Personality

ok, so i have taken about 190347202 billion photos of different flowers. i thought this would be a perfect idea for a portfolio of peices for my final project in this digital photo class. However... my teacher wants them to be Personal in some way... i don't understand how they can be personal. the main reason i took the pictures is b/c i feel that flowers are beautiful and they photograph so easily and there are many different aspects of the flower to photograph. any ideas as to how to "personalize" a picture of a flower and yet still be able to let the serenity of the atcual flower come through?
I have thought and experimented with putting the flowers in different backgrounds and like different designs in it, but i'm afraid the teacher will say that its crap and it should all flow together, but i don't want to be repetive with the background.

a few examples of the pictures i am talking about.

Brandon,

The first picture has a delightful color and the irregular shape has movement and a flourish, like a French courtier bowing and flourishing the wrist as he enters a salon in a Versailles palace.

I think your teacher is asking for something extra that would define your pictures as your style. IOW, in what way is it important to the world that you as opposed to anyone else took that picture. What is your imprint.

Now I am not implying that there is some higher value in your pictures being recognizable from 20 feet. However, pictures that are distinguished in some way from all other images get to be considered as been "representative" in some way of the artistic will of the photographer. People value this as they believe that in this way they are buying a photograph that is unique an a work of art, as opposed to a mere photograph or even a lowly snapshot.

For sure, art galleries like to represent artists who are not merely competent but also have qualities that bind that persons series of work in a coherent fashion. People are not looking for a perfectly rendered flower that has no presence different from other perfectly focused and exposed images.

So let's take these pictures, for example, simply shooting lens wide open with limited depth of focus, (as you are partly doing in the wonderful first picture) would likely be different than work anyone else was handing in or for example, you might use a slow shutter speed or else put plastic wrap in from of the lens or any such devise to make your picture different from that which a sweet old lady or a boy of 16 with an autofocus camera would take of a magnificent bloom.

What you should do, is your own to determine. To satisfy your demanding teacher, you cannot be creating your own style in one week! I'd experiment position, ISO, lighting from very early to mid day with harsh shadows.

Look through you own pictures. what is that gave you the biggest thrill. Is there any of these pictures that might give you an idea. You have one immediate job and that is to hand in an assignment. That means making a list of what to try and go shoot.

Also vary how much space you might allocate to other things or nothing! IOW, the flower has to live in the confines of your framing. So why not sketch out exactly what you would like to achieve and then try to photograph it. There is no law against adding other objects if that is part of you composition unless the instructions only call for one flower.

Post twice a day if you like, we'll give feedback!

Asher

BTW, the second picture is uniformly soft. A little to passive, perhaps for this teacher!

Brandon Jones said:

i don't understand how they can be personal

Click to expand...

See, that's the whole point, your teacher wants you to think about what and why you photograph. Personalities are developed by yourself, your experiences and thoughts. From this stems style, in contrast to stylistics, which are easy - just add a gimmick to your photos, from strange perspectives through unusual lenses and toning. As long as these gimmicks do not add anything meaningful to the picture it will not bcome an image, you won't have style, and you do not express personality [unless emptiness counts].*

If a blossom is just a blossom, the best you can say about your picture is that it is technically correct documentation. Don't take the next bit personal, but both your examples look flat, and I don't mean contrast. They are just so flowers.

Recently I took several flower shots myself, in every single instance because there was something beyond the natural beauty itself taking me in. For instance, in one case I was enamored by the colour composition [green-yellow-red-blue], which looke brilliant. Sadly I was unable to really capture that, the result was just another flower photo.

I fared much better with my 25th April image on 366Foto showing a dandelion between lots of daisies. I am quite proud about the lighting, which is all natural; I didn't just take it, I explored the area, waited etc. That, however, is not why I chose that particular shot, it's not even the reason I took any of the photos [there have been a few dozen]. It was the relation between the flowers, expressed slightly differently in both the English and the German title:

Too Many Indians, Not Enough Chiefs

Blinder unter Einäugigen ['the blind among one-eyed']


To me the meaning of the image is obvious but I added the titles - I am convinced foregoing a title is not a good idea - to help others see it. They still can interpret it differently. Regardless, the picture shows more than just a bunch of flowers. Sure, it's not a masterpiece but has some personal viewpoint built into it.

What your teacher needs to see in your photos, is the development of character and personality. Not technically perfect me-toos.

Hope that helps.




*Be aware that not every photo, every picture ore even every image has to be spot on. Nobody can do that, as it would show you never question yourself. The moment every image you come up with looks the same apart from object you might get rich quick but you are just dabbling in style over substance. Style always follows substance or it is mere stylistics. Think Michael Bay.