Macro flower photographs

[Katy Noelle]

Fall is in the air - the Mums are starting to bloom



Wendy

Beautiful colors, Wendy! (Is she going to get away with noise - you always "get" me about it.) ahem, is the noise, alright? I have a vested interest because this happens on a lot of my shots. I love how the background is solid green but, still, has that subtle pattern of the leaves.

Can you believe it? Wendy, can you believe that there's that chill in the air? Even more, I'm excited about it and not dreading it? What's wrong with me....we just escaped winter! (Although, first comes Christmas and camera related presents!)

[Letrow]

Fall is in the air - the Mums are starting to bloom



Thanks again for the feedback, I was beginning to doubt myself when no one commented.

Wendy

That shouldn't be a reason for doubt, sometimes we are just too busy with other stuff
I liked the pink flowers very much, although contrary to Dave I didn't notice the background really. Now that I look at it, it is a bit noisy in some spots.

[ScoutR]

Now that I look at it, it is a bit noisy in some spots.

Thanks for the reply Peter. The noise issue brings me to ask a question that has been on my mind for awhile, and that is whether or not noise or for that matter other artifacts must be avoided at all costs. I've put aside many shots until I learn how to work Neat Image better so it's not like I don't notice noise when it is there and sometimes I find it totally unacceptable as it ruins the look of the image. Now I suppose in a strictly photographic sense noise or any other artifact needs to be avoided and perhaps a shot needs to be judged based on visible artifacts, BUT sometimes I find that artifacts like banding or noise are not bothersome at all and in fact sometimes I even like the effect. So, I guess the question is: Are artifacts ever acceptable? I know what my answer is, but how do the rest of you feel.

A couple things come to mind whenever I ponder this, and one of them is the way grain in film photography was generally not desirable, but was sometimes used to enhance a photo. I also think of a recent example with the artifact Donald is getting in some of his photos, A Hilltop Ruin and although he wants to find the cause and avoid the problem, I also think that once one knows how to create this artifact it could be used to ones advantage. Anyway I'm really curious how everyone feels, and seeing as this is a photography forum are our shots judged on technical correctness, for instance should a shot like the flowers above be thrown out or have the noise processed out in order for it to be judged as a good photograph. The same question applies to other things for instance chromatic aberration, banding.... whatever. I've seen shots that look terrible for artifacts and shots where the artifacts are there but look fine. How do you judge these shots from a photographic point of view.

Wendy

[Katy Noelle]

Wendy, I think that this is such a good question and I look forward to more experienced people's input. One thing I am coming to the conclusion - if there is a lot of 'soul' to a photo that isn't perfectly, technically correct, that is a million times better than one that is technically correct but only contains a small amount of soul. Then, I wonder, it seems to me that, sometimes, people use a lack of technical perfection to tweak a certain emotion out of a photo. (I'm sorry, I can't think of a very good example, at the moment but, for example, very grainy woud give a certain, old photograph feel. I'm not expressing this very well.) Then, sometimes, the technical perfection in the way that something is captured is definitely what is so breathtaking about a photo (think "National Geographic") - even for the viewer who wouldn't know what the technicalities are.

Then, there's the thought, do flowers have soul? But, of course, nature speaks to our souls.

I do think, though, of the Alexander McQueen, fashion, special exhibit at the Met Museum in NYC. One of his quotes was that you have to know all of the little technical details of your art and have them mastered before you can start breaking the rules. I think, then, it happens as a result of experimentation and knowledgeable discernment. I feel very, very much like I'm waffling on!

[ScoutR]

Katy, It's hard not to waffle on subjects like this. Personally, I can decide for myself what I like or don't like or when blown highlights or noise bother me and when they don't. I guess I am wondering in the context of this forum because it is a photography forum if photos here are judged more for technicalities than for the "soul" factor. At this point I am not referring to the Flower shot, but just photos in general in the context of the forum.

Peter, sorry, I did not mean to throw things completly off topic. Mods, maybe this discussion could be moved to another thread???

Wendy

[jiro]

Anything that you add to the image has to have a reason, even noise. If it would make the image' message stronger then there is no reason not to include it.

[ScoutR]

Anything that you add to the image has to have a reason, even noise. If it would make the image' message stronger then there is no reason not to include it.

Whoa, that's a tough rule. So if I can waffle enough to find a reason for the abberation then it would be OK

[jiro]

Whoa, that's a tough rule. So if I can waffle enough to find a reason for the abberation then it would be OK

Not really a tough rule, Wendy. If you will remember from some previous posts, I told Katy that photography has a grammar, contrast is one of them. Soft and rough, that's contrast. If the noise adds a strong elemental effect on your image and would make the message of the shot stronger then why not?

Take a look at this photographers' artistic way of using noise and blur to make his images his own and unique from anyone else: http://www.rayon-vert.com/Gallery/tanatos/Thanatos.html then kindly let me know if his use of noise is unacceptable or not. By the way, Toshihiro Oshima is one of the photographers that I admire for being different from the mainstream style of photography. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, if my posts are all rubbish, Mods, please feel free to delete to the trash bin.

[ScoutR]

Ahhhh, beautiful example Jiro. This helps me very much to make the distinction between noise that enhances and was intended and noise that might be OK and does not distract from the photo, but just could not be avoided which is the type of noise and/or artifacts that I end up with in my shots. I won't try to fool you into thinking that I plan for the noise in the shots. Except for one shot that I did where I purposely wanted a gritty look, noise is always a compromise with me

Soooo, point taken. The example you posted shows very clearly and obviouly that the noise does indeed enhance the shot. That in my mind is true photographic art.

Now the other point would be. Is noise acceptable if because of conditions or camera or operator or whatever (excuses, excuses) the noise cannot be avoided. For instance bringing up shadows such as in the flower photograph. The noise does not add to the photo at all, but I'm wondering if it makes it a bad photograph. To my mind it is a compromise, but I suppose technically speaking and applying your rule, the noise does not add to the shot or make is stronger, SO photographically speaking it is NOT a good shot, but perhaps maybe a better shot than it would have been with the dark shadows. In other words, in the case of the flower, I found it better to have the lighter background which left me with noise. If I had planned it that way would it be better - never mind, I will quit trying to kid myself. Noise is Noise is noise, and it might not bother me, but after looking at the photos you linked to I can see clearly the point you are making and although I cannot explain it I feel like I've just been smacked across the head and had some sense knocked into me. That's a good thing. Thank you

Wendy

[jiro]

On the side, Wendy. The issue with any photographer is the thing we call "personal attachment." I am guilty of that and is trying to learn to detach myself for serious criticism of my work. When we have attachments to our work our mind somehow stops seeing the small inconsistencies with our shot or photograph. Without a teacher or a true genuine guide it's really hard to grow (I guess it applies to any discipline) as a student because of that. The mind will always rationalize that it is really that good (me guilty as charged. ) but when seen by a trained eye, this other person can immediately spot whether something is off with the composition, or post processing, or what. I wish I can remember that book I have that discusses this. That really opened my mind to be willing to learn. I wish I could find a teacher that can really guide me right now. All I have are books, books, and books.

[ScoutR]

On the side, Wendy. The issue with any photographer is the thing we call "personal attachment."

Yes, I have a bad case of that - I still like the mums despite the noise. I guess with me it's a case of whether this a good photograph for me to have taken. Is this better than what I have done in the past, or is it close to what I wanted.

I wish I can remember that book I have that discusses this. That really opened my mind to be willing to learn. I wish I could find a teacher that can really guide me right now. All I have are books, books, and books.

If you think of the book let me (us) know. I can't say if it will help (me) or not. I have shelves full of books that I should spend more time with, but I'm at that stage in my life when I am tired of studying what others are doing or have done and just like to experiment myself and then learn one step at a time by trial and error. I'm not saying that is a good thing or conducive to bettering myself, it's just where I am at right now. It's the reason I love this forum so much. I never feel like an idiot for posting my humble efforts, and have recieved so much help here, but in a very relaxed way that just works for me right now and keeps it fun. For instance this discussion has cleared up a lot of "stuff" that has been bugging me for awhile. Your very simple rule and the example you provided in the link was certainly not waffle and makes perfect sense to me.

Wendy

[Letrow]

The issue with any photographer is the thing we call "personal attachment."

I think you are right Jiro. The same thing happens when someone writes a text and then has it checked. Someone else will see things that the maker did not notice or isn't really aware of. I am always glad to get these comments on my photos.
In my case it is not so much me rationalizing that something is good, it's just me not noticing some things at all. I had a recent experience in this thread, when Katy commented on the stripey bokeh in my QAL photos. She was right about it and it was the first time I really SAW that bokeh.

And then there is personal taste, which is different for every viewer I guess, especially when you go into the extremes of photography. What is good and what is bad? It will be different for everyone.
I know my own likes, but at the same time I realize that my taste pallet is limited, even rigid in some ways. It has developed over the years by what I have seen, heard smelled, experienced in short.
I like my taste, but my parents had the same opinion about their taste and I thought they were pretty limited in some ways. So my kids will probably say that...

So, we have to be flexible and open to new things and try to find out what the maker's intention was. And then decide for ourselves what we think or feel about it.

Coming back to Wendy's question about artifacts and whether they are acceptable or not...I think they are. In some cases though they will elicit comments (positive or negative).

If we put it very simply, we could say that there are intentional and unintentional artifacts. Both can be disturbing or they can fit perfectly and even enhance the photo. The viewer will have to decide for him/herself whether he likes it or not.

When the effect is intentional (let's say we are talking art here just for discussion's sake) the viewer knows that his opinion is not going to change anything and he will either like or dislike what he is seeing.
The same feelings will come up with the unintentional effects, but here feedback might lead to another end result if the maker agrees with the comments he/she received.

Ah well, long answer short, this was a deep question Wendy.

[Letrow]

[MacrOdreams]

On the side, Wendy. The issue with any photographer is the thing we call "personal attachment." I am guilty of that and is trying to learn to detach myself for serious criticism of my work. When we have attachments to our work our mind somehow stops seeing the small inconsistencies with our shot or photograph. Without a teacher or a true genuine guide it's really hard to grow (I guess it applies to any discipline) as a student because of that. The mind will always rationalize that it is really that good (me guilty as charged. ) but when seen by a trained eye, this other person can immediately spot whether something is off with the composition, or post processing, or what. I wish I can remember that book I have that discusses this. That really opened my mind to be willing to learn. I wish I could find a teacher that can really guide me right now. All I have are books, books, and books.

I completely agree Jiro! When you find a teacher who helps you grow, please let me know. Until then, let us grow every day, even if just a little!

[MacrOdreams]

Wendy, I think that this is such a good question and I look forward to more experienced people's input. One thing I am coming to the conclusion - if there is a lot of 'soul' to a photo that isn't perfectly, technically correct, that is a million times better than one that is technically correct but only contains a small amount of soul. Then, I wonder, it seems to me that, sometimes, people use a lack of technical perfection to tweak a certain emotion out of a photo. (I'm sorry, I can't think of a very good example, at the moment but, for example, very grainy woud give a certain, old photograph feel. I'm not expressing this very well.) Then, sometimes, the technical perfection in the way that something is captured is definitely what is so breathtaking about a photo (think "National Geographic") - even for the viewer who wouldn't know what the technicalities are.

Then, there's the thought, do flowers have soul? But, of course, nature speaks to our souls.

I do think, though, of the Alexander McQueen, fashion, special exhibit at the Met Museum in NYC. One of his quotes was that you have to know all of the little technical details of your art and have them mastered before you can start breaking the rules. I think, then, it happens as a result of experimentation and knowledgeable discernment. I feel very, very much like I'm waffling on!

Oh Katy, I couldn't agree more. Personally, I enojy the drama of my photos or what you call the soul. This is what others sometimes see as "having a good eye." I see beauty in all things, even the dirty city or a graffiti wall in an overpass...again, personal tastes play a large role. Others would find the drama of my photos un-tidy and technically incorrect. I'm not sure about holding off on breaking the rules...I tend to do that from the get go...

[ScoutR]

I think you are right Jiro. The same thing happens when someone writes a text and then has it checked. Someone else will see things that the maker did not notice or isn't really aware of. I am always glad to get these comments on my photos.
In my case it is not so much me rationalizing that something is good, it's just me not noticing some things at all. I had a recent experience in this thread, when Katy commented on the stripey bokeh in my QAL photos. She was right about it and it was the first time I really SAW that bokeh.

And then there is personal taste, which is different for every viewer I guess, especially when you go into the extremes of photography. What is good and what is bad? It will be different for everyone.
I know my own likes, but at the same time I realize that my taste pallet is limited, even rigid in some ways. It has developed over the years by what I have seen, heard smelled, experienced in short.
I like my taste, but my parents had the same opinion about their taste and I thought they were pretty limited in some ways. So my kids will probably say that...

So, we have to be flexible and open to new things and try to find out what the maker's intention was. And then decide for ourselves what we think or feel about it.

Coming back to Wendy's question about artifacts and whether they are acceptable or not...I think they are. In some cases though they will elicit comments (positive or negative).

If we put it very simply, we could say that there are intentional and unintentional artifacts. Both can be disturbing or they can fit perfectly and even enhance the photo. The viewer will have to decide for him/herself whether he likes it or not.

When the effect is intentional (let's say we are talking art here just for discussion's sake) the viewer knows that his opinion is not going to change anything and he will either like or dislike what he is seeing.
The same feelings will come up with the unintentional effects, but here feedback might lead to another end result if the maker agrees with the comments he/she received.

Ah well, long answer short, this was a deep question Wendy.

Very well thought out answer Peter, I'm glad you posted. What you have said pretty well sums up how I feel about things and it really boils down to personal preference and taste and also where you want to be or are heading with your photography. I don't think I could ever enjoy myself if I had to be as strict and disciplined as Jiro, but I will never be the photographer that he is either. I don't think either approach is wrong or right, but I do think in the long run Jiro's is the more professional way to go about things.

I guess the reason I asked the question is because I always have artefact's and they are not usually intentional but sometimes I still love the shot, and I was just wondering if others would completely reject a shot from a photographic/artistic point of view if all the technicalities were not perfect. I think the answer probably depends on where the photo is being viewed. For instance in a photography competition, I can see Jiro's approach being the accepted norm, and rightfully so, but for general viewing then I think personal taste can be allowed to rule.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

Just beautiful, and absolutley must be clicked on and viewed in the Lytebox. I love the contrast, and you've done such a good job keeping the white without loosing the detail and texture in the petals.

I do wonder if it could use a little more space on the sides though.

Wendy

[Letrow]

Just beautiful, and absolutley must be clicked on and viewed in the Lytebox. I love the contrast, and you've done such a good job keeping the white without loosing the detail and texture in the petals.

I do wonder if it could use a little more space on the sides though.

Wendy

I think you are right about the sides. This was one of the macros where the flower ended up right in the middle and none of the crops that I tried really looked good.

I think this is one of those cases you referred to

...but for general viewing then I think personal taste can be allowed to rule.

Wendy

This little flower wouldn't have gone on to a competition

[Letrow]

Not sure what this is. I have to consult with the flower expert (my wife) on this one.

[Ricco]

A couple more to add. It is iris season here in Aus. I'm not 100% sure that the person whose garden I stole these out of fully appreciates my photos but I like them!