This week of photography is a hodgepodge. I went out with my camera with the only purpose being to see if I could capture something - anything - find a picture. Flowers, even in winter, are always available to pose.
I hate flowers - I paint them
because they are cheaper than models
and they don't move.
I love flowers but not so much as something to photograph. They seldom make a statement about life beyond their prettiness. And sorry, Georgia, but they do move. The slightest breeze can make them tremble. But taking photographs of flowers was a challenge, and like I said always available in my studio or a friend's greenhouse or at a store for purchase. In fact, the first article I read about how to photograph a flower suggested buying them and setting them up in your house with just the right light. Actually the right light composed the majority of the article. In your house or studio you could also control the background. Flowers bloom outside in such clutter. Ergo focal depth.
Which becomes a bit tricky as flowers themselves often have such depth. The fancy geranium above has great depth. Which brings us to the other problem with photographing flowers; somebody always wants to know the name. This one is a pelagonium or more commonly a Geranium Martha Washington.
The photograph below is of a daffodil, which when I looked it up on Google to make sure it was not a jonquil, I found to actually be a Narcissus. They are all of he family Amaryllidaceae.
Back to the photography issue. The daffocil was outside and there was breeze. And just beyond the bed of daffs was the wall of the house. I wanted the flower and the feeling of the whole bed but not the house. And that leads to the eternal question of how much of a photograph has to be in focus?
Landscapes are easier. Especially when nature adds a coating of snow to two Volkswagens serving as lawn ornaments and rabbit hutch. I didn't know the rabbit was there until back in the dry darkroom (computer).
The melting snow created wetlands so I decided to capture a few reflections of lessor things than pines and aspens. I liked the delicacy of the grass and dried seed stalks from last summer. But it had the same problems as the daffodil - breeze and focal depth and how much of the photograph can be out of focus.
Ponds and wetlands mean geese. The two below I have been trying to condition to my presence with camera before they have goslings. This isn't this pair's first season with me but they are always a bit on edge when they begin to lay. A coyote had gotten two of their eggs just a day before so they were even more flighty that normal. I took five quick frames to get this one takeoff shot.
Day 132 below was a palm leaf tossed out. I liked its shape but it not enough to leave it alone. I photo processed it into a mirror effect of itself and came out with a pagan mask.
The last photograph of this week was back to seeking the "little" reflections. And a natural mirror effect. This willow on the shore of a pond raised high by the spring melt had its feet in the water. And with reflections like this the question becomes if there is too much in focus. Should you ripple the water to provide a visual dividing line between the real and the reflected.