[nichpr]

Looking forward to your comments.
- Paul

[Markulous]

Love that background tho' think having two feathers makes it look a little contrived (and if you accept that being the case, worth arranging them to suit the comp) but detail's all there

[Dabhand16]

I swear that before I saw Mark's post the word contrived sprang into my mind too! Not that there is anything wrong with constructing an image, but two feathers with the water drops as well, I think this one is a bit OTT.

The BG is great - the grain and texture works really well, and a different arrangement of feather/feathers/and/or other items might work better for the picture as a whole.

[nichpr]

Thanks for your comments. You've confirmed my thoughts. Had that feeling in my gut but wanted another opinion.
The water drops are actually as I found it but I guess I should have left one of the feathers where it was, in the leaves beside this log. These feathers, btw are only about an inch long.
Thanks
- Paul

[JMitchell]

I actually like this, contrived or not. This image (if you don't mid me saying), to me, is all about texture, and I think you've got it right. The swirly rough brown background mixed with the smooth greys of the feathers and the surface of the drops contrasts nicely to make this a very simple but pleasing image.

[dogdots]

I to saw texture when I looked at this photo.

I'm not against two feathers since they say decorating etc. should be done in threes EX...feather, feather, bark, but I would have maybe dropped both feathers and where ever they landed that is how the photo is taken. If you didn't like the first landing try another.

I've done this and it works best to not let the mind organize it, but nature so to speak

Dogdots/Mary

[Rob Barron]

I saw texture AND contrived LOL. Just kidding

I do like the quality of the image, the focusing and so on is spot on as it is usually is with Paul's work. However I struggle to see a relationship between the two parts of the image other than the contrast in textures. If that is all we want from it then it works fine but if we are looking for the infamous 'story' in the shot, it isn't really there.

As a texture shot though it is excellently handled.

Cheers,
Rob

[Boofers]

I would think you could have layed them in a natural direction with the flow of the background. Like two wings in a V shape, pointed in the direction of the background grain.

[dogdots]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

I saw texture AND contrived LOL. Just kidding

I do like the quality of the image, the focusing and so on is spot on as it is usually is with Paul's work. However I struggle to see a relationship between the two parts of the image other than the contrast in textures. If that is all we want from it then it works fine but if we are looking for the infamous 'story' in the shot, it isn't really there.

As a texture shot though it is excellently handled.

Cheers,
Rob

I had my own story when I saw this photo.

First I saw the texture of soft vs ruff.

Then I progressed onto thoughts about the bird or birds....which bird landed here or which bird was above this bark and doing what before the feathers dropped. Was the bird cleaning itself, in a fight, just landed and flew off. I also wondered what was the bark attached to...was it just laying on the ground, part of a branch, how high up was it.....for me it would have to be pretty low to the ground

Then I thought of the Native Americans......feathers from two people who have since moved on to another life....etc.

While it may be way off as to what the photographer thought and saw and was trying to say with it.

Maybe I went to deep into this

Dogdots/Mary

[Boofers]

I like that Mary, the part about native american indians. Does fit the picture,,

[nichpr]

Story behind this shot:
I was walking on a trail deep in the woods. Taking my normal loop, I had not found anything that really got my photog juices flowing. I decided to head back toward the car and came across what appeared to be the scene of some poor bird's recent demise - feathers scattered across and down the trail. Most of the larger feathers were not to be found, so it was difficult to determine just what kind of bird it was. Since there was dew on the feathers, I figured that the hawk had done his work the day before.

I look for contrasts in my nature shots. Contrast of color or texture. As I surveyed the carnage, I could see that most of the feathers were pretty torn up. There were a clump of small ones, however, - only about an inch long that were in very good shape. As I knelt to pick them up, I saw the log they were laying beside with its wonderful texture and pattern. Laying the feathers on that log, I realized, "There's my shot."

What I forgot was that things often look best in odd numbers - three of something in particular. I prefer simple compositions and should have limited this shot to a single feather.

Rob, I agree that fine art photography needs to tell a story. I also find that stories are really tough to tell with nature element photos. A single leaf (or feather) can be presented in a way that is amazing in itself. However, to try and tell a story and keep a simple composition is quite a challenge. I'll have to give some thought to how I might have told a story with the scene I found.

Thanks for your comments. I hung onto those feathers and may return to see if I can reshoot with a single one.
- Paul

[dogdots]

[quote=nichpr;168477]Story behind this shot:
I was walking on a trail deep in the woods. Taking my normal loop, I had not found anything that really got my photog juices flowing. I decided to head back toward the car and came across what appeared to be the scene of some poor bird's recent demise - feathers scattered across and down the trail. Most of the larger feathers were not to be found, so it was difficult to determine just what kind of bird it was. Since there was dew on the feathers, I figured that the hawk had done his work the day before.


I got part of the story right---a bird fight, but I had the bird flying off. Obviously this one didn't

Dogdots/Mary

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by nichpr

What I forgot was that things often look best in odd numbers -
- Paul

A very good point that is often overlooked Paul.

[Les Meehan]

Originally Posted by nichpr

Rob, I agree that fine art photography needs to tell a story.
- Paul

WHY??

In my experience most 'fine art' (whatever the f*** that really means) only tells a story when the creator writes some Masters Degree blurb to go with the image. Said blurb usually means very little to anyone without a dictionary of long, meaningless words to hand (or of course someone nearby that has a Masters in Fine Art Photography from Derby to ask)!

Why isn't the 'story' what the viewer wishes to imagine when looking at the image? Each persons imagination will provide the necessary narrative.

I know, I know, it is 'sometimes' interesting to know what the image maker had in mind when creating a work BUT if you have to ask (and it is nothing like you expected) then the message wasn't present in the original image and thus the images has failed. No?

For most of my images the story is simple, I liked what I saw and I made an image. The 'statements' of most images are added after the image has been viewed by pen pushing critics.

Often the 'story' of an image only manifests itself when the image is used as propaganda/publicity purposes. Take the landscapes of Ansel Adams. It wasn't really until they started to be used as propaganda in the campaign to protect the American wilderness that his work suddenly became 'fine art' statements.

OK, flood gates opened yet again...let it roll.

Cheers

Les

PS I look at this as a simple still life and in that respect it works for me.