Backlit Flowering Tree, Clinton River Park, Sterling Heights, Michigan
I have always thought there are two paths of exploration when it comes to photography. The first one being in the field, in the moment. The second is post capture and where the image guides you. It is in those post capture moments where you may or may not connect with subconscious processes that were going on during the first path.
We seem to react to visual cues whether we consciously recognize them or not. As I was heading back to my car and the sun was getting higher in the sky, the petals on this flowering tree were backlit and glowing. Although that was a beautiful sight in itself, it was how these little glowing petals – light and airy like spring, were strongly contrasted by the strong lines of the structure of the tree that made the image interesting to me.
In developing this image in post, it became very apparent that the flowers were more like cells, and part of a greater whole. They were defined and complimented not only by the structure of the tree, but also the negative space pockets between them. Instead of thousands of little elements, post capture developing further defined the subject as really only being two things. The cellular nature of the flowers, and what wasn’t the flowers.
That simplicity only seems to come from not listening to what the camera is trying to tell us what we saw, but what our mind’s eye wants to tell the world we saw.
Thank you!
Beautiful blog! You are very talented.
nice post got me thinking about my photography -thanks
I agree there are many paths one can take when creating an image. If we are flexible enough we can get the most out of an image, projecting our intentions beyond what the camera itself is able to offer. It is just a tool for our expression. Some may wish to let the camera be the final authority, the image right out of the camera may accomplish a finished at times but our vision and its presentation is the real art. I do agree with David that when we change the reality of the content it has passed from photography into something else. I think that the advent of digital imaging has given all of us such wonderful control and the ability to express ourselves in ways that rival painting…literally painting with light…and your image is a superb example, Mark.
Thanks Steve. I am glad so many commenters here have an open mind when it comes to this type of thing. Hopefully we are moving beyond the age of immediate dismissal as soon as anything is done outside of the camera.
I am becoming more convinced that Alister Benn is right in that we should take firm control of our image, all the way from visualization through capture and processing. I think you’ve done a great job of that here, letting creativity be your guide.
A beautiful capture!
I have no doubts about that Greg, thanks for stopping by.
Those who know me might imagine I would say that the camera is omniscient or some such drivel. Nonetheless, I believe that “photography” is what you DO with a camera, though it is certainly not the camera that does the work, nor is photography limited to the camera. I do draw the line at moving the contents of the image around. To me any post processing up to what Ansel did with Moonrise is fair game, but moving trees, houses, etc, is then becoming another art altogether and must be disclosed to avoid deception of the viewer who has certain cultural expectations of what a photograph is. In your case, and because you do it so tastefully and well, I feel that you successfully go right up to the line and cross it all the time and I don’t mind a bit, because of the quality of your product, which is not loud, garish, overblown, super-dramatic or anything but exquisite. And here, you put forward one of the best cases I have heard yet for going a bit further with post-processing, if done well.
I try to keep a fairly simple philosophy that the human retina is not the final definition of how something should look. After all, the world appears very different to the wolf or the bee. There is almost an inherent arrogance to say “this is what something should look like…”. I am with you on moving significant structural elements David. There is certainly a path for that type of work, it is just one I don’t chose to follow. Thank you for your remarks.
I find it amazing that when starting to work on an image in post processing there are initially so many paths to follow and as you start down one things start to happen I may not even have a clear idea of what I want the final image to look like but somehow it goes forward. And if another path had been followed it might look very different. I guess there is something in that inner mind’s eye, even if it is subconscious, that makes you choose that initial path and direction.
I know exactly what you mean Howard. I have followed that second path right to dead ends many times, other times it is almost as if the image is guiding you.
I usually like to see the majority of the work done in camera, but I can’t argue with this shot. It is extremely well done, and the final product is an amazing picture. Great work!
I absolutely love to get as much done in camera. But there are those occasions where the second path ends up being a little longer than the first. Thanks for the comment Ryan.
My first glance at the image was all about abstract. After reading your post I saw more of what your minds eye was seeing. I wonder, at the moment of capture, is our minds eye seeing so much more than we can imagine due to the experience of the moment. That may be what you are asking in your last sentence when you’re questioning what the camera is telling us versus what we saw.
You hit the nail on the head Monte. Thanks.
Thinking on this, in images which strongly follow the second path, there will often be questions, does the “final” image clearly communicate what my mind’s eye saw? Or does it matter if anyone else besides the artist perceives that significance?
Your descriptive blog post clearly defined how I perceived this lovely image and I could then easily see those relationships you described, but without the words my mind might have gone elsewhere on this image.
Good questions Earl. They are ones I often face when the raw image doesn’t quite reflect the experience for me. I wouldn’t expect those relationships to be obvious. But the tip toeing between abstract and reality was something I was going for.
Some may see this as a nature shot and some may perceive it as an abstract. Who am I to argue but I see it as a beautiful photograph that draws me in.
I was going for both Ken – so that’s good you took both away from it. 🙂