Still Life

[billtils]

As in "There's still life in photography even if we can't get out and about" and as in "This is a still life composed from some artificial flowers".




It's an experimental shot as I try to optimise a table top routine. Natural light, shot with the camera tethered in CaptureOne Pro, and a stack of 15 created manually advancing focus in the tethered screen live view. The stack was processed in Zerene (in the interests of full disclosure I tried it in PS too but was not impressed).

[pschlute]

I like it. The subdued colours and background give it an old-fashioned or historical look. Quite charming.

[billtils]

Thanks Peter

[Wavelength]

I too feel th same way as Peter.... very impressive in its own way...

[billtils]

Thanks Nandakumar

[DanK]

Very nice. What was the background?

Personally, I would get rid of the artificial frame, particularly because it's brighter than most of the image. I think it distracts. That raises an interesting question, which is the convention of using a white or off-white mat when framing. Because the border is wider and clearly distinct from the image, I don't think they distract. However, one of the other people who is shown in the gallery that has some of my shots, Marty Klein, has a gorgeous image of a flower (a scanograph, not a photograph) against a dark background that he framed with a charcoal gray mat, and the result was truly stunning. It's something that I made a mental note to try, but I haven't yet figured out what sort of frame would go well with it. But all of this is a digression.

[billtils]

Very nice. What was the background?

Personally, I would get rid of the artificial frame, particularly because it's brighter than most of the image. I think it distracts. That raises an interesting question, which is the convention of using a white or off-white mat when framing. Because the border is wider and clearly distinct from the image, I don't think they distract. However, one of the other people who is shown in the gallery that has some of my shots, Marty Klein, has a gorgeous image of a flower (a scanograph, not a photograph) against a dark background that he framed with a charcoal gray mat, and the result was truly stunning. It's something that I made a mental note to try, but I haven't yet figured out what sort of frame would go well with it. But all of this is a digression.

Thanks Dan, and not a digression at all.

Interesting comments on the frame. I don't usually frame digital images and if I do it's usually with a keyline. However, last season almost all the judges in our club's PDI competitions recommended using something to delineate the edge of the image, either black or keyed to a colour in the image, and I've been giving it a go. It's also something I've raised with the Scottish Photographic Federation who have had to amend the rules for this year's Portfolio competition, replacing the physical entries in the print sections with DPIs and not requiring a border to simulate what would have been the print mount.

The background is the kitchen wall. It's not really that colour and it is a solid colour - what you see is partly the result of the processing to achieve the effect (pretty well as described by Peter).

[Manfred M]

Bill - when it comes to frames or borders, the question that I always ask myself is whether or not the element complements or competes with the image. If it distracts (by becoming a compositional element) then it is unlikely to strengthen the image, but if it complements, then it is likely to work.

When it comes to prints, the question on border / mat size is always interesting. A small narrow border or mat takes away from the print, but a large one tends to complement the image. The rule of thumb that I was taught was that the minimum mat size should be one standard frame size larger than the print, i.e. an A4 print should go in a mat for an A3 frame (or larger). There is some discussion on mat colour and some of the "experts" suggest that the mat colour should match the paper colour (unfortunately, this does not seem to have been a topic of agreement between the mat board manufacturers and the inkjet paper manufacturers).

There are also some rather interesting discussions on the amount of border that should be showing on a matted print. The issue here is that there is no agreement. Some people show no papers and others show lots; personal taste (and to some extent fashion) seem to dictate this choice.

I'm not 100% sure where the suggestion of artificially delineating the edge of the image comes from. While I definitely understand that this is necessary for a strong image, in projected images, the image never fills the entire screen and there is a natural delineation there. I can see that there might be an issue if the image is a 16 : 9 standard screen ratio, but that happens fairly rarely. That being said, there are fashions and trends in photography (which includes judging), so I wonder if that is what is happening here. That concept has not made it to this side of the Atlantic (yet).

[billtils]

.... so I wonder if that is what is happening here. That concept has not made it to this side of the Atlantic (yet).

Manfred, I think what is happening is that the idea came up mainly for lighter images where there is no clear edge between the projected image and the white screen, and a keyline a few px wide does help to contain the image.

Your rule of thumb raises two questions: what if your print is not a standard size, and what if you use a black mount board? (the second is slightly tongue in cheek but the first is serious as, like many, I seldom print to fill the paper size).

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I think what is happening is that the idea came up mainly for lighter images where there is no clear edge between the projected image and the white screen, and a keyline a few px wide does help to contain the image.

That could be, but I'm not sure that it is a rule that should be applied generally and in a photo competition, I'm not sure if it should be applied at all. Let me post two images:

With Border:






Without border:




I personally find the image without the border works better because there is a more ethereal look to it, but that's just my view.

Your rule of thumb raises two questions: what if your print is not a standard size, and what if you use a black mount board? (the second is slightly tongue in cheek but the first is serious as, like many, I seldom print to fill the paper size).

Both are complex questions with no easy answer, other than to suggest that in general, you can go wrong with a border that is too narrow, but at the other extreme even ultra wide borders do look good. I also look at the width of the white space on the print when looking at borders; the wider it is (so long as it is similar in tone to the image itself) adds to the look. As an example, the largest matted print I've made is 21" x 36" where the mat is 2-1/4" and the border that shows is 3/4" for a total of 3". I think that's the limit and had I gone to a narrow area of white on the print, it would have looked too small. If I print again, I would probably go with a 3" wide mat board and somewhere between 1/2" and 3/4" print border, as that will give the print a more substantial look.

The black mount board is not nearly as a tongue and cheek as you suggest. I've done a print on Moab Slickrock Silver 300 paper that looked quite effective, but the paper (it's an RC paper) base is so dark it looks silly with a white mat. I looked at matting it in charcoal and black but neither are quite right. I suspect it will either do very well in a competition or totally bomb out because it is so unusual. It's slightly darker than what we see on the right hand side of this shot.

[billtils]

... With Border... Without border:

Just one wee problem Manfred - when we view these on CIC the screen layout of the page creates a border ...

Thanks for the info on the Slickrock paper - looks interesting!