PDA

View Full Version : Fly


Nick Temple-Fry
23rd July 2008, 07:26 PM
I rather like this one, but I suspect perhaps I shouldn't.

Any views to help me make up my mind?

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/506/Fromthecanalside5.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/7078)

Nick

Ian
23rd July 2008, 08:18 PM
I rather like this one, but I suspect perhaps I shouldn't.

Any views to help me make up my mind?


Nick

It's got potential, Nick. I'd suggest not making the position of the fly central - use the old 'rule of thirds' tip to add interest by off-setting the subject.

Ian

Nick Temple-Fry
23rd July 2008, 09:42 PM
It's got potential, Nick. I'd suggest not making the position of the fly central - use the old 'rule of thirds' tip to add interest by off-setting the subject.

Ian

Hmm - perhaps a made a mistake calling the thread 'Fly', because it's not really about the fly, more the overall scene.

I did, honest, think about thirds when I composed this, thus I've got the change from near to further grass on a 3'rd boundary, the central stem ending on a 3'rd and the two diagonals terminating around a 3'rd (rhs). So thanks Ian - but I'm not convinced (but please feel free to play with the image and show me I'm wrong if you want).

Mind you I'm a bit underwhelmed by the level of response telling me that it's a great image, so probably that's judgement anyway.

Nick

Nick Temple-Fry
24th July 2008, 06:18 AM
OK - Having got up early to put the rubbish sacks out (unfortunately our local urban badgers know when the Council calls - boy were they dissapointed last week when the strike was on and nobody put out the sacks). I thought I'd try Ians crop again.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/fly_crop.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/7093)

Let no one say that I'm not generous in defeat, it does move the emphasis quite effectively onto the fly and makes it perhaps easier to read. But at what a cost, all those expensive pixels just thrown away, I paid for them, I want to see them - so there!.

Actually I'm torn (as would have been the sacks if I put them out last night), what do you think?

Still fighting the inevitable

Nick

art frames
24th July 2008, 08:07 AM
Nick

I am only responding as you have not had very much comment. I wasn't drawn to the image as much as you.

For me the picture is like many I take, an interesting moment in time, but maybe not a piece of perfection. I hesitate to share those

The fly seems damaged. One wing and one leg seems to be wrong. Either it is deformed or posing in an awkward way. That is what I notice most. So I am feeling puzzled as to what is the main subject and why.

The colour is nice and natural and the composition OK but it hasn't got anything which makes this a picture to want to look at for long. To be honest it wasn't rescued by the compositional change.

Finally, I always get puzzled as to why you post some (TO ME) dull pictures for criticism when you post better ones as foto fair. Are you pushing at a boundary that you perceive?

My training as a commercial artist leads me to make images that I think are commercial. So I have always got that bias, I know that. I take other more personal shots as well and may try posting them. It might be I am out of date and times have moved us on.

Best wishes

peter

PeterD
24th July 2008, 08:35 AM
Nick

I have started to post some images as it seems to be taking forever to get my gallery sorted out.

The fly below was posted this morning and I thought it appropriate to post it on this thread. Its taken with the E500 to show the old camera is still a good image taker.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/506/Mid-day_fly_-_Mesembrina_meridiana-7232831.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/7095)

All the best

Peter

PeterD
24th July 2008, 08:46 AM
Nick,

On reflection, perhaps I should not have posted my image on your thread. My apologies.

Peter

Nick Temple-Fry
24th July 2008, 08:51 AM
Nick,

On reflection, perhaps I should not have posted my image on your thread. My apologies.

Peter

No problem Peter, I'm just glad to see you posting images again.

Nick

Nick Temple-Fry
24th July 2008, 09:57 AM
Nick

I am only responding as you have not had very much comment. I wasn't drawn to the image as much as you.

For me the picture is like many I take, an interesting moment in time, but maybe not a piece of perfection. I hesitate to share those

The fly seems damaged. One wing and one leg seems to be wrong. Either it is deformed or posing in an awkward way. That is what I notice most. So I am feeling puzzled as to what is the main subject and why.

The colour is nice and natural and the composition OK but it hasn't got anything which makes this a picture to want to look at for long. To be honest it wasn't rescued by the compositional change.

Finally, I always get puzzled as to why you post some (TO ME) dull pictures for criticism when you post better ones as foto fair. Are you pushing at a boundary that you perceive?

My training as a commercial artist leads me to make images that I think are commercial. So I have always got that bias, I know that. I take other more personal shots as well and may try posting them. It might be I am out of date and times have moved us on.

Best wishes

peter

I would contend that some, at least, of my images are in fact landscapes, just of a smaller land. And the fly was a part of the landscape, much as a cow may be a feature in a scene of rolling vales.

Am I pushing a boundary, well not consciously and certainly not in a spirit of any particular rebellion. Perhaps the only boundary I'm facing is in the limitations of my current ability. My ability to take photographs, to visualise images or to apply self criticism.

But I suppose I'm personally questioning the blatancy of some photographic styles, not because I dislike the images those styles produce but because I see it as a limitation that we have imposed on ourselves. Partly because the 'digital' revolution, both in the cameras and in pp software, has concentrated attention towards very technically measurable set of standards, against which all images are to be judged. And no, I'm not going down the route of arguing against technical proficiency or the requirement for necessary sharpness in the appropriate part of the image.

But in there lies the rub, 'the appropriate part of the image'. We accept/desire in painted or drawn art a high degree of approximation or suggestion, is that because the artist can't manage the accuracy of the draughtsman?; patently not, it is because the artist is controlling our attention by the use of detail.

OOF is now really only seems acceptable for the purpose of separation, or for special effect; everything else must be clear and clean, as if etched by a nail on a steel plate. Yet I don't believe this perception applied fifteen or thirty years ago, was this due to the limitations of technology, I would strongly argue not. We have known how to make images sharp ever since we discovered how to make a pinhole.

Maybe I'm out of step, maybe I'm just wrong. Perhaps because I come from a scientific/technical background I'm just backward in my visual education and this is just a phase and I'll grow through it.

Oh dear, I have probably gone on for too long and am likely guilty of taking myself far too seriously:)

Don't really know.

Nick

PeterD
24th July 2008, 10:19 AM
Hi Nick,

It is a bit of a conundrum but imo images are created for the purpose of the artist/photographer to convey a mood, message, information etc. To successfully do this, the artist/photographer must ask the question 'is what I am trying to achieve easily recognised by a viewer'. Thats not merely to do with the technical quality but everything to do with context and composition.

I think it comes down to a question of scales. A tiny object in detailed large surroundings can never be considered the subject. Balance is important. At the end of the day though, what is important is that your images are pleasing to you.

Well thats my opinion. What about hearing from others on this. I think its a deserving theme that is well worth giving attention to.

Peter

art frames
24th July 2008, 10:20 AM
I would contend that some, at least, of my images are in fact landscapes, just of a smaller land. And the fly was a part of the landscape, much as a cow may be a feature in a scene of rolling vales.

Am I pushing a boundary, well not consciously and certainly not in a spirit of any particular rebellion. Perhaps the only boundary I'm facing is in the limitations of my current ability. My ability to take photographs, to visualise images or to apply self criticism.

But I suppose I'm personally questioning the blatancy of some photographic styles, not because I dislike the images those styles produce but because I see it as a limitation that we have imposed on ourselves. Partly because the 'digital' revolution, both in the cameras and in pp software, has concentrated attention towards very technically measurable set of standards, against which all images are to be judged. And no, I'm not going down the route of arguing against technical proficiency or the requirement for necessary sharpness in the appropriate part of the image.

But in there lies the rub, 'the appropriate part of the image'. We accept/desire in painted or drawn art a high degree of approximation or suggestion, is that because the artist can't manage the accuracy of the draughtsman?; patently not, it is because the artist is controlling our attention by the use of detail.

OOF is now really only seems acceptable for the purpose of separation, or for special effect; everything else must be clear and clean, as if etched by a nail on a steel plate. Yet I don't believe this perception applied fifteen or thirty years ago, was this due to the limitations of technology, I would strongly argue not. We have known how to make images sharp ever since we discovered how to make a pinhole.

Maybe I'm out of step, maybe I'm just wrong. Perhaps because I come from a scientific/technical background I'm just backward in my visual education and this is just a phase and I'll grow through it.

Oh dear, I have probably gone on for too long and am likely guilty of taking myself far too seriously:)

Don't really know.

Nick

I agree with much of your argument and read a very interesting article in outdoor photographer about the need to move yourself on. Technology has made a huge leap and just using these new technical competencies will not sustain the viewers interest for ever.

After all once we know where your canal is and how you take your images then there is very little that could not be copied apart from your natural creativity and the things that catch your eye and make suggestions to your brain. So you become the most important element. A number of wildlife expert photographers who relied upon the scarcity of pictures of key species are finding us amateurs (speaking for myself) are not so far behind now. We can go to the same locations and have perfectly good camera and lenses - our pictures are nearly as good. They are feeling pushed.

So what do you add?. I see many people who take excellent pictures based on technical understanding of the camera, composition and the 'rules'. Sometimes those pictures just lack the spirit of enquiry or just have no love of the subject. In you I see love of the subject and the mini landscape (a concept I do get) and a sense of the poet.

So the fly didn't grab us but mostly you do. I also think the title of this section adds to the general pomposity of our replies. So apologies.

Pompy Peter