On 5/31/2015 1:45 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
I’m not a flower taker,
Ah, but I am, and Mike @ TOP has given me the rationales I need to continue. :-)
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/06/three-good-ways-to-avoid-clich%C3%A9s.html>
I offer a few from our garden Sun. and Tues.
<http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=17395>
There IS a fly in the ointment, but you have to take a look to see it. :-)
The accompanying rant goes like this.
I see over and over lovely flower subjects/compositions taken in bright light with highlights blown badly enough that
detail is lost and colors go off.
I see over and over lovely flower subjects/compositions taken in open shade, overcast, etc. Often with the comment how
the soft light made it possible to get the shot that wouldn't be possible in direct sun.
People rattle on about how one day we'll have cameras with the DR to capture
such subjects.
The trouble with all that is that things look different in different light. Flowers ever so subtly captured in soft
light are bloodless, like a date with your maiden aunt.* Flowers seen in sun are brazen, passionate, exciting. That's
what I want to capture!
And it's just not that difficult. Those above were all taken with a tiny sensor P&S. Yet, no blown highlights, with
bright, 'real' colors. And some of the feeling of seeing them in person lingers in the images.
As with so much of photography, technique is as of more important than
equipment.
Moose D'Opinion
* Assuming her name isn't Mame. ;-)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|