BB4A

Sorry, but this is my Only Rant for 2018... I just have to get it out there or burst.

I was recently invited to help judge a Close-up &/or Macro Flower Photography Competition. I was delighted to be asked... until I started looking through the photographs themselves. Nearly 50% of the images were of flowers arbitrarily sprayed with water droplets. So, I started disqualifying every photograph that I believed was “artificially enhanced” by photographers with a camera in one hand, and a spray bottle in the other.

I realize that “water droplets on flowers” is a common exercise for those being taught photography, but it seems that some of the guidance might be a bit hit and miss? My perspective (and I freely apologize in advance, as I’m often wrong):

1. If you really must spray a flower for a photograph, PLEASE gently & lightly spray the whole flower and surrounding leaves from one direction only, preferably above? It looks SO phony when the flower has lots of droplets all over every petal... but projections on the stem, and surrounding leaves are dry as a bone in a desert. FAKE!

2. In the art of photographing flowers, less is so often more. True of water droplets as well. Consider dripping a few drops from above, rather than spraying using the “flower under a shower head approach”. FAKE!

3. Lastly, Lighting that shot. If your intention is to depict a flower (a) at Dawn, with the dew still upon it, or (b) after a Summer Shower, then make sure your lighting is NATURAL and appropriate. Low angle for Dawn shots, diffused for Summer Showers, or a beam from the Sun peaking through clouds... think about your concept and initiate, plan, and execute accordingly. Ideally, be outside (shock, horror, yes, in Natural Light!) at Dawn or directly after the rain, to capture the shot. Think of your sense of achievement in capturing the moment. Anything else when artificially lighting a flower, can tend to make the subject look a bit fake, even when it isn’t.

Apologies again, Rant over for 2018. I awarded the prizes to some wonderful photographs... none of which had a fake raindrop / dewdrop anywhere in shot.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'd probably be a tough judge like you. I come from a Science background so I notice all those details as well. And try not to doing cliche's when I shoot. Even well done "watering" or "spritzing" rarely looks like natural rain drops or dew.

marty wild Loc: England

I enter many competitions in the U.K, So I'm going straight to the point! Most judges in the U.K, miss the concept and technical difficulties. Lighten up! Don't be a U.K. Standard judge, please look beyond and accept added drama if I may would you be interested in marking a few of my images in private message. Please be truthful and constructive if you are up for it pm me

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I can relate. I helped judge a photo contest one time and hope never to do it again. Participants were high school and college students. As the rules indicated, we disqualified everything that looked photoshopped beyond basic things like toning and cropping. What was left wasn't worth judging for the most part.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Funny, back in the film days, I can't recall any photo competition that disqualified photos for too much burning and dodging.

marty wild Loc: England

The world of photography has gone one step beyond. We don't like to admit we like edits. But we also don't want too accept the truth. As you well know editing images for magazines has been going on for years before photoshop was created. Only a small amount of photographs could do it in the olden days. With the creation of photoshop and the birth of others apps. There's only a small amount don't do manipulation. I do as much as I can in camera. But the clown, sharpen and smoothing brushes are used in my work. To evade the truth. Yes! To enhances the recording. Yes! So long the edits are not over cooked.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Did the rules say anything about "enhancing" the subject before shooting it? I've seen lots of pictures of wet flowers, so I can understand how people would like to spray them. Eliminating them automatically seems kinda harsh.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That's a tough call, though. Processing is okay, but too much processing will get you disqualified?

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I am an Image Creator who uses photographic techniques and equipment to capture the beginning of my final products.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Well, if this is your only rant for the year and it took until December to get around to it, good on you!

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Well, I have to ask. Is spraying with water much different than using artificial light such as a ring light or flash? How about using a device to hold the flower still or at a certain angle? What about post processing? What about introducing additional vegetation into the shot that wasn't naturally there to create a more pleasing background? All of these are used by photographers on a regular basis. So, was the problem really about the quality of the photo or your dislike for something you noticed that most others might not?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

It depends. Just like spraying water. If you spray water well and it looks like it should be there, no problem from me. But if it looks fake or forced, good bye. Just like with too much PP, extra plants from the wrong environment or lighting that does not quite match up. Anything can be overdone or done badly. I get the impression that the OP is really upset with all of the badly done spraying encountered.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Do you know what the rules were for entry? I've judged photo contests, and I found that some have strict entry rules and some do not. It the entrants do not know that "fake" is unacceptable, then it's hard to say a general nay to them. Perhaps look at how well done it might be. But, you were the judge, so your word is the final one.

Having said that, I do applaud your stand against fake. If it's very well done, then it should look so natural you can't tell.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

If it's a true nature competition then the hand of man should not intrude.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

I agree! But, the hand of man is often hard to detect.