I spent some time in the garden yesterday experimenting with taking pictures of flowers.
My intent was to capture the essence of flowers, and perhaps motion as they danced in the breeze. These are my favorite results.
The first two were shot with image stabilization off and in manual focus mode, with the focus deliberately outside of the minimal focal length (6') of the lens.
Both were shot handheld at 1/30th sec.
The second image is the result of stronger breeze, thus showing a greater sense of movement.
As a reference the third (shot at 1/50th sec) is an image shot withing the focal range of the lens and with IS turned on.
I prefer these images over others taken as they hold enough detail to maintain a sense of the character of the flower whilst creating a more impressionistic outcome.
I'm sure there will be mixed opinions on these images but would love to know your preference (I fully expect many to levitate toward the sharper image) and any thoughts you may have on the technique itself.
There are NO wrong answers on this - anyone with a set of eyes has a qualified and respected opinion.
This style of image is difficult because there's a thin line between looking intentional for artistic purposes vs looking like an error in focus. I am fussy about images being firmly in the former category. You're really good at capturing essence in all your photographs through composition, color, and theme, and as usual you have achieved it here. All three of your images are beautiful in their own way, but I think the crop should be different in the first 2 vs the last one. In the third image, the story is clear – the hero is the sharp image of a flower with details. I want to know its details; therefore, the crop is perfect. As for the other 2, you're going for essence; therefore, I'm not as interested in just the subject as I am in its relation with the rest of its world. I would love to see more negative space in those first two – maybe with gradation of color and/or light or other effect that supports its story. It's hard to say which I like the most because each one has its own story to tell. I do find the motion in the second one to be intriguing. I enjoyed and appreciated your explanation too.
Thanks for your thoughtful and expansive response Jennifer.
Can you expand further on your thoughts of the addition of negative space in the first two images? Are you thinking at all edges other than the bottom, or the sides to create a landscape format?
Is your vision to have the story more about the insignificance of the flower in its environment (ie lots of negative space) or to simply allow it more breathing room?
I love this kind of feedback as it promotes the thought process and further discussion.
Firstly, everyone can just call me Jenny or Jen or whatever name is most comfortable.
Not in all cases, but capturing the essence of something/someone, I think, sort means to capture whatever surrounding world that contributes to (or disrupts) its existence. Also, essence isn't the focused representation of a thing/person, but more a collection of abstract qualities/characteristics from within and without. With this in mind (besides the fact that they do definitely need more breathing room), maybe the still image's story could be a playing with light/darkness or balancing between the gradation of the two; while the moving flower (along with including some patches of light/dark) maybe could be off-center in order to build on the story of the movement already begun. As for portrait or landscape orientation ... I think landscape works best because a portrait orientation would tell more of a transcendent story while this subject has a more earthy, grounded story to tell.
Thanks Jen - unless noted otherwise I tend to follow the name indicated on the user profile.
Thanks for your ever-thoughtful and expansive feedback. I do see your point, and feel that it is certainly warranted.
Funnily enough, I did take some shots in landscape format......
BTW - what did you use to transform these to landscape - content-aware fill or generative-fill?