Caution: Crazed Photographer at Work

[Ed Vatza]

"Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds."

The snows really started to kick up this afternoon but close to 5PM there was a knock on the door and there stood the postman with a package for me. Inside was the soft focus optic for my Lensbaby Composer.

So what to do? I found a couple of reasonable looking carnations left over from last weekend and set out to give the Lensbaby + Soft Focus a whirl. This is a sample of the images made. This one was shot at 5.0 sec @ f/5.6; ISO 100; -2/3 EV. Background was black velvet and the lighting was overhead but dialed way back.

Camera was the 30D; lens obviously the Lensbaby Composer w/ Soft Focus Optic; tripod mounted.

I did enough processing to this image to consider posting it over in OOTB. Minor adjustments to exposure, blacks, clarity, vibrance and saturation were made in Lightroom. Then I dumped the image into CS4 where I ran it through Topaz Adjust and Topaz Detail (did not use presets in either) to bring back just a little of the detail (remember it is a soft focus optic). I finished it off with just a little USM and NR along with a slight contrast adjustment. This is what I ended up with.

Thoughts?

[Don Lacy]

Hi Ed, I really like the soft focus look and the contrast of the red carnation and black BG. I was thinking that this would look good as square crop also .

[Ed Cordes]

Ed, I like the effect on the carnation a lot. The reds really pop. Only suggestion is to try to eliminate the gauze pattern visible in your BG.

[Jerry van Dijk]

Hi Ed, nice painting-like creation! I think the gauze pattern in the BG adds to the effect, but the image will also be nice without it.

[Ed Vatza]

Thanks guys. I didn't think it was too bad for my very first attempt with the new optic.

Many, I think consider the Lensbaby to be a toy. Whatever... all I can say is even toys take practice to get better. So like I said, not bad for the first try and it can only get better!

Oh, and I do have a square crop as well. I just preferred the 8x10 for now.

[David Stephens]

Just offering a knee-jerk reaction here. Keep in mind that I was surfing my favorite nature photography site when I ran across this image. I literally thought to myself, "I'm not going to comment because that image is so out of focus that the poster will be insulted."

Then I read what was happening and said to myself, "Oh."

I know that Lensbaby is really "in" but this seems kind of artificial to me. It's kind of like turning up the "Cartoon" effect in PS. Maybe it needs to be even more "out". This is close enough that it seems like it could be an accident, until I see that a pro took it and meant it to be "soft."

My negative reaction is perhaps fueled by the fact that this is on a site dominated by sharp, "accurate" images. In another context I might have reacted differently.

Dave

[Ed Vatza]

Good morning.

You are correct on many points here, Dave. The context in which one views an image plays an important role in how one views the image. I said in my original post that I considered posting this in Out-of-the-Box before dropping it in Macro/Flora. Most probably I should have. The Lensbaby is most definitely an out-of-the-box lens and the image that I have produced with it have often left viewers feeling a sense of, I don't know what word to use, confusion or tension or... Responses have been strong. Folks either really like it or they really dislike it. And that is fine with me. If someone likes it a lot or dislikes it a lot, they are less likely to forget it than they would if it was just another "sharp, accurate image" of a flower.

Believe me, this is not meant to insult anyone but sharp, accurate images of flowers are, figuratively speaking, a dime a dozen. Now if Mike Moats is lurking out there, this is where he will jump in. The response that you had - "that image is so out-of-focus" is the same type of response that caused him to ultimate pull his abstracts from his shows. According to Mike (and I don't necessarily disagree), many people, most people are looking to buy photos of flowers that look like flowers, birds that look like birds, landscapes that are recognizable... in other words, portraits. I understand that and have done more than my share of such portraits. You can see a sampling of those on my website. If you do decide to pay a visit, also read my artist's statement which explains my "philosophy" and the direction my art is taking. I think it is characterized by two statements. One, I seek to make the ordinary extraordinary. And two, I want the viewer to ask themselves "How did he do that?" and not say to themselves "I could take that picture."

Again, it comes back to context and I probably presented this image in the wrong context. My bad. But you know what? You were surfing your favorite nature photography site and, good or bad, it stopped you. It made you look hard. It made you think about the image. It made you read what was written about the image. It made you write about the image. Not bad for an out-of-focus image of a simple carnation! :D;)

Take care and have a great day!

[David Stephens]

Hi Ed and good morning to you. Thanks for taking my feedback in the spirit intended.

I did look at you site and I don't see this image quite fitting there either, even in your "outside-of-the-box" section. I like abstract stuff and much of what is on your site I find very attractive, but this particular image is too closs to "accurate" for me. The abstraction is only slight in this case. Hence, my trouble with it.

Now, if your target audience is those that expect sharp pictures, then maybe you have succeeded, but I think that'll be a pretty small audience. :cool:

Getting back to this image, the colors are super powerful, leaping off the screen. That is certainly what caught my eye at first. It was among several other small icons and I clicked it to see more. Realizing that the market's introduction to you is often through a small icon is important. That image does pop out of a line-up, so it passes the "first-click" test for me.

Dave

[Ed Vatza]

I did look at you site and I don't see this image quite fitting there either, even in your "outside-of-the-box" section. I like abstract stuff and much of what is on your site I find very attractive, but this particular image is too closs to "accurate" for me. The abstraction is only slight in this case. Hence, my trouble with it.

Actually, for the time being, this image and another like it reside in the... drumroll please... Lensbaby Gallery! :eek:

[David Stephens]

It's is interesting for me to stroll through your Lensbaby gallery. I'm drawn to the more distorted of the images, with one exception, the frost on the leaf is my favorite and it's almost accurate, or at least in the center. The red flowers are probably my least favorite in that gallery. Maybe it's the black BG, which doesn't show distortion. Some other BG might serve that flower better. Just more knee-jerk responses.

Anyway, I love much of your work, whether realistic or abstract. Your images have strong attraction for me.

Dave

[Julie Kenward]

Okay, I'm going to chime in now.

I think it's almost time we all had the discussion about what is - and what isn't - allowed in the macro/flora forum and I have to say this one just barely rides the line into OOTB - not because you used a Lensbaby on it but because you used Topaz plug-ins.

I've talked to the powers that be here at BPN and plan to address this very subject in early January when we get back from holiday breaks and the forum gets busy again but for now I want everyone to know this basic guideline:

If you use a plug-in or a filter that distorts the natural look of the image as seen through the camera lens it needs to go into the OOTB forum instead of the macro forum. Again, this is not my rule - this is how the leaders and Owners of BPN define the criteria. Nature images should appear, for the most part, "natural."

Now, what about fisheyes, lensbabies, and wide angle lens effects? And what if you only use the contrast adjustment in a plug in or only add saturation? And isn't most noise reduction software a plug-in as well?

ALL VALID POINTS.

So for those who love this forum like Mike and I do we want you to start thinking about this issue. If you were a moderator, where would an image cross over into OOTB? Believe me, I've stayed up nights trying to define that line and it's not all that easy...but do me a favor and THINK about it first - I promise we'll have this discussion in a few short weeks.

Ed, I'm going to leave this image here so others can see my comments and begin to think about this issue but my gut reaction was to move this to OOTB (as was yours) because of plug-in use. Let's let the sleeping dog lie for now and we'll all pick up the issue after the holidays - I promise.

I do like the reds in this - and I like the crisp edges with the satiny feel of the petals. I definitely would consider taking the BG to solid black, though...just my personal preference. ;)

[Ed Vatza]

Shot through the heart... :eek::p

I will let sleeping dogs lie. But first let me rouse the dog just a bit.

This issue of a line does drive me crazy. As I said recently, our local photography club lost some very valuable members over a disagreement as to where that line should be. Simple monthly assignments/contests became arguments over whether an image was a photograph or not. How much processing should we allow? And a lot of that discussion was regarding the use of Photoshop, forget plug-ins. And we all must have read at least some of the posts regarding the MG controversy and violation of contest rules.

So where is the line? Yes images pop up in this forum as well as others that probably belong in OOTB. This image (mine) is an example. But you know what? I am starting to see images in OOTB that probably belong in the nature forums. Does an image that doesn't necessarily meet the standards of a nature forum mean it is OOTB? I don't think so. But it is not an easy question to try to answer. And it is opening a can of worms. You raised many of the issues that need to be considered. I now use Topaz Adjust (and will probably start using Nik plug-ins) as part of my "normal" work flow to tweak exposure, bring out a little more detail or boost a color - things I do not consider to be OOTB. Does that mean I can no longer post those images in Birds, Macro/Flora, or Landscapes? And remember the plug-ins for the most part don't do anything that can't also be done (admittedly with more difficulty) in Photoshop. So what happens if I boost saturation in Lightroom or CS4 instead of using Adjust? Is that OK? The line is no longer a sharp one. Matter of fact, it becomes a pretty gray area.

So sure I'll think about it. I love these forums too. And what the heck, I've been in a philosophical mood of late anyway! :D

Merry Christmas/Happy New Year/Happy Holidays/Visit My Website/Love My Work/Or Else!!!:eek::D

Ed


P.S. Maybe the ultimate irony here is that, as David had noticed, the processing I did with Topaz Adjust and Detail brought the Soft Focus image more in the direction of a natural nature image. Without the processing in Topaz, the image was definitely OOTB and I would have put it there with no questions asked!

[Mike Moats]

Hey Ed, I think David's reaction is what most would think as they opened the image that you were off on your focusing. I think he is right that if it had a more out of the box look, with more blur you would know there was something artistic going on, but by just being slightly soft does make the viewer think you miss the mark on focusing.

[Anita Bower]

First, I'll comment on the image. I like red on black and I like (some) soft focus images, but the combination here doesn't work for me. (I'm being quite direct, as I think Ed can take it. ;)) Like David wrote, it is not out of focus enough. It is not clear to me if you intended the soft focus or if it was accidental. Contributing to this confusion are the black BG, which to me suggests sharp contrast and sharp focus, and the sharply focused petal edges, which are not a focal point, but suggest sharpness may have been desired by the photographer. I suppose I'm saying that the elements are fighting each other here. I would have preferred it to be even more out of focus, and with a less dramatic BG. My comments are not about art, but about my response to this photograph. I came to it with no preconceptions of what it should look like.

Second, I'll comment on the distinction between Macro and OOTB. Perhaps the issue isn't whether or not a plug-in was used, but how it was used. Ed makes some good points about plug-ins being used to achieve results achievable in PS. Perhaps we will look to the final effect. I look forward to further discussion and clarification in January.

[Charles Wesley]

Jules,

I agree with Anita about plug-ins and macro images. Most everyone IMO uses plug-ins as part of their pp. I know that I do all the time. Lost Viveza in a computer crash about a year ago and will buy the upgrade. I use Viveza, Topaz Adjust, Color Efex Pro and FocalBlade.

They're just tools to improve an image. I know professional photographers who could not make their living without plug-ins Editors are always looking for unique and excellent images. I'm still fairly conservative with my pp but feel we should also use plug-ins....

_______________________
Charlie Wesley
St. Augustine Beach, FL

[Julie Kenward]

Charles, Ed, Anita, and everyone else...I'm scared to say another thing for fear the discussion will get going too much at this point but I did want to clarify ONE point.

It's not necessarily the plug in that pushes the image into OOTB but what Charlie said: it's how you use it.

If we use the Nik software to add contrast or saturation (within normal limits) then that's fine by me. I don't care if you use Corel Paint or some $500 plug in that works for you as an artist...I really think they should all be used if they take the artist to where his vision wants the image to go.

That said...

When we see an image where the saturation level goes to 100 or the contrast goes to high key I still think it's okay to post them here in the regular forum - for the most part. But when we start to apply Topaz simplify and details and we do so to the point where it now looks more like a tapestry or a painting or we gaussian blur it into oblivion - then we have to call it OOTB because it IS. Remember, OOTB doesn't just mean "digital art" - it is the forum for people who want to push the boundaries outside of the norm - believe me I am down there almost as much as I am up here these days.

So, that said...let's put the dog back to bed :D and think about the issue - really try to put your mind around what you consider "normal" processing and what you consider "OOTB" and we'll totally dive head first into this after the first of the year.

And get ready...because I want to pick a topic every month and do the same thing (so send me your ideas for discussions by PM!) We can't just make art - we need to discuss it, define it, and reshape it or we'll end up making "just another rose photo."

So here's one last thing to think about while you're mulling this all over...if we can have HDR and tone mapping images in the landscape forum then why can't we have Topaz Adjust and Color Efex images in the Macro/Flora forum? ;)

Now everybody go eat some figgy pudding and chase it with a cup of eggnog and we'll get all riled up about this in January!!!:D;):D

[Ed Vatza]

Don't be scared, Julie. I may look big and mean in my avatar photo but I am really a big pussycat! :)

Look I owe an awful lot to you and Mike and bunch of other folks here on BPN including some I really, really wish would return... folks like Robert O'Toole who provided me with some of the best critiques I've ever received. I really miss him.

In many respects, you've all made me what I am today (a much better photographer) but that also includes being outspoken about the art of photography, outspoken in the defense of my work, open to criticism when you are right and I am not. Not that long ago if someone told me to turn that tree from green to purple, I would try to do it. Now, not so much. I like to discuss my art, our art.

I'm not going to belabor the point. I owe a lot to you guys. But that doesn't mean I won't fight for what I believe in... that I won't continue to challenge and defend the art of photography as I interpret it. It's the least I can do.

Now let's all go out and enjoy this holiday season. ;)