This small scene caught my eye during a morning walk after the rains. I really liked it at the time, thinking I had a great vision. However, the vision was a bit wider than this and it really didn’t look that good on the computer. I am therefore left with this somewhat abstract creation.
Let me know how you feel about it. I hope it’s clear what this is an image of. Although I suppose it doesn’t really matter. Incidentally, passing fisherman would wonder what on earth was I photographing.
Hi Igor, I’m thinking it looks like some moss at the bottom of a tree and think I see pine needles on the ground. Hope you don’t mind but when you said abstract I just had to give my idea a go. What do you think of this? I tried to make it look like an imaginary planet!..
This looks just fine to me, Igor and I would be happy to be left with this abstract landscape. The large version is a real treat with the textures and details in the tree bark and the mosses. I don’t know about you, but sometimes I don’t take the time to actually figure out what originally attracted me to the scene and I have to crop it after I figure out what it was on the monitor screen. Anyway, I have been looking at this for a few minutes trying to figure out what the red particles are and I am going to guess tree decay. I like this as it has your signature on it.
Igor, What this image is about is certainly clear to me and I love it! The textures are fantastic and the color are wonderful. I like looking at it and agree with Ed as it has your signature all over it. Beautiful work.
I always enjoy your work because you are able to isolate a small section of the landscape and render it in an understated, but elegant way. I think that makes the viewer take the time to really look at and savor the image rather than being taken in by bold flashy over saturated colors.
Actually I was thinking in a tone change; more light on those parts and less lights on the bark.
What do you mean by realistic? Do you thing all photographs should be realistic? Is there a place for the photographer creativity?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe one should do whatever they want with their images (and I’m sure not accusing you of lack of creativity - You are not).
But sometime make me think when other photographers saying things like “this is just like it was on reality” or “the sky looks just like that”. We are still debating , one hundred years after, the pictoralists vs naturalist vs straight photography.
(Let me state, very clear, that it’s ok to me when people choose one of those “genres” and attitudes instead of other).
Sorry for my bad english and for this “intrusion” on your photograph.
I was attracted to this composition by what I saw and had no vision of making it anything other than that. The photoshop profiles actually tried to boost the contrast and saturation and I purposely dialed them down. That’s what I meant by realistic.
No, not all photographs need to be ‘realistic’. Most of my images get a considerable amount of work on them in photoshop. I usually modify it to emphasize the emotion that I feel the subject conveys. The previous fern shot was dark and saturated because if felt that way in the rainforest. The mudflat image was highly underexposed with undersaturated colors because that’s how I interpreted that scene.
Is there a place for creativity in photography? Absolutely. Photography without creativity is an empty experience. Most of the creativity in photography takes place in the photographers mind before the shot is fired. The creativity comes in the form of deciding what he/she wants to say with the image and the best composition in how to say it. There can be great creativity with straight photography. If you look at Edward Weston’s or Minot White’s imagery you will see a great deal of creative straight photography. Many of their images transcend the subject itself. The subject is used to make a altogether different statement.
Hi Igor! I really like the photo and its abstract nature. However, I mostly like the discussion on creativity. I think what you’ve written here should be turned into a separate discussion thread. You text and images are right on point and deserve greater discussion.
I don’t know. Creativity is a really big subject for a discussion. People consider ICMs to be creative. There are all these Topaz apps (filters) that manipulate to different effects. Post processing is a world unto itself (Orton effects, TK panels) . All of this is considered to be creativity. I’m just following my own road.
This is an interesting study in contrasting textures,colors and shapes, and I think all those elements form a cohesive whole.
I think some of @joaoquintela point sort of got bogged down in the discussion of “realistic” vs. “enhanced”. To each his own in terms of that debate. However Joao suggested enhancing the whiter tree bark and lichen. Personally I like the bottom half of your “realistic” version, and the top half of your “enhanced” version. I think the slight bump in luminosity in the tree bark does a nice job of bringing out more of the texture in the bark. To me this image is about texture and color, and I think this tweak helps.
You are absolutely right on that account. I was never interested in the subject for the subject’s sake per se. I always viewed it as an abstract of visual elements. I even cropped off the edges of the tree so there was no clue that this was an object with boundaries. I did that only later in post processing when I realized that the bg was an ‘imposing’ it’s presence on the matter.
I’m getting totally lost with this image. I find it to be too contrasty and too saturated. I have a ‘watered down’ version which seem to come closer to reality and to my sense of what is beautiful today. I probably posted this too soon without letting it ferment a bit (see above next to original).