective of an artist who doesn't work in photography.

I remember reading (don't think it was on here) some advice that a budding photographer, in order to learn about shape, texture and colour, should lay down his/her camera and sign up to an art course at college. And that reminded me that one of the few things I was good at in school (all those years ago), was art.

My sister and I were talking about just that very thing. For two seconds we thought it was a good idea for me to, also, find an art forum. She said, "stick with the photographers, Katy, stick with the photographers!" Meaning (in part), you guys, here at CIC, are pretty low on the all consuming ego and more interested in loving photography. (Not that you can't find artists like this - and, er I AM a soprano - I laugh at and tease "us", too! Since she's a painter, herself, if you're one, too, hopefully you won't be offended by this but understand. )

Two months ago, I was thinking something along these lines. "I can be a photographer because, even though I'm not necessarily an artist, I know when I see something beautiful. I'll just keep my eyes open and wait for it to come to me." I've been trying to ignore the dawning realization that, just like painters have to choose their subject, make a composition out of it and decide how they want to portray it, photographers need to do pretty much the exact same thing. It's just a different instrument used to get the image.

That makes me think that I should mention that in this lovely conversation that I had with my sis, she said that it's really hard for anything hung in a gallery to get more than a passing glance. I've heard (and related to) others bemoan that photography is a hard medium to get people to really stop and look (sorry, "iffy" paraphrase). Well, it sounded quite a bit like painters, sketchers, etc. are in the same boat. I think that it's always good for us to challenge ourselves to grow and stretch in our efforts to produce an amazing image.