What makes a great flora photograph?

I have been giving this some thought lately. Then yesterday, I judged a photo contest which got me thinking about this some more. So,I thought I'd throw it out for discussion. Obviously, there are objective standards for judging photogrpahs relating to exposure, compostion and execution, but I find that there are "technically" good flora photographs which are only that, technically good photographs. While there is nothing wrong with that, particularly if what is needed for a particular use is a technically good photograph, I am interestied in what makes a flora photograph not just technically good, but artistic or compelling. The question probably should be, "What makes a flora photograph artistic?" Personally, I think it comes down to whether the image is evocative (i.e., evokes a mood in the viewer). This, in turn, is a product of the subject (is the subject compelling or evocative?), light, form, color, composition and creativity. I took up serious flora photography several years ago, and have only learned through practice and studying the work of others, mostly here at NPN (no book learnin' for me). Because we are all here at least in part to become better photographers, I think a discussion of this topic may be helpful. So, what say you? What makes a floral photograph great/artistic? Have I overlooked something? Are some factors more important than others? Sorry if this was long. Feel free to comment.

Scott, I think maybe the question needs to be rephrased. I would say that every image posted to the flora gallery is a "good" photograph, but there are some that stand out (I'd call them great.), so that for me, the issue is what makes a great flora photo. I think there's a two part answer. Some photos stand out because the photog put extra effort into the technical aspects (special lighting, unusual point of view, special processing, etc.) in order to achieve an unusual depiction of reality. Others stand out because of the artistic vision, which to me means that the image goes beyond the realty of a beautiful flower and illustrates a special quality of the flower or it's relationship to the surroundings. These are things that we don't see in an every day look at the flowers.

Point well taken, Mark. I agree that just about every image posted in the forum is "good". So, I changed the question to "great" although, as I explained in the original comment, maybe the question is what separates flora photos that are technically "good" from those that artistic. I agree that processing, like selective focus blending or scanning, can help achieve an artistic presentation.

my lack of activity in the flora gallery partly reflects my discomfort with snaps of flowers. first, i'd argue that "flora" should be taken as meaning plants (cf. fauna or any of the other three kingdoms of living things): there are many images plopped into landscape (or elsewhere) that should be zipped into the flora gallery - this would help secure a diversity of interest (including mine) in the gallery. That being said, second, i'd say that, like every "great" image, it should reflect thought and emotion in its making. i believe that because the subject (particularly flowers) often (but of course not always) lends itself to abstraction, the composition needs to be especially well crafted (and technical knowledge of light/lighting, DOF and bokeh become especially important). time, contemplation and thought must be apparent - and then coupled with good light (or lighting). in short, as with all "great" images, these are rare things!!

Scott:
As a fairly new flora moderator, I grapple with this question every week. We make our selection each week as a team. Some week it is easy as the winning image just stands out amongst the crowd. Other weeks, we may have different opinions and it may come down to adding up the score. It is given that a great flora image must be technically good. Personally I do not try to categorize an image as documentary or artistic. I try to look for images with that 'something' special, a quality that is difficult to put into words. That something may be the 'wow' factor, a reaction that it elicit just be looking at it; something that appeals to the visual sense; an evocative image that resonate with ones inner voice; an image that reveals the essence or inner beauty beneath the surface form, texture and color. As with any art form, there are no objective criteria or gold standards as to what is a great flora image; even more interestingly, ones reaction to an image may change over time. When I looked back at some of my own flora images which I thought were good previously, I may not have the same opinion now (Bill Fach described this aptly as 'Tyranny of high expectation'). The danger of setting the bar too high is that one may become discouraged. The important thing for those just starting out in photography is to enjoy the 'process' of making the image. If the outcome is great, its a bonus.

A few things that are necessary or complementary are... background (always), lighting, unusual lines and curves, a gentleness or softness, sharp lines, texture, a waterdroplet, interaction with other elements in the photograph, color palette and especially a challenge to present the flower, leaf, tree, etc. that you are photographing in its best light and in your own personal way.

Thanks Scott for making me sit down and analze the process and just what I look for. Maybe that analysis with help me get out of this funk.

Stuart, Gary and Patricia,

Thanks for your views. Gary, I agree that a great flora image should both have a "wow" factor that makes it stand out from the crowd, and be evocative. Patricia, your summary is very clear and helpful, and more precise than mine, and I agree with all the elements you listed. The waterdroplet element, I think, goes along with my element of having an evocative subject. Stuart, I share your frustration when images that clearly belong in flora, like a close up of a patch of frost covered ground cover, are posted in landscape. I'd also like to see more close up images of single flowers get posted in macro, but I understand the reasons people post where they do. This may be a good separate topic to post in the general topics forum.

I respectfully suggest that the question should have one more condition on it: "What makes a great flora photograph in the NPN Flora Forum?"

Browsing through the Weekly Picks forum for the flora selections to last August, one does not find:

- photographs where the subject's native habitat is included (for at least a couple reasons: 1) there is no emphasis on wild over "captive" (cultivated) in Flora compared to Avian or Wildlife); and 2) habitat is often "messy" as a background)
- photographs where the entirety of the plant is shown (at least the aboveground part)
- photographs where the subject is not a flowering plant (in the scientific sense -- there are a couple leaf photos and a couple fruit / flowers in bud images)

Then again, some of these are due at least in part to what gets posted in Flora vs. what gets posted elsewhere. Perhaps that is a chicken-and-egg question; do these sorts of photos not get posted to Flora because they do not get celebrated as great photographs through Weekly Picks or does the lack of Weekly Picks of these photos dissuade those sorts of images from being posted to Flora?

Back to Stuart's point, I count on two hands the photographs on the first page of the Earth, Sea and Sky forum that could be in the Flora forum since the main subject is a plant.

Scott : i don't pretend to have the answer to this question. One thing does occur to me, and that is the significance of time in photography. Looking at many of the great images in photographic books ( on whatever subject ) you often sense that the quality of the image depends to no small extent on its evocation of a moment in time - and, very likely, a mood associated with that moment. I wonder if that may sometimes be a significant element, too, in a great floral image ?

Ian, you bring up an excellent point that applies to all nature photography, flora as well, which is that timing is critical. I could not agree more. Take Cheryl's image posted today. It's a great floral image. It has it all. She used her skill to make a great image. But the incredible raindrops make the image, and she was there at the perfect time to get a great image. Thanks for contributing.

Scott, For me, Flowers shown as Flowers (Nice sharp photo on a clean background, you know the text book style) usually does not evoke much interest. Everyone has seen flowers.

For me a perspective of any flower that a common man never usually sees makes for a strong photo (take for example, Gary's XRay Photos). It could be a panned blur, zoom burst, an abstract, a real close-up focussing on a particular area, so on and so forth. Compositions, Processing, Lighting, Use of appealing color combination etc when come together with what I mentioned, usually you begin to distinguish a good photo from a great one.

Hi Daniel , I am not sure if you were looking at the flora WP images for the last year but if you go through the WP gallery you will see a great diversity of winning images not just studio set up types.

I only when through last years picks and found images that fit your suggestions.

photographs where the subject's native habitat is included (for at least a couple reasons: 1) there is no emphasis on wild over "captive" (cultivated) in Flora compared to Avian or Wildlife); and 2) habitat is often "messy" as a background)
- photographs where the entirety of the plant is shown (at least the aboveground part)
- photographs where the subject is not a flowering plant (in the scientific sense -- there are a couple leaf photos and a couple fruit / flowers in bud images)

I only mention this as I am a new moderator and your question had peaked my interest so I took a quick peek through the gallery of WP's . I think if you look again you will see examples of wild flowers, trees, flowers and leaves together, apples and seed pods.

Cheers

and here's a quote, quite relevant, that I have just stumbled across:

“Beauty can be seen in all things; seeing and composing the beauty is what separates the snapshot from the photograph" – Matt Hardy

Hi Lorna, I did make mention of those examples you cite in your last sentence: "there are a couple leaf photos and a couple fruit / flowers in bud images", but I only went back as far as last August. I see if I had gone back to the beginning of 2011 there would be a few images that fit what I said was absent, though still none that showed a plant in flower within the context of its habitat (one could argue that the couple tree images show habitat, but then they do not show the entirety of the tree). Perhaps the prairie crocus by Raymond Klassen comes closest to what I am thinking, with the grasses surrounding the plant evoking the prairie habitat.

Daniel. I can only speak for myself, but at least 90% of my floral images are taken of the flower, tree, leaf, etc. exactly as it is in nature. No artificial lighting, no tripod, no backdrop, no spritzer, etc. etc. Just my camera, me and a choice of lens. The choice of subjects is limited to what is local and accepted in this gallery. I think what you are looking for is a field of flowers. Beautiful yes, but when posted it is posted in landscape. Lone trees are also usually posted in landscape. Because a subject is showcased artistically or as a macro doesn't mean it is not shot in a natural setting.

Pat

Thanks Daniel, I get were your coming from .I guess like Pat said it seems like poster tend to post those type shots in landscape. Also as Pat(90%)I tend to shoot 80 % ( since moving to Alberta ) of my flora shots in natural light and natural environment .I guess it comes down to choice of lens and wanting just the flower head in my shots ! You have given me food for thought though.

Hi Patricia -- no, I'm not really talking about a field of flowers. I'll give an example of what I mean, though: May Apple, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, May 13, 1957 by Eliot Porter. I'll argue that it could be considered a great flora photo, It accurately portrays the (chaotic) ecological context within which the plant resides (especially competition with other plants), but also symbolizes concepts such as "struggling to overcome" and "light emerging from darkness" (the latter because of the angle of the camera placing the mayflower against the darkness so that it seems to emerge from it).

Would such a photograph ever become a WP on NPN Flora? Not based on what I see in the historic WPs. This goes back to my original suggestion for clarifying the question: "What makes a great flora photograph in the NPN Flora Forum?"

I should also point out that I'm not making any judgment, but rather an observation as to what is deemed great by the community that has evolved around the Flora forum since its inception. I enjoy taking photographs in similar styles to most everyone else on the Flora forum, and I think all the WPs selected are great photographs, if not outstanding.

I've hesitated to reply further after viewing the May Apple image. I see an image Mr. Porter took for identification purposes with no intent to make it showcase the flower. I didn't get any symbolic concept from its surroundings. There is nothing wrong with taking photojournalistic images but you are not comparing may apples to may apples but rather an image made for a textbook vs. something original or unique from a common subject.

The winning images on all the NPN sites combine realism and the vision of the artist in an attempt to portray the subject with great lighting, focus and a unique take. To accomplish a great end result takes effort, time and a love of the subject.

"But before all else a work of art is the creation of love. Love for the subject first and for the medium second. Love is the fundamental necessity underlying the need to create, underlying the emotion that gives it form, and from which grows the unfinished product that is presented to the world. Love is the general criterion by which the rare photograph is judged. It must contain it to be not less than the best of which the photographer is capable." - Eliot Porter