| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2009 11:57:49 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ursula uses a macro lens with the aperture pretty much wide open to give very narrow DoF. She very carefully chooses her composition and plane of focus to give the results you see. She is an artist in the truest sense. |
I have a macro lens f2.8. I guess I need to practice my composition.
I also love this, which she states is multiple exposure
 |
Yes, this is a multi, but combined in post. I often shoot "series", where I pick a subject, and shoot it straight, then shoot a bunch of movement shots of the same subject/light. Movement shots are unpredictable, so I do a number of them, 4 to 6 to each straight shot. I then match up the shapes of the movement shot with the subject shapes, and combine the two pictures either completely, or in part. In this case I used the movement shot (which was stripes of lighter tones from the tree trunks) as the base, and the straight shot (the actual tree trunks) on top. I made two layers of the straight shot, and selected highlights, kept highlights in one, kept the opposite in the other. I then combined the three layers, the base, the highlights of the tree trunks at not full 100 percent (but I can't remember how much), and the darks at a low percentage. I then made another copy of I think the darks (or maybe the highlights?), and combined in multiply at less than 100%. I then sandwiched the whole thing and adjusted tones and colours - resized, sharpened for web. Something like that. In this case I was more experimenting, because I'd been working on trees for a few weeks, and I was getting tired of it, and decided to just play around.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:04:33 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ursula uses a macro lens with the aperture pretty much wide open to give very narrow DoF. She very carefully chooses her composition and plane of focus to give the results you see. She is an artist in the truest sense. |
I have a macro lens f2.8. I guess I need to practice my composition.
I also love this, which she states is multiple exposure
|
Yes, this is a multi, but combined in post. I often shoot "series", where I pick a subject, and shoot it straight, then shoot a bunch of movement shots of the same subject/light. Movement shots are unpredictable, so I do a number of them, 4 to 6 to each straight shot. I then match up the shapes of the movement shot with the subject shapes, and combine the two pictures either completely, or in part. In this case I used the movement shot (which was stripes of lighter tones from the tree trunks) as the base, and the straight shot (the actual tree trunks) on top. I made two layers of the straight shot, and selected highlights, kept highlights in one, kept the opposite in the other. I then combined the three layers, the base, the highlights of the tree trunks at not full 100 percent (but I can't remember how much), and the darks at a low percentage. I then made another copy of I think the darks (or maybe the highlights?), and combined in multiply at less than 100%. I then sandwiched the whole thing and adjusted tones and colours - resized, sharpened for web. Something like that. In this case I was more experimenting, because I'd been working on trees for a few weeks, and I was getting tired of it, and decided to just play around.
I hope this helps. |
Would this type of image be legal in advanced editing?
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:04:36 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
I know this is not as great as Ursula's but what do you guys think of this image?
 |
That's beautiful! I love the "echo". |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:10:39 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Would this type of image be legal in advanced editing? |
Oh, hell no! :-) Dead certain DQ...
R. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:19:46 AM · #30 |
In reading through stuff here again, and elsewhere, maybe some of the answer sound a bit "flippant". It's not meant that way at all. I think that for me it is hard sometimes to explain how things are or work.
When a person makes a photo, it's a whole process. It's thinking about what you want to say, finding the subject/place/light so that you can try to say what you want to say, then doing your best at composing and getting the shot, then processsing it. It's the whole thing, and at least for me it is never the same from one shot to another - similar yes, but never the same. That's probably in part why it is so difficult to explain the whys and hows of these things.
To me, what has been important for a long time is to try and find out what makes something (a thing, a person, a situation) what it is. What is it in a daisy that makes it be a daisy? Why is it that when you see a daisy, even maybe all blurry or from a distance, you KNOW it is a daisy, you KNOW how it smells and looks and feels, how it's stems are hollow and fragile, how spiders like to make roads from one daisy to another with their fine threads, all that stuff that you don't need to see to KNOW. So, when making a picture, any picture, for me it's a matter of thinking about how to give back to the viewer this same feel. How can I get others to know daisies the way I know them (daisies are just an example here). Does this make any sense?
For me, simplifying has worked. Trying to get down to the basics that make something what it is, simplifying something to the point right before when it becomes not recognizeable anymore (sometimes further). I use shallow DOF (very shallow DOF) a lot for this purpose. I also simply love to play with shapes and colours, and use those as backdrops to hold up the subjects. Multi exposures is another way to do this for me. Multis tend to really soften the final product, make it diffused and gentle, and they let me bring out those details that I want to stand out while using the rest as a sort of crutch to emphasize the subject even further.
A lot of it is experimentation. A lot of it isn't particularly successful, especially over a wide audience. I enjoy it greatly. A person has to love what they photograph for the photograph to work, I think. Anyway. I don't know if any of these ramblings help at all (and it's just probably another person being too full of herself), but it is what I like to do. I've been told that my subjects are "banal", that now that I "figured out" how to make flower pictures I should get to the real subjects :) I've also been told that my photos are just pretty, that there's no real weight or importance to them. Those comments hurt. To me, the natural world is very important, and shapes and colours and music are very, very important - and it is important to me to try and show this beauty to others. It hurts when people think it's simply "pretty", but on the other hand, that is what I like. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:21:06 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Citadel:
Would this type of image be legal in advanced editing? |
Oh, hell no! :-) Dead certain DQ...
R. |
Exactly :)
Stupid rules anyway! :(
JUST TEASING!!!!! |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:22:44 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Sometimes I play with that sort of stuff, though nowhere near as successfully as Ursula does...
 
R. |
Me thinks you do pretty good, oh Bear!
BTW, what's this Topaz software you mention in your interview? Now I'm curious ...
Message edited by author 2009-05-05 00:25:06. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:27:46 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Citadel:
Would this type of image be legal in advanced editing? |
Oh, hell no! :-) Dead certain DQ...
R. |
Kinda thought that :)
That aside, I absolutely love the effect and its one that I look forward to trying out. Freeman Patterson showed a similar technique in his book Photography of Natural Things but he doesn't combine the movement shot with a still shot.
edit: fixed the link
Message edited by author 2009-05-05 00:28:34.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:30:43 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Citadel:
Would this type of image be legal in advanced editing? |
Oh, hell no! :-) Dead certain DQ...
R. |
Kinda thought that :)
That aside, I absolutely love the effect and its one that I look forward to trying out. Freeman Patterson showed a similar technique in his book Photography of Natural Things but he doesn't combine the movement shot with a still shot. |
I believe he does sometimes. He and Andre Gallant (mentioned in this thread already) co-authored a book on photo impresionism, and I believe in there he has a few examples of combining shar/out of focus pictures (maybe not movement, but close enough). Patterson has been my inspiration for a long time, and a lot of my thinking is loosely based on what I understand he's saying, although I probably am not getting the half of it. Some day I hope to be as good as Patterson is!
I have to add: Patterson insists (at least in his books) that it is important to use a tripod. I rarely use a tripod, for two reasons, (1) I hate to carry the stupid things around, and (2) they restrict my movements around the subjects too much. I've often felt that part of the reason why my pictures aren't turning out very good is because I'm not using a stupid tripod. I've decided this summer to at least try to lug the thing around and use it on occasion. Tripods anyway.
Message edited by author 2009-05-05 00:33:16. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 12:34:39 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by ursula:
... Patterson has been my inspiration for a long time, and a lot of my thinking is loosely based on what I understand he's saying, although I probably am not getting the half of it. Some day I hope to be as good as Patterson is! |
Its funny you should say that because I hopped over to your website and the first thing that popped into my head was "She shoots a lot like Freeman Patterson!" :)
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 01:41:18 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Originally posted by ursula:
... Patterson has been my inspiration for a long time, and a lot of my thinking is loosely based on what I understand he's saying, although I probably am not getting the half of it. Some day I hope to be as good as Patterson is! |
Its funny you should say that because I hopped over to your website and the first thing that popped into my head was "She shoots a lot like Freeman Patterson!" :) |
I've often wondered why it is that certain people's work, or words, or whatever, are so inspiring to one person or another, like in my case, why is Freeman Patterson such an inspiration. Would I shoot as I do now if I'd never even heard of him? Would I naturally "evolve" into who I am as a photographer, or at least something quite similar, without any influence from others like Patterson? I don't know. I guess, it really doesn't matter in the end. I think it must be a basic maybe similar perception of the world, or at least a basic similar way to just thinking what matters, or something like that, although then I think it is way to presumptuous of anyone to think that their perception of the world, of making art, is similar to that of someone who is so good at it (like Patterson again).
Sometimes I think it's not worth it to think so much about all this stuff. Or talk about it, which is even worse in a way. I don't know. :)
As my husband would probably tease me, "Waxing philosophical again, eh? Ursula, you're not good at philosophising!" Anyway. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 01:43:04 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by ursula:
As my husband would probably tease me, "Waxing philosophical again, eh? Ursula, you're not good at philosophising!" Anyway. |
Hakuna Matata Ursula.
It's a problem free, philosophosy. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 01:44:37 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by ursula:
As my husband would probably tease me, "Waxing philosophical again, eh? Ursula, you're not good at philosophising!" Anyway. |
Hakuna Matata Ursula.
It's a problem free, philosophosy. |
Refresh my memory ... what does that mean (hakuna matata). I've heard that before.
Nevermind :) I googled it. No worries :) Hehe, I like that.
Message edited by author 2009-05-05 01:48:36. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 01:49:48 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by ursula:
As my husband would probably tease me, "Waxing philosophical again, eh? Ursula, you're not good at philosophising!" Anyway. |
Hakuna Matata Ursula.
It's a problem free, philosophosy. |
Refresh my memory ... what does that mean (hakuna matata). I've heard that before. |
lol. It's a song from The Lion King, but the phrase is from Swahili I believe. It basically means "no worries".
I just was reminded of it because of your use of 'philosophising', because part of the lyrics are "It's our problem free, philosophy, Hakuna Matata." but I always sing it, It's my problem free, philosophOSY".
And that, is a long winded ramble about nothing. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 01:51:55 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
.....
And that, is a long winded ramble about nothing. |
My favourite kind! They're the rambles that lead to beautiful creations. :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 02:25:32 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I've been told that my subjects are "banal", that now that I "figured out" how to make flower pictures I should get to the real subjects :) I've also been told that my photos are just pretty, that there's no real weight or importance to them. Those comments hurt. To me, the natural world is very important, and shapes and colours and music are very, very important - and it is important to me to try and show this beauty to others. It hurts when people think it's simply "pretty", but on the other hand, that is what I like. Oh well. |
Have you ever asked those people what are the real subjects? All these rules! I have only one and that is to be true (i.e. true to yourself and the subject). Looking at your work there's no denying you have a passion for your subjects and you're honest and sincere in the way you present them. It's a journey, a documentation of your experiences both body and mind. I'd wager, what you show in the abstract is far more true than anything these people capture in the literal. You don't just show a flower you show its essense. Oh and your photos are pretty too. :P
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 02:49:53 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I've been told that my subjects are "banal", that now that I "figured out" how to make flower pictures I should get to the real subjects :) I've also been told that my photos are just pretty, that there's no real weight or importance to them. Those comments hurt. |
Those kind of comments shouldn't hurt you - they're the kind of thing that make me feel a little sorry for the commenter. They apparently simply can't "see" and that's rather sad, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
05/05/2009 03:31:40 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by ursula:
I've been told that my subjects are "banal", that now that I "figured out" how to make flower pictures I should get to the real subjects :) I've also been told that my photos are just pretty, that there's no real weight or importance to them. Those comments hurt. To me, the natural world is very important, and shapes and colours and music are very, very important - and it is important to me to try and show this beauty to others. It hurts when people think it's simply "pretty", but on the other hand, that is what I like. Oh well. |
Have you ever asked those people what are the real subjects? All these rules! I have only one and that is to be true (i.e. true to yourself and the subject). Looking at your work there's no denying you have a passion for your subjects and you're honest and sincere in the way you present them. It's a journey, a documentation of your experiences both body and mind. I'd wager, what you show in the abstract is far more true than anything these people capture in the literal. You don't just show a flower you show its essense. Oh and your photos are pretty too. :P |
Sorry to butt in,
That comment of yours  yanko is the most true and intelligent feed back I have heard for a long time regarding the input to a photo by an individual.
 ursula the person who commented on your way of photography and input to it, believes every photo should be a museum piece, maybe this person should go to a photo show and have a look at the diversity of subjects, and the number of flower portraits there are.
Forget the negative comments and dwell on the positive, I like your photos'. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 08:36:32 AM · #44 |
This is a wonderful thread! This, IMO, is what DPChallenge was intended to be.
Ursula, I've enjoyed much of your work over the years and I've missed your reassuring voice of reason when you were a member of the SC.
I have to say that I was going to quote one of your initial comments in this thread and state how poetic it read, but then after getting thru all that's been said here I realized that no one statement you've made can be isolated as "the" poetic one. In a way, the general feeling I get from reading your thoughts on photography, is that of an artist that loves what she does, is unselfish with her passion, and strong in her vision.
Thanks Ursula for keeping it real! |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 10:18:00 AM · #45 |
Thank you all. When I mentioned those comments that I've received over time about my pictures, I wasn't complaining about it or asking for understanding. They hurt, yes, they always will, but that's part of life and of being a photographer. It was more that I was trying to say to the photographers interested in trying similar work that it sometimes isn't the most rewarding thing under the sun to try stuff, so that they wouldn't be discouraged. I think it's one of the most awful things to happen, when people get discouraged.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Thanks Ursula for keeping it real! |
That made my day! I got to tell my husband that SOMEBODY thinks I can keep it real, hehehe! This is good. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 10:43:33 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by ursula:
BTW, what's this Topaz software you mention in your interview? Now I'm curious ... |
Oh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Forget you heard about it! And whatever you do, do NOT play around with Simplify. Do NOT!
R. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 01:39:34 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by maggieddd:
I know this is not as great as Ursula's but what do you guys think of this image?
|
That's beautiful! I love the "echo". |
Hi Ursula,
Thank you. And also thank you for telling us how you create your images. I've been inspired by YOU. I know you said that one day you hope to be as good as Patterson but I've never heard of him and just check out his website and I prefer your images 1000 more.
Thanks again! If I have a specific question is it OK to PM you? |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 02:10:06 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Thank you. And also thank you for telling us how you create your images. I've been inspired by YOU. I know you said that one day you hope to be as good as Patterson but I've never heard of him and just check out his website and I prefer your images 1000 more.
Thanks again! If I have a specific question is it OK to PM you? |
Thank you, but, believe me, Freeman Patterson is very good!
Yes, PM anytime you want. I may not answer promptly, especially not in the next half year (mid May to mid October), as I will be living in a National Park and won't have much internet access, but I'll try to keep on top. :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 06:16:47 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 09:36:52 PM · #50 |
and
and
Ursula,
Thanks for your PM back and informing me of your aspect on photography, it was very inspiring. I appreciate it so much.
My photos above are my take on photography, and technically, yes they could be better, but I am getting better and have come a long way since I started.
Thank you!
Jamie
Message edited by author 2009-05-05 21:40:59. |
|
