jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

You may rest easily. You did not break the rules.

The reason you didn’t break the rules is that there are no rules in art. The only applicable “rules” are the general ethical principles that apply to all endeavors. We shouldn’t engage in theft, we shouldn’t harm others or violate other general ethical principals of that sort. But beyond that kind of general ethical stuff, there really are no rules about how art should be made.

However…

Artists often impose limitations upon themselves voluntarily. "Today I am only going to shoot with a 35 mm lens." "Today I am only going to make black and white images." "Today I am only going to make images that satisfy the weekly photo challenge criteria."

And …

The absence of rules – or a rulebook – for the art of photography bothers a lot of people. The world of imaging is changing fast. At one time it took some technical skill just to produce an image – good or bad. Now all it takes is a phone. It used to be that one purchased a good 35 mm camera and it could last for decades. Now new digital cameras seem obsolete in a few years. The world swirls about us and without the reassuring guideposts of rules, some of us feel overwhelmed. In fact, on some level it is probably hard for everyone to exist in a situation in which there are no specified rules or directives.

However, the absence of enforceable rules clearly seems to bother some people more than others. Maybe that is part of the reason why some, in the absence of a rule book, resort to the dictionary in an attempt to use definitions in lieu of rules. But that usually isn’t very satisfying.

And …

I like your image. My appreciation of it is unaffected by the technology you used – or didn’t use – to make it.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Thanks.

Mike

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

Beautiful detail color and repeating pattern, this is really an outstanding photograph. Nature gave you a gift here, you saw it and made the most of it.
It's too bad that the process of post processing manipulation has put some photographers in a position of feeling their care, their vision, their efforts would be unappreciated because they "probably" achieved something believable in some way other than with a camera.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Thanks, Bob. I've heard people say triumphantly and knowingly "oh, it was Photoshopped!!!" about an image as though that diminished the image or the artist somehow. I've heard others pronounce proudly "and, it is SOOC!!!" as though that were a special achievement or as though "SOOC" even means much of anything. Most of my stuff is "SOOC" I guess, but that is merely force of habit from decades of using film. That is not to say that those proficient at post, such as yourself, do not take care when shooting, either. So, I think the whole argument about what is "true" and what is "real" is pretty silly.

The underlying insinuation from people who criticize post work as "not true" is that the artist is somehow trying to fool people, or is cheating. I thought it was humorous to turn that on its head and show a so-called "SOOC" image that looks like it was put together as a composite in post.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Excellent points. Thanks.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Clearly and simply stated. I agree.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Thanks. The flower heads on that plant normally form a cluster with no two in the same plane of focus. The storm the other day knocked this plant down at the critical moment of development so that the inflorescence, normally a horizontal inverted umbrella shape, was turned 90 degrees. All of the spiked flower heads then turned 90 degrees back to vertical, but now they were more or less in the same plane of focus and closely grouped.

People familiar with the plant would probably assume that the image is a composite.

Something good came out of that horrific storm we had in northern Michigan the other day!

Mike

waykee7 Loc: Cortez, Colorado

I agree with what everyone else has said. For instance, last week, a gladiola that my wife had planted 3 years ago finally bloomed. She cut the flower, and put it in a vase. I shot a couple of shots using window light in two various settings, one with a highlight light wall in the background and the other with the wall in shadow. So did I cheat to shoot a cut flower? I don't think so.
In terms of looking for an unusual plant, then bread and butter of a nature photographer is the unusual! That's where my "eye" or "vision" separates me from a disinterested tourist with a point and shoot hurriedly walking down a trail and making a snapshot.
Wayne

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Eloquently stated (as usual :) )

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

You know the tourist with his point and shoot may get as much fun as out of his snapshots as you do using your visionary eyes. What wrong with snapshots? I am a proud taker of them. A 100th of a second of life captured on a sensor is a snapshot Wayne.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

I think maybe his key word is "disinterested" tourist. If any interest in the subject exists the snapshot can be just as fulfilling to the button-pusher as the person with a DSLR

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

I've been back to look at this one several times, trying to figure out why I keep coming back to it...and finally realized that it's the contrast between the no-two-the-same "angles of view" of the innumerable wee blossoms compared with uniform, almost parallel up-thrust of the green spikes of blossoms-to-be.
Beautiful and fascinating!

Dave