I don't have high hopes with this one, personally I don't even like the picture. I'm just curious how much a shift from some of the weird stuff to a classical topic changes the ~5.0 average I keep getting. Call this Research.
I have to say I was slightly surprised about the numerous "This is not still life" comments I got from the conservative DPC -members. In retrospect, I should have seen that coming. The critique came from not having arranged the composition of the objects manually, but the photo IS the composition IMHO; when walking on a large field of flowers and selecting a small section of the field from a certain angle you are in essence making the composition. I don´t think you have to cut down the flowers and put them in a vase to make them "Still life", that´s really narrowminded.
About the composition; I was indeed aiming for more of a graphical presentation, but I didn´t succeed as well as I hoped -I didn´t manage to get the picture flat enough. The original setup reminded me of a flag of some weird Hippy Country, that´s why I split the dark/light in the middle to get two different colored sides. I should have used a 1/3 division to get a more flag-like feel. And less flowers. Perhaps only few in a circle on the borderline of the shodow.
About the lighting; Yes, it is overexposed, but fixing that was not my aim in PS. I simply tried to get the balance between the dark/light side the way I wanted. In that I succeeded depending on the monitor I used to view the photo... it looks really different in some monitors.
N.B. I have to check the ND filter when I have the time, thanks for the tip.
I'm not sure what to say, you obviously didn't like the image yourself.
I think that this shot could be very good. with just a little more time and effort.
You say that you spent a lot of time working on this photo in photoshop. I am sure you learned that once you have overexposed your highlights there is not much you can to to salvage them. The scene is quite dynamic and is indeed a difficult image to capture. (if only the camera could see the way the eye does). To get this to expose properly the best thing you can do is get a graduated neutral desity filter.
In a way, I do like the lighting. I like the idea of part of the bed of flowers being in the sun while part of them are in the shade. This accentuates the "harsh" lighting of direct sunlight, and the subtlety of the soft light in the shadows. If you used that split ND the lighting would have been awesome.
As far as composition goes... everything is a little flat and jubmled. but not so flat that it becomes one of those super simple graphic images. I think the fact that the light/shadow regions are split right down the center makes the photo a little mundane. There is a general lack of tension or a center of focus for the eye to go to.
I wouldn't really call this a still life, kinda on the border line for me. But even so, it is out of focus, blown out highlights, poorly lit in the shadow (which is the only thing close to being in focus) and the colors are uninteresting.
I gave this photo a 1 because it didn't seem to me to fulfill my expectation of a "still life," a classic form of artfully arranged objects. Call me narrow minded but that's the way I see it.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
