Approaching the flower with a dark background: how it might work?

[Asher Kelman]

We slipped into this subject by chance in the popular thread of "Flowers By The Wayside".

Hard working and dedicated Rachel Foster presented this well taken picture for critique. I had major reservations about the stark black background. She is sporting and tolerates even my harshest feedback. She has voiced no complaint at all neither publicly or privately, at least not to me, LOL)! Still, was I correct or just blasting off with an opinion unanchored in any sound values?

Well there followed a number of other flowers with such black or very dark backgrounds and now both Michael and Nathaniel have asked for further feedback. Remember, this evaluation is for me as much an enquiry as a set of opinions. Having said that let's go!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I looked back at James Newman's pictures in post # 62 and did not have an answer as to why Rachel's photograph seemed wrong to me. In what way were James' flowers working better for me?

Then came Mike Shimwell's single white flower on a black b.g.

At first look I found the picture attractive but it failed to move me beyond that. Then the same photo was presented brightened. i

It came alive.

Well what happened? With irony, I must now admit that the original rendering of the flower had an extra feature that only is revealed to me on further inspection. It's subtle. There's one extra folded petal, albeit tiny on the left lower edge of the yellow central round platform. This one tiny asymmetry makes the eyes lock on the flower and appreciate the outstretched petals, as outstretched arms welcoming the visitor.

The extra brightness of the lighter version makes the distinguishing small little petal discernible. The 2cd version is more impressive and now with this information going back to thew original with the blacker background, it has become more important!

I must admit my hypothesis that brightening the flower alone, leaving the b.g. black and locally sharpening the extra tiny white petal might be even more impressive.

If you follow my critique and concur, we can see that blackness alone for the background does not, in itself, ruin an otherwise compelling photograph!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

Here is another one with a black background. Perhaps you would be so kind as to crtique this one too. Perhaps you can expand your thoughts on the black background by comparing with the original of Mike Shimwell. In this case, I was trying for a black background, expecting that it would be a good choice by enhancing the contrast and lighting.

Hi Nat, Mike, Rachel and James,

So what is the significance of a very dark to black background. The dark does allow the mind to create possible presence using signals from the rest of the picture or collection of images presented to the viewer.

Using pure black(or white) as a background for flowers serves well for catalogs of flowers. Also for stock photography, the image can be more easily used in composites with little editing.

So how are things working here with your picture Nat?

This one is exceptional since there are so many extras. The illumination from behind adds a zing of life to start us off. The movement of the flower from the right and presentation almost as an invitation, the mouth of the flower, the asymmetric powerful position of the insect, and the path to the pollinating center of the flower all add strong symbols which reverberate with many innate and cultural imperatives and preferences as well as a body of art.

The black b.g.? It is shrugged of as dark space behind a picture of mother earth! It cannot harm this powerful picture. Further, there is little that could be added in the b.g. that would improve and not degrade the picture's impact.

The black background is the infinite milieu of less importance in which this magnificent flower celebrates so many things.

A lot of superlatives, yes I admit it's a bit overboard. Still, even dividing my excitement by a power of 10, it still comes out as impressive despite the black background which, here, INMH, make the picture work and help recruit our attention to everything happening in fornt.

Asher

 

[janet Smith]

This was taken outside with a very dark hedge as a background, I think it works...

 

[Asher Kelman]

Yes it does, Jan!

It works very well, but why? It has one thing in common with Nat's flower. It has movement coming in from the side. Its swept back petals, albeit rather dried, add to this sense of movement. A little more of the pollinating platform pointing towards us might perhaps be even stronger.

These extra features add parameters that do not truly belong to the flower. It does not present itself to us as might a female primate in heat to the male. Still, our mind subconsciously can find a boost from such a connection or perhaps in this case of a witch flying past on a broomstick. The sense of position, textures and movement allows us to exercise our imagination. so the photograph of just a flower can become more than a semblance of the subject. It can be a framework to play with our own fantasies.

By contrast, a still drab flower against a black background falls back into the page and is rather inconsequential and we might pay no great attention at all.

So black, when it works as it does here, replaces nothing as nothing is needed. Black might also work in other ways by hiding things and this raising questions, but not here! We do not ask "What's missing?" or else "What else is hiding out there? Rather we want to know more about the "flower" or what it might represent. Often the questions relate to the dominant metaphor of all life and destiny: "What is it doing?", "Where is it going", "Where did it come from" and What happened before it came here to fly past us?"

When a picture makes us ask such questions, art has arrived too and the image breathes at us like a dragon with fire from its nostrils! Art lives and I believe that is an essence common to all art. Art inspires an interview, an intercourse with us and perhaps a long time bonding.

Asher

 

[janet Smith]

So black, when it works as it does here, replaces nothing as nothing is needed. Black might also work in other ways by hiding things and this raising questions, but not here!

Hi Asher

I agree with everything you've said, so eloquently as always.

This shot loses nothing by the lack of background, but I agree strongly with you that black can often be used as a way of hiding things, and is something I am mindful of. Interestingly I was informed by an agency specialising in flower photography, that black/dark backgrounds don't sell as well. As a consequence I used white backgrounds on some and will be doing some more, once I've finished processing all the landscapes I brought back from the Hebrides!

Thanks for your thought provoking comments Asher, very much appreciated.

 

[Nathaniel Alpert]

Hi Nat, Mike, Rachel and James,

So what is the significance of a very dark to black background. The dark does allow the mind to create possible presence using signals from the rest of the picture or collection of images presented to the viewer.

Using pure black(or white) as a background for flowers serves well for catalogs of flowers. Also for stock photography, the image can be more easily used in composites with little editing.

So how are things working here with your picture Nat?

This one is exceptional since there are so many extras. The illumination from behind adds a zing of life to start us off. The movement of the flower from the right and presentation almost as an invitation, the mouth of the flower, the asymmetric powerful position of the insect, and the path to the pollinating center of the flower all add strong symbols which reverberate with many innate and cultural imperatives and preferences as well as a body of art.

The black b.g.? It is shrugged of as dark space behind a picture of mother earth! It cannot harm this powerful picture. Further, there is little that could be added in the b.g. that would improve and not degrade the picture's impact.

The black background is the infinite milieu of less importance in which this magnificent flower celebrates so many things.

A lot of superlatives, yes I admit it's a bit overboard. Still, even dividing my excitement by a power of 10, it still comes out as impressive despite the black background which, here, INMH, make the picture work and help recruit our attention to everything happening in fornt.

Asher

Asher,

I am not sure I am following you in your analysis, in general, of why a black background supports or detracts from the subject. In the specific case of my submission, I am not convinced that any other approach will work as well. It simplifies the design and concentrates our attention; it is not distracting. The image as captured had distracting elements which I cloned out in photoshop and I darkened the background further to yield the image shown here. I used the transmitted light as an animating element. You seem to be saying that the black background works in this case, but it is the exception that proves the rule. There must be a more comprehensive overview of this sort of composition that could guide us, more than black is not usually a good way to go.

-Nat

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

I am not sure I am following you in your analysis, in general, of why a black background supports or detracts from the subject. In the specific case of my submission, I am not convinced that any other approach will work as well.

As an artist, Nat, you recognized all the properties of the flower which gave it life. Given that power, you knew instinctively you had a winner.

It simplifies the design and concentrates our attention; it is not distracting.

That's what I wrote. But only after saying what it did not do.

The image as captured had distracting elements which I cloned out in photoshop and I darkened the background further to yield the image shown here.

That reinforces my idea that you knew that the flower itself was the entire balanced object, needing no other element to make it work.

I used the transmitted light as an animating element.

That I recognized in the very first comment.

This one is exceptional (meaning as a picture of a flower, not an exception to any function of blackness of b.g.) since there are so many extras. The illumination from behind adds a zing of life to start us off. The movement of the flower from the right and presentation almost as an invitation, the mouth of the flower, the asymmetric powerful position of the insect, and the path to the pollinating center of the flower all add strong symbols which reverberate with many innate and cultural imperatives and preferences as well as a body of art.

The black b.g.? It is shrugged of as dark space behind a picture of mother earth! It cannot harm this powerful picture. Further, there is little that could be added in the b.g. that would improve and not degrade the picture's impact.

The black background as the "infinite" milieu is not at play here. Black just serves to remove distractions, isolate his magnificent flower that celebrates life with so many powerful features that no other elements are needed.

You seem to be saying that the black background works in this case, but it is the exception that proves the rule.

Nat, the word exceptional was used as your flower is exceptional as in "remarkably unique" not as an exception to what commonly occurs! Rules? We have no rules as yet, we are exploring case by case where we can see that black works.

There must be a more comprehensive overview of this sort of composition that could guide us, more than black is not usually a good way to go.

That Nat, I'd love to see!

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

I'm enjoying following this and looking through my set - which doesn't really bear comparison to Nat and Janet's work I think - I preferred the last one I posted. This had brighter petals and retained a fairly dark background that is the tresult of a dark hedge behind the flower. It is of course a different frame and one petal is differently placed too:

This has the brighter petals, but not so much that the 'curl' is lost and a lovely softness as the focus slips away. Any thoughts are welcome

Just to add another with a dark background, this next one is over a year old when I first picked up the 100. There was a lot of PS work on this to darken the background and bring out some texture in the petals etc, though this may not be the final print version...

Again, I will be interested in your analyses.

Janet, great stuff. My wife thinks it great too.

Mike

 

[janet Smith]

Janet, great stuff. My wife thinks it great too

Hi Mike

Thank you and your wife too, here's an Aquilegia of mine, looks like the same variety as yours I think.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Mike

Thank you and your wife too, here's an Aquilegia of mine, looks like the same variety as yours I think.

Great shot, the lighting makes the difference. You might want to clone out the flower in the background, it pulls the attention away (and out of the image since it is cropped by the edge of the image). Can the highlights be salvaged?

Bart

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Bart

I did wonder about cloning out the flower in the background, but decided to leave it, in retrospect I think you could be right, I might have a go later...... yes the highlights should be OK.

Thanks for commenting, I always appreciate feedback.

 

[Nathaniel Alpert]

Hi Jan,

I agree with Bart about cloning out the ones in the background. And doesn't that take us closer to the black background? On another point, and I think this goes back to another thread where we discussed the lighting of these shots. While no doubt that this is a good shot, I think the high contrast and the petals trailing back, on the left side, draw attention away from the central part of the subject. Nothing to do about it, other than having the pleasure of trying once again .

-Nat

 

[Asher Kelman]

Just to add another with a dark background, this next one is over a year old when I first picked up the 100. There was a lot of PS work on this to darken the background and bring out some texture in the petals etc, though this may not be the final print version...

Again, I will be interested in your analyses.

Thanks for permission to mess with your flower and identifying it for us. So it's an aquilegia. Maybe Janet can add more to that? I have removed the distracting elements and replaced them with black for the examples below dealing with black backgrounds.



Nathaniel,

You ask for a more comprehensive work on dark backgrounds. So far, I merely have my own thoughts to share and these are still being field tested!

Blackness in the b.g. has been a subject I'm now thinking more of. At present I am seeing how important no information can be. I have assembled my current general ideas about black space. These thoughts are not limited or unique to flowers. Some possibilities might more easily apply to scenes with humans or animals or machines.

It's application here to making our pictures of flowers more or less impressive is to provoke additional ideas and points of view.

So far I see the following 3 overlapping but clearly different possibilities so far.

In general, the amount, shape and position of darkness in relation to the flower might move our thoughts far beyond the idea of a flower the likes of which the picture shows. So is the picture just about the flower. This is what the black as lack of distraction, emptiness, cloaking of possibilities and more might do to our photographs of what is after all just one flower we happen to have given attention to.

1. The darkness merely isolates the flower: There are no distractions. However, the flower must now function on its own. The darkness itself draws only minor attention to itself. Rather, the presence of the flower is enhanced and the bloom appears more 3 dimensional.
   
   
   
   
   © Mike Shimwell
   
   
2. The proportion of darkness is so great that it is noticeable, is a key design element in itself: The blackness is not merely a "case" to surround the flower. The empty space itself has become a new un-ignorable compositional element. This now contributes. In fact the flower alone with less around it, might be less impressive.
   
   The configuration of the negative space might provide "graphic design" balance, an opposing thematic subject or set of evoked responses which the viewer has to reconcile with the image of the flower. Maybe it cloaks another matter or an impending action or suggests qualifications of how we think of the flower. These possibilities depend on the placement, color, posture, lighting, display and identity of its presentation.
   
   
   
   
   © Mike Shimwell
   
   
3. The shape of the darkness creates a possible viewing portal: Thus we are encouraged to look beyond the flower and imagine what's around and beyond it.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The extent of blackness can have a profound effect on the image:

First the original:

© Mike Shimwell

© Mike Shimwell

Then the limited increase in empty space; enough to isolate and put attention to the blooms on the right. Here we are still left with a sense of a tangled group of individuals. Imagine, perhaps "gang associates" or "friends" of the main bloom!

Evaluate the more complete clean up of distractions. Is it as effective?

© Mike Shimwell

In this instance, to me at least, the careful removal of everything distracting from the principle subject degrades the interest of the picture. After all, we would like the work to draw us back and then we can have a fresh experience since we never found all the answers the first time.

So it might be that for pictures like this, more than a certain amount of emptiness boils the subject down to a less rich form.

Asher

 

[Nathaniel Alpert]

Hi Asher,

You have provided an interesting exercise in the psychoanalysis of a picture and its background. Though it may not be optimal, rendering the background black, seems to make a profound difference. Though the major elements are the same, my responce is quite different. With black, I am aware of seeing the blossom more clearly.

I was particulalrly interested in my responce to the negative space,


I'm still having trouble formulating a "rule of thumb."

-Nat

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher,

You have provided an interesting exercise in the psychoanalysis of a picture and its background.

Thanks, Nat!

We have to identify even more possibilities and constraints!

Though it may not be optimal, rendering the background black, seems to make a profound difference. Though the major elements are the same, my responce is quite different. With black, I am aware of seeing the blossom more clearly.

Try more than one flower, then you might start to get interesting conditions.

I was particulalrly interested in my responce to the negative space,

Your response to negative spaces of different size or importance relative to the main subject?

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Black backgrounds: Some "Rules of Thumb"

I'm still having trouble formulating a "rule of thumb."

It would be this.

1. There are 4 kinds of negative space: infinitely void, a portal to possibilities in that space, a portal to possibilities elsewhere and lastly solid!

• The infinite void: If an object is photography with good dimensionality and there is a lot of interest, color, texture shapes and more to make the eyes keep moving and finding more, then a scant black background will add power. The black signifies emptiness, nothing at all and does not call attention to itself.
  
  
  
  
  © Mike Shimwell
  
  Here the black is empty and one could fall through it and couldn't strike it with a hammer.
  
  
• A portal to occult or latent possibilities in that space: Simply put, the lights are out. The space is not necessarily empty at all. Rather it could contain whatever one's imagination might allow in the presence of the lit subject of the picture. Activity could be past, current or pending, good or bad, deserved or not, random or with design.
  
  
• A portal to possibilities elsewhere: A portal to any or some set of time or space and possibility. A typical example would be the alluring shadow between the partially covered breast. This cleavage is considered "sexy" and mysterious. But what's going on. If we examined the area with a flashlight one would be disappointed at the lack of any thing revealed, just ordinary skin. With the area in deep shadow, however, some magical portal is created which could lead to some fantastic, exhilarating sensual experience.
  
  
• Solid: Especially if the lighting on the subject is flat and the image is not so demanding, black may work by providing another design element. So the black emptiness is filled with a black substance and so becomes an "entity", it's not just "unimportant emptyness". The empty space becomes positive space as if one could bang a hammer on its surface.

Because of these conflicting functions of black, one should think about what one want: a coating of nothingness, a treasure, pile of bills or danger hidden by the dark or a just a solid block of carbon?

2. Black should not be over-used.

© Mike Shimwell

For some flowers there may be sufficient interest and innate activity that the more one removes beyond the flower, the clearer the subject will appear to be. The identity is reinforced. However, for this particular photograph that might be a problem. Notice this photograph has not been made devoid of relationships and presence of life. Beware that continuing to remove all secondary "distracting" objects might make the flower you love appear to stark and dead.

3. Add streaks or other elements of color to the black space to contrast with or complement* the flower.

[
© Allen Maestas "New Mexico Wildflower"

* Bart's wrote post #91 here. "excellent use of complementary colors"


Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

* Bart's wrote post #91 here. "excellent use of complementary colors"

Yes, in fact I said a bit more ("You've made excellent use of complementary colors in your composition"). The color which is already a compositional element by itself, and the (golden section) placement are carefully combined into something more, synergy! The fact that there is some structure in the background augments the shape of the flower at the chosen angle.

Black alone loses one potentially important element of a composition, leaving only shape/position. That could be enough, but is probably not as powerful as it can be.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Yes, in fact I said a bit more ("You've made excellent use of complementary colors in your composition"). The color which is already a compositional element by itself, and the (golden section) placement are carefully combined into something more, synergy! The fact that there is some structure in the background augments the shape of the flower at the chosen angle.

Black alone loses one potentially important element of a composition, leaving only shape/position. That could be enough, but is probably not as powerful as it can be.

Bart

Bat,

Thank,s once again, for joining the ideas on black to the well examined classical framework of the total composition. Interestingly, the addition of color to the extensive black background in Allen Maestas "New Mexico Wildflower", still maintains the feeling of infinite space. The flower, and its powerful position creates a sense of beauty and the dark holds no fear for us, perhaps just mystery.

So there is still much more to think about black backgrounds and the signals that might make it risky or even solid. Here there is perhaps, because of the creative use of color, a diffusion of the positive mood through all reaches of the negative space.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

..., here's an Aquilegia of mine, looks like the same variety as yours I think.

So there is still much more to think about black backgrounds and the signals that might make it risky or even solid.

That's why (in addition to the non-frontal lighting) I like the basis of Jan's above image. After cloning out the distracting background flower, there is a number of green 'rays' seemingly emanating from, or directing attention to, the main subject. The background is functionally dark, not black. That strengthens a centrally placed composition. That's also why the highlights need to be recovered, nothing should distract.

Bart

 

[Michael_Stones]

I looked back at James Newman's pictures in post # 62 and did not have an answer as to why Rachel's photograph seemed wrong to me. In what way were James' flowers working better for me?

Then came Mike Shimwell's single white flower on a black b.g.

At first look I found the picture attractive but it failed to move me beyond that. Then the same photo was presented brightened. i

It came alive.

Well what happened? With irony, I must now admit that the original rendering of the flower had an extra feature that only is revealed to me on further inspection. It's subtle. There's one extra folded petal, albeit tiny on the left lower edge of the yellow central round platform. This one tiny asymmetry makes the eyes lock on the flower and appreciate the outstretched petals, as outstretched arms welcoming the visitor.

The extra brightness of the lighter version makes the distinguishing small little petal discernible. The 2cd version is more impressive and now with this information going back to thew original with the blacker background, it has become more important!

I must admit my hypothesis that brightening the flower alone, leaving the b.g. black and locally sharpening the extra tiny white petal might be even more impressive.

If you follow my critique and concur, we can see that blackness alone for the background does not, in itself, ruin an otherwise compelling photograph!

Asher

Very quick comment because I'm away on a trip. Lightening the second picture also lightened the background. On a LAB luminosity scale, average blurring with the first picture gives a background value of 5 and a flower value of 79; with the second picture, the corresponding values are 20 and 87. Maybe the second picture looks more alive because (a) the flower is brighter, (b) the background is brighter, (c) the contrast in luminosity between flower and background is more pleasing.

When information theory ruled in the psychology of evaluation, researchers found that ratios for liking/disliking contrasts tended to accord with phi, the "golden ratio" (i.e., .38 to .62). Using log base 2 (i.e., the information theory metric), the values for the second picture are background=4.31 and flower=6.43, with the background 65% along the luminosity scale and the flower 97% along that scale. According to information theory, the most pleasing contrast would occur with a background value a bit lower, but not very much lower. So maybe the better luminosity contrast made the second picture come to life.

 

[Michael_Stones]

So sorry this comment will be brief - a few stolen minutes while on the road .... If the underexplained reasoning in the preceding post is correct, the photos of Rachel, Nathanial & Janet would be more pleasing to more people if the background were white rather than black. Why? Because the mean luminosity of the flowers looks dark rather than light. I haven't checked this with these photos but it's easy to do. Contrast would therefore be closer to a theoretical optimal with a white rather than black ground. Mike's first photo is more light than dark, and therefore benefits from a black ground.

Bart referred to the golden section with respect to spatial structure. Information theory researchers in the 1970s-1980s era applied phi ratios to all kinds of human evaluative judgment - frequencies of people liked and disliked, frequencies of pleasant and unpleasant experiences during a day, level of happiness; you name it, they probably researched it. Mean levels across research participants approximated phi proportions regardless of judgment domain. There was variation, of course; some people are like Pollyanna, some miserable much of the time; others having a good or bad day. But the mean levels showed a consistent trend. If phi is akin to an optimal level for evaluative discrimination in multiple domains, it should surely generalize to luminosity, too.

Cheers for now
Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

I'm not sure that white conveys a sense of infinite depth as black can. Likewise, a the idea that things are lurking in darkness and could be discovered by switch on a light, does not apply to a white background. So I'm not sure that these numbers given applies when these values of blackness are important to an image.

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

Michael,

I'm not sure that white conveys a since of infinite depth as black can. Likewise, a the idea that things are lurking in darkness and could be discovered by switch on a light, does not apply to a white background. So I'm not sure that these numbers given applies when these values of blackness are important to an image.

Asher

Hi Asher

Black and white have different symbolic attributes, as you point out. Don't forget, though, that bright light is commonly used by interrogators to blot out background information and heighten feelings of fear and isolation.

What I'm offering is an alternative interpretation of your reactions to the photos; namely, 'what works' or 'doesn't work' (i.e., is pleasing or less pleasing) may have less to do with higher level symbolic value (e.g., things lurking in darkness) than basic contrast ratios. In the picture of Mike Shimwell's that 'came alive' for you, the ratio is close to a theoretically optimal level based on luminosity, whereas the unbrightened version you liked less has a suboptimal ratio. Maybe this is coincidence, but given the pervasiveness of phi in human evaluative judgment maybe it's not. A contrast ratio hypothesis is certainly testable because it leads to specific predictions not only of whether a black or white background will be more or less pleasing against different foregrounds, but also of the requisite contrast to optimize that pleasure.

I commented on your reactions Mike Shimwell's fine photos because luminosity provides such a clear differentiation between the flower and ground. Other photos in this thread added more color to the composition, which complicates matters (as does spatial composition, but that's another story). My own aesthetic reactions to the colored photos against a blackish ground were not so favorable. I'm guessing that this is because the luminosity values of the flowers are lower in those photos, the luminosity contrasts are suboptimal, and luminosity takes precedence over color in evaluative judgment; however, this guesswork might be a bridge too far. But inferences from that reasoning are again testable.

Pitting symbolic against psychophysical interpretations of aesthetic reactions to photographs is definitely intriguing. Maybe a topic for research if anyone's interested....

Cheers
Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher

Black and white have different symbolic attributes, as you point out. Don't forget, though, that bright light is commonly used by interrogators to blot out background information and heighten feelings of fear and isolation.

Yes that's true. We need examples of that in a photograph that we could walk next to in a gallery or find on the web. I have one painting I will photograph. However, the white light here is a blast of light from heaven and not a background.

What I'm offering is an alternative interpretation of your reactions to the photos; namely, 'what works' or 'doesn't work' (i.e., is pleasing or less pleasing) may have less to do with higher level symbolic value (e.g., things lurking in darkness) than basic contrast ratios. In the picture of Mike Shimwell's that 'came alive' for you, the ratio is close to a theoretically optimal level based on luminosity, whereas the unbrightened version you liked less has a suboptimal ratio. Maybe this is coincidence, but given the pervasiveness of phi in human evaluative judgment maybe it's not. A contrast ratio hypothesis is certainly testable because it leads to specific predictions not only of whether a black or white background will be more or less pleasing against different foregrounds, but also of the requisite contrast to optimize that pleasure.

I commented on your reactions Mike Shimwell's fine photos because luminosity provides such a clear differentiation between the flower and ground.

This concept of phi being a qualifying measure we use is certainly intriguing. I'd like to learn more and see if there is some debate on this or whether or not it's now a settled subject. In any case if we accept that, and it's plausible to do so, then it merely adds to my framework. what makes the flower more impressive still leaves the black either infinite, hiding occult things or potential activity, leads us elsewhere in time and space or is solid.

The phi component, like Bart's pointing to the addition of areas of color, only seem to be further elements that build our total impressions of the flower and mood, not the 4 "physical" features of the blackness.

We need to add a 5th possibility for blackness of a background.

5. The silhouette: , the silhouette, like a skyline or a crowd. Here we are sure of the physicality of the blackness space:buildings, a crane or people. We do not think of infinite depth in that space, lurking possibilities, a portal to somewhere else or an amorphous black material.

Thanks for helping us understand how phi contrast might contribute to and calibrate for us the rank of the subject it surrounds.

Asher

 

[Nathaniel Alpert]

Trees in the mist

Is it appropriate to compare the psychological effects of a pastel vs the black background? We have discussed black and white backgrounds and this might give some further insight. If so, this thread provides some examples. I think the first one best makes the point.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I don't want anyone to think I'm neglecting this thread....I plan on giving it serious study. I'm just up to my eyebrows in work at the moment, plus a house guest for the next 3 weeks.....but I'll be back asap!

 

[James Newman]

I've been following this thread and trying to figure out for myself what I like and don't like as far as backgrounds go when photographing flowers and just why that is. Honestly, the initial shot of my Iris blooms with the dark background was just the way the image happened to turn out. I did not really think about the background when taking that shot. My subject was just the flowers and it came out the way it did just by happenstance. At that time I did not even consider what a different background might have done for my image. After reading the comments and other people's ideas and thoughts on the subject I started doing some experimenting and trying to see for myself what a little variation in the background could do. Here are a couple that you can look at and give me any thoughts you might have concerning this topic. The background in both shots is a grey background paper. The first shot is without any flash, using my 105mm macro lens at
f/8.0 1/13 sec ISO 200. The second shot was with my good old 50mm lens, again at f/8.0 but with 1/60 sec exposure while using a softbox, a reflecting umbrella, and two small flashes with colored gels facing the background. I like them both but they definitely have very different feels to them. It was a fun and educational experiment that gave me a number of different and equally pleasing results with just a small variation in the technique. Here they are for what it's worth.

and a look at the setup just for kicks.

 

[Nathaniel Alpert]

James,

Thanks for this interesting comparison. The 2nd example has a more three-dimensional feel to it. I like it. But I am not sure that the result is soley due to the background. I am wondering if the change in lighting may have been the determining factor?

-Nat