Lotus Flower: Film: Fuji Velvia/ISO 50 - Camera: Pentax ZX-5N, Lens: 80-200 zoom handheld. Black backdrop was added to simplify the background. Exposure 1/125@f-8 (a Hazy-11 equivalent). The image darkened after scanning.

-- Bahman Farzad (cpgbooks@mindspring.com), September 12, 1998

Answers

Lovely lighting and great overall.

May I suggest that you look at it cropped just below the upper edge of the leaf. The sexy wavy line becomes emphasized and that lends even more impact to the flower.

I think I wish I could see the stem, too.

Have you ever tried a background other than black? Maybe something hand-painted in irregular dark colors, just so it doesn't look like flash at night.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), September 12, 1998.

Is it fair to manipulate the background?

-- Zdenek Bakstein (zb@zzz.cz), September 14, 1998.

Zdenek,

This forum is supposed to operate under the rules for nature photography that prohibit images that display the "hand of man". I guess there is a bit of interpretation needed to decide if a black background, added at the time the photo was exposed, violates that rule. It has further occurred to me that my suggestion for a painted background might be a worse violation, if it is a violation.

Since I am not familiar with those rules or their application, so I won't guess about whether or not the black background is a "fair" use in this case. However, the same kind of effect could have been gotten by using flash as the light source and allowing it to overpower the ambient light - that is the "night-time" look often seen in flash pictures, especially close-ups. I don't think THAT would be considered an unfair manipulation of the background and, since it it not a post-exposure, digital manipulation, neither should come into conflict with Found View rules.

Can the same effect by different means, neither post-exposure, be treated differently under these rules? I'll have to let some one else explain it to us.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), September 14, 1998.

Technically, there's no violation of the "hand of man" standard as it is usually applied. PSA rules only disqualify images with an obvious "hand of man" rule where it isn't part of a nature "story". So, for example, a shot of a deer standing next to a Volkswagon is out, but a shot of a Barn Owl nesting in a barn is OK.

A black background looks wierd, but passes the letter of the rule. You could get a shot like this at night I suppose. It's good art (I like it), but poor nature photography in my opinion.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 14, 1998.

The flower is lovely and well lit. The black background is so boring. It makes the image sterile in my opinion. The placement of the flower at the extreme top is mildly interesting, but it nakes me wish there were something at the bottom too, perhaps a reflection in the water...

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), September 15, 1998.

I don't think that a creative black background is enough to question this image as not true nature photography. We've all done it in the field, and will again. The problem is that the 'loating' lower doesn't look real and gives the impression of the 'hand of man'. To me it just leaves the image looking unnatural. I love the beautiful impression the flower offers, but I think if you crop between the bottom petal and the leaf, it will be too crowded within the frame.

I must say though that you truly captured a beautiful image in the flower itself.

-- Robert Pailes (rpailes@peganet.com), September 18, 1998.

I don't think that a creative black background is enough to question this image as not true nature photography. We've all done it in the field, and will again. The problem is that the 'floating' flower doesn't look real and gives the impression of the 'hand of man'. To me it just leaves the image looking unnatural. I love the beautiful impression the flower offers, but I think if you crop between the bottom petal and the leaf, it will be too crowded within the frame.

I must say though that you truly captured a beautiful image in the flower itself.

-- Robert Pailes (rpailes@peganet.com), September 18, 1998.

Thanks guys. It was interesting to hear your comments. I actually agree with bob's comments. It is an artistic shot but a weak nature image (that is why it is here)! So that I can get some feedback. The scanned image looks much darker than the original slide. It simply went dark when I used my Nikon Coolscan scanner. As many of you know, I could have lied about the image and said that the deeply shaded background was underexposed by 1 stop and became black and not many of you would have challenged it (I think that I know enough about light and exposure to get away with it) but I did not. This image (like any other) is my way of capturing what was there. I just wished that the subject had a good background so that I did not have to use a black backdrop. In my photography if I have a choice between a pure but ugly looking nature shot and a shot that IMO is beautiful and elegant (but is not as pure) I would choose the latter. To me black represents absence of light as a red or yellow filters blacken/darken the blue sky in a black and white photograph. What is the difference? If I remember correctly Ansel Adams, perhaps the greatest nature photographer ever was also a darkroom magician and manipulator. Could he show his images here without somebody questioning them? Would they be pure enough? Is it OK to burn-in and dance around the enlarger and manipulate the image in the darkroom to achieve what I accomplished with a black and neutral backdrop? What is the difference? Every photographer manipulates the image in one way or another. The question is how much and where does one draw the line. Many nature photographers manipulate their images by using a certain brand of film, a certain type of lens, a certain type of filter, a certain aperture opening, a certain exposure time, a reflector, or a secondary source of light. Once they got the image they scan it into their computer by manipulating and converting analog grain into their digital equivalent of '0's and '1's. Once the image is digitized, they use Photoshop whose primary function among other things is to manipulate the image by retouching, changing its color, brightness and contrast. I do understand your question about the purity of the image, but I also understand that the most beautiful sunsets in the world would not have been possible without the backdrop of the man made pollution. Am I not to photograph any colorful sunset? I love to photograph and I will keep on photographing while philosophers who love to talk would argue about what is pure and what is not. Thanks again.

-- Bahman Farzad (cpgbooks@mindspring.com), September 18, 1998.

I wholeheartedly agree. This hand of man thing is garbage when used so strictly. Take any shot you wish with all the available films on all the available papers by all the different printers and tell me which is not obviously the hand of man. Just making the picture altering the original scene from three dimensions to two is altering reality. The shot is of the flower and not of all the other elements within the scene. I find most (95%) of nature shots too darn crowded with extraneous detail. The only concern I have with this picture is where is the flower going to go once it has reached the top. It looks crowded at the top. Nice colors. I know some of you are purists so don't e-mail me your arguments. My opinion only. But I'm right.

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 01, 1998.