My 2018 Rant - Close-up / Macro Flower Photographs; Competition Entries (Page 3): Don't agree...the rules of the competition are what should or should not intrude. Otherwise, when you...

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Fotoartist wrote:

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

Don't agree...the rules of the competition are what should or should not intrude. Otherwise, when you take that sunset, you purposely underexpose, then manipulate exposure, clarity, white balance, and so forth, the "hand of man" is indeed present. Any post processing is an intrusion (and of course intrusion is not necessarily bad). Once again, IMO, it is how the image strikes you that is important, not how it was made.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

tinplater wrote:

Don't agree...the rules of the competition are what should or should not intrude. Otherwise, when you take that sunset, you purposely underexpose, then manipulate exposure, clarity, white balance, and so forth, the "hand of man" is indeed present. Any post processing is an intrusion (and of course intrusion is not necessarily bad). Once again, IMO, it is how the image strikes you that is important, not how it was made.

Question: Is there a difference in how the the "hand of man" is applied? What we were originally talking about was that some were apparently spraying their flowers to make them look rained on. That was man's hand trying to distort nature. What you're referring to is developing an image in some computer program. Was something added to the image? Were colours deliberately changed (say from blue to red)? Were these efforts to distort nature? Or to correctly present nature?

BebuLamar

BB4A wrote:

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.

Sorry, but this is my Only Rant for 2018... I just... (show quote)

Never enter the contest but thanks for the water droplets tip. I never thought of that. I always take the pictures of flower as is.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

AzPicLady wrote:

Question: Is there a difference in how the the "hand of man" is applied? What we were originally talking about was that some were apparently spraying their flowers to make them look rained on. That was man's hand trying to distort nature. What you're referring to is developing an image in some computer program. Was something added to the image? Were colours deliberately changed (say from blue to red)? Were these efforts to distort nature? Or to correctly present nature?

I do not think the "hand of man" is the issue. It is "The obvious hand of man"

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

dsmeltz wrote:

I do not think the "hand of man" is the issue. It is "The obvious hand of man"

OK. So change my question to the "obvious hand of man." The question still applies.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

AzPicLady wrote:

OK. So change my question to the "obvious hand of man." The question still applies.

In one the spray results look just like natural rain. In the other it looks fake.

Think a real suntan and the orange spray on stuff.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I think the same thing can apply to portrait photography. Some photographers go overboard with removing facial "blemishes", to the point where the skin doesn't look real anymore, looks like made of wax. Every line, wrinkle, shadow and skin pore has been ironed out and wiped away in editing. Sometimes the subject ends up looking even more fake than a department store mannequin.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

BB4A wrote:

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.

Sorry, but this is my Only Rant for 2018... I just... (show quote)

I understand, and agree with you. An overdone or poorly done "trick" is such a bore, like a pianist who likes to glissando way too much. You are, in this fellow jurist's estimation, a good and fair judge. While artists lie to tell the truth, they shouldn't stutter as they lie, and they should BE telling the truth.