‹ Previous Macro & Close-up Gallery Next ›

Is this nature?

Gallery: Macro & Close-upPosted September 18, 2011147 views12 comments

And if it is, in what gallery should this properly be placed.

I have been experimenting with smoke indoors because of drafts and under artificial light. This is the best, IMO, I have achieved to date but this is fun and I'm not yet finished having fun with this subject. I don't recall seeing smoke photos often and almost not at all.

I find this very, very tricky to get anything worthwhile and so far flash off camera and behind and below the smoke works best. I would really love to hear of experience any of the rest of you have had with photographing smoke.

E-5, 50mm F2 macro, 1/60 sec @ F6.3
0 EV
Fill in off camera flash
spot shadow metering
ISO 200

Large view provided

Thanks in advance for any and all critique and comments.

Comments

12 comments

Comment posted by Philip Hodgkins on September 18, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I think this could go in Man & Nature, Photo Art or Macro & Closeups and not get an argument. Probably the latter would be safest. Very competent smoke photo.

Registered on July 24, 2006, 2741 Posts, 12349 Comments

Comment posted by Charlie Baugh on September 18, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Those were the 3 I thought of when deciding where to try this. Do you feel it qualifies as nature? I guess you do or you would not have suggested galleries. Thankls Phil.

Registered on April 18, 2011, 329 Posts, 1985 Comments

Comment posted by Gary Yeoh on September 18, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Charlie:
This should go in floral cause it looks like an X-ray of an out of this world plant.

Really fabulous! You are getting really creative and artistic for someone who likes documentary images. I think centering the image would be fine as well (got to break the rules sometimes).

Registered on September 1, 2009, 588 Posts, 8184 Comments

Comment posted by Charlie Baugh on September 19, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Yea Gary, I thought about the flora gallery but didn't want to deal with someone asking if it grows.

Maybe I am losing my uptightness cause I am loving the shapes and learning what works and doesn't. I thought of you with this experimenting. Mine is very low tech.

Registered on April 18, 2011, 329 Posts, 1985 Comments

Comment posted by Mauro Pasquero on September 19, 2011 at 3:29 AM

Excellent image, Charlie ! To me, it is a verty "artistic" image

...and then...photo art...

Mauro

Registered on January 21, 2010, 650 Posts, 2500 Comments

Comment posted by David Taylor on September 19, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Even in 2D I think this is excellent. I must give it a go in 3D sometime. I won't get any comments if I post it on here, but it will be fun trying.

Thanks for stimulating my creative juices, Charlie.

Registered on April 24, 2006, 101 Posts, 837 Comments

Comment posted by Monica Siri on September 19, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Charlie,
I don't know if this is the right gallery, but absolutely I love this image. Great 3dimensional and imaginative effect.

Registered on September 20, 2009, 132 Posts, 3764 Comments

Comment posted by Charlie Baugh on September 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I find this effort fascinating and if you give it a go, you will probably find, as I did, it is challenging and not a subject you can control. Maybe that is why it is so absorbing. David I hope you post some soon as I'd love to see what others can capture.

Registered on April 18, 2011, 329 Posts, 1985 Comments

Comment posted by Charlie Baugh on September 19, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Mauro and Monica, I don't think there is an exactly "right" gallery here for smoke photos. And photo art seems not right because the art is created by the smoke not me. Except for selection of which images to post and post processing is great fun too to see how various adjustments work. I am reluctant to use filters as I tend to think they will ruin the effect of what the smoke provides

Charlie

Registered on April 18, 2011, 329 Posts, 1985 Comments

Comment posted by Charlie Baugh on September 19, 2011 at 2:36 PM

David, I've been thinking about your 3d comment. I don't understand much about that technique but don't you need multiple images of the same subject at different focus? With smoke images even a fraction of a second apart they are totally different subjects. I've done rapid sequential series of smoke and each image is radically different.

Looking forward to your results. You will almost certainly bring more info that I can use when shooting smoke.

Charlie

Registered on April 18, 2011, 329 Posts, 1985 Comments

Comment posted by Phil Pogledich on September 20, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Debatable. I personally see this as fitting best in Photo Art, as it is a natural subject that you've manipulated--by hand of course, not software--to create a beautiful abstract. But I think in the past similar manipulations have typically shown up in that gallery, hence my opinion. And I do recall seeing a similar smoke shot there earlier this year.

Very nice shot!

Registered on August 24, 2009, 123 Posts, 3099 Comments

Comment posted by David Taylor on September 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Hello Charlie, here are two links to Wikipedia, which make fascinating reading, to me anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

- Gives the illusion of depth viewed from a given angle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

- Gives the illusion of depth viewed from multiple angles.

I find it really stimulating and a whole new lease of life photographically speaking.

I'll try and give it a go with smoke, this week. I will enjoy the challenge, thanks for the inspiration.

Registered on April 24, 2006, 101 Posts, 837 Comments