City - Scottsdale State - AZ Country - United States
About
Class Project: Peaceful Simplicity - A Study of Monet's "Water Lilies (The Clouds)" 1903
It figures that just as we have an assignment that needs clouds, the weather here decides to be uncooperative. Not a cloud to be found for days.
The monsoon season is officially over and, as the season changes to Fall, very little changes in our climate except the absence of those wonderful gathering of clouds.
Nevertheless (being the photo-trouper that I am), I trudged through the Riparian Water Preserve hunting for the rare and illusive lily pad. Unfortunately, the preserve has NO lily pads and with the absence of clouds, well... I was left to wonder, "What the heck am I doing here anyway?"
Back home to my ever faithful little backyard lily pond, I snapped away at the limited angles I could get. Still no clouds, but hey, "been there, done that." Just look at the HDR image I took called "Sky Pond."
Anyway, what follows are a series of three water lily shots. Trying to choose images that look naturally "painterly."
I did little PS work on these. Cropping, sharpening and my signature. Most of the heavy post-processing was done in Camera RAW (exposure, contrast and saturation).
Hope you like. Comments are always welcomed and thanks for looking.
Hi Lin, thanks very much for the "Wow" about my PS skills.
I think you and I are on the same page with the use of PS (i.e., try to do as much as you can "in-camera" and ONLY use PS to "enhance" and NOT to "correct" poor photographic skills). However, even a skilled photographer can be faced with "unpredicatables." When they happen (like Fellina swimming out of the shot), PS can truly help (God bless the Clone Tool). :)
Now, the question is, is this "cheating?" OR is it utilizing all of the tools and skills we have available? Also, how is this different from what we could do in a darkroom (with a lot of time and skill)? Would that be cheating too?
My instructor is young (i.e., younger than me) and she comes from the film-world and is a recent arrival to digital (like many of us). She is also an artist and truly has the "eye of an artist" as well as extensive art history knowledge. I admire her greatly. I really hope I didn't characterize her as "narrow" in her perspective about this because her view is VERY similar to what we've said here about "getting it right FIRST in-camera." I totally understand her keeping students focused on this objective (it is, in fact, my own objective). Sometimes, however, I feel a little "ganged-up on" in class about using my (sometimes simplest of) skills in PS.
It's hard for me to think that my use of PS is "cheating" when it's taken years of study, tutorials, conferences, personal experience, creativity and skill as well as sometimes HOURS of experimenting to achieve certain effects. If this is cheating, it sure is a lot of HARD work. LOL!
Question: What is the ultimate objective of the work we do in photography? Is it to create the most visually beautiful image we can or is it to create a relatively "nice" image, content in the knowledge that we stayed "pure" to the process.
From my own perspective, it is to create the best image I can with all the tools, creative talent and skills I have available. I DO think there is a delicate "balance" to this and it would be to get the best possible lighting, focus, DoF, and composition I could get in-camera FIRST before touching it in PS.
I like live performance music too, but sometimes (often times) the studio version is better. Is one a "cheat" over the other? Perhaps... to the purist. In the end, however, it is just "crafted" audio waves... just as photography is just "crafted" photons. Super CCD HUGS! ~R
Wow great PS skills Rocky!! Yes now according to the rules you've got it right, and now rather than there being any question about them being there, Fellina does provide a resting place for the eye and lead the eye back into the image..well done!
As far as the instructor thinking PS is cheating...how old is she? That's so archaic to think like that. I do agree with her that as a photographer we should try to get it right in the camera, but if we can't because of circumstances, do we not take the picture? Me thinks not. I also think that by saying that to her students she is encouraging them to think outside of PS, and that's probably a good thing. We all feel different about all kinds of things, that's what makes the world go round...big fill flash hugs...:) Lin
Hey, sorry I've been MIA. So much work, so little time.
I am loathe to do "too much" Photoshop work on these class assignments due to the general disapproval I get when I use it. My teacher considers using Photoshop a "cheat" and therefore discourages it's use (particularly for manipulating).
I agree with you, cloning it out or moving it would have (perhaps) worked better. Personally, I think the fish give it added dimension as well as they bring LIFE to the image and I would hate to lose them entirely. However, this is maybe a bias on my part because they're my pets. :)
That being said, I've done a few minutes extra work on this to move Fellina and clone around her.
Curious to hear what you think of this version. Long Exposure HUGS! ~R
Hahaha...Fellina doesn't bother me, but I would be interested to know why you didn't clone her/them out, to eliminate any kind of distraction at all. She could also be considered a resting place for the eye...I didn't consider that she was leading the eye out of the image, though technically speaking according to the rules of art, that would be true, and in that case I would have cloned her/them out. Would like to know why you didn't consider that, and if you did, what made you change your mind? Honestly now that you have called my attention to it, I have to say that I think this would be stronger without the fish, if you like the fish in the image, you could do another theme with the fish in the pond. Big hugs Rocky...Lin
I love Monet's work as well. He was really the father of the Impressionist Movement. Although, what sparked the whole movement is something few consider today. Namely, the technology of paint changed. For the first time synthetic colors could be readily purchased (most particularly cobalt blue) and using them in paintings almost DEMANDED that people paint differently. The critics of the time thought that using these colors was "cheating" (not unlike the way some view the use of Photoshop in image processing today).
Who knew that Impressionism would be such a cherished genre of painting. Monet certainly didn't. He was never truly recognized for his work until he was in his forties (having spent nearly 20 years of perseverance for his love of it).
He was brave and a true hero. He had such determination and character that it inspired and encouraged the other impressionists to take up the cause. They were all basically rebels and outcasts to the hauty art world of 19th century Europe. Monet persevered and the others saw him as their "Rock of Gibraltar." He gave them hope and inspiration. Many wanted to BE him. He was their "idol."
The art world now owes him a GIANT debt of gratitude. Without him, how boring it all could have been. One wonders what he would have thought about how it all turned out in the end.
Lin, you look at artwork the way I do and for that you get major points. :) Thank you for the gentle, kind and sweet support.
For me, I like the white fish in this image but only wish he was swimming into the image instead of out. I call him "Big Fella" because he's the biggest and oldest in our pond. (Truth is, he's really a "she" and I've had to modify the name to "Big Fellina." But old habits die hard. LOL!)
I love Monet and impressionistic artwork, thanks for the suggestion, I enjoyed viewing his work. This is lovely Rocky, I'm sure Monet would have loved to paint it. Very nice DOF with lovely details, the clarity is excellent, nice blue light reflecting on the water. The image is indeed very peaceful, a great entry in the project...nicely done...hugs..:)
Thanks very much Eric. I do kind of wish the white fish was a bit more in the shot (and swimming INTO the shot instead of out of it). However, I do think it helps to balance the shot (somewhat). Thanks for the kind words and for looking at my work. ~ Warm regards, Rocky
0 
