Still life

My wife, Christine, doesn't let me out much. She doesn't trust me to be alone in public. This often limits my photographic opportunities to what I can find around home or on short escapades when I can escape her clutches.
Still life studies is always a good way to sharpen my limited skills. Anything laying about is fair game. Create a study in for with a possible story. It's also a chance to practice my anal nature to make everything count.
Still life are most often interpretive photographs as well and can mean a great dealto the photographer.
This is the result of many hours of contemplation.

Love the sheet! <3 it's gorgeous!

I have to say this one leaves me a bit cold, there's not quite enough separation from the background for me, but having said that it obviously means something to you, and that's what matters!

Lovely colours and patterns though

xx

I like the contrast between the full bloom of the flowers on the background and the dying blooms in real life.

Well Tom, from what I've seen of your work on Flickr and written word here, I would have said your skill is not that limited, although that term is relative

To be very honest and blunt, when I first saw this picture I thought that you may be "taking the Mickey", as the image did absolutely nothing for me and to my eye everything about the image seems wrong

So i looked at the related series you did to this shoot on Flickr and found one with a picture of a little girl and fallen petals lying within the up-turned picture, just below the vase.

Now to me this shot does make my mind wonder what story is behind the picture and who is the girl in the picture, all questions that make you build your own picture in your mind.

Now your cheating, Ken. You are getting inside my head and let me warn you, this is a dangerous place to be. I should know.

This shot is the final shot of a morning in the shed. I had a small project in mind as a result of a bunch of roses I had bought for my beloved Christine - probably as a result of loosing some points when I forgot something as trivial as a wedding anniversary. You know how they can get!
Thge idea was to get a sense or sorrow and mourning, possibly about a lost time or even a lost life. The following shots were along that path. Success is relative and the moment has passed so no criticism is desired or sought but feel free to comment.


20111122_4900 by tom.dinning, on Flickr


20111122_4907 by tom.dinning, on Flickr


20111122_4937 by tom.dinning, on Flickr

...etc, etc.

As I shifted and played with composition and light my thoughts went to; 'What if I did this all wrong? What would happen? Ignore my better judgement and just let the objects and the camera do the job and I'll take the picture.'
So I begun to create a metaphor of my life with Christine from what I had gathered. I ignored or even went against conventional 'beauty'.
The light is 'flat' the background too gawdy, confusing and close, the vase is centred, the flowers untidy, the reflection of the window on the vase is a tell tale and distracting, the cloth unironed, the edge of the cloth showing. Its all a bit ordinary, really. But it IS a photograph no less and it does have significant symolism for me and, it turns out, to Christine, who got it almost straight away and began to cry. BIG points for me!!!!!
And my point is?
It doesn't matter how you **** up your photos, if you put your heart and soul into it and give everything meaning the photo will be a masterpiece for you and those who understand what you are doing.
The photo is not 'the thing', nor is it the colours and composition of the times or the treands and cliches that confine our tastes. It is the interpretation we have of the contents of the frame and the detail shown and not shown. Every photo has a story but it may not be visible to the viewer. But we as viewers should always endeavour to see it even if we have to try a bit harder.


20111122_4894 by tom.dinning, on Flickr

Cheers
Tom

I understand what you are saying, for me the first image you posted in this thread (when considering all the faults that you point out above and I've highlighted in bold) was not of the standard I would have expected from you, having seen some wonderful shots you have posted thus far.

So when I saw this picture with all it's glaring faults I thought maybe you were having fun with us

But I could see from the related series on Flickr, there was much better to come and that this first posted shot was not a one off.

This shot is wonderful, image "20111122_4937" really does get my mind working, I have a picture in my head of a storm damaged house, family fled to safety, belongings scattered all over the place.

Thanks Tom.

Regards, Ken

[quote=KenTT;140414]I understand what you are saying, for me the first image you posted in this thread (when considering all the faults that you point out above and I've highlighted in bold) was not of the standard I would have expected from you, having seen some wonderful shots you have posted thus far.

So when I saw this picture with all it's glaring faults I thought maybe you were having fun with us

But I could see from the related series on Flickr, there was much better to come and that this first posted shot was not a one off.

This shot is wonderful, image "20111122_4937" really does get my mind working, I have a picture in my head of a storm damaged house, family fled to safety, belongings scattered all over the place.

Thanks Tom.

And here's where we differ, Ken. Nicely though.
If I did it on purpose then they are not faults. That first shot is as meaningful to me and those who know the story as any I have ever taken. It has been set out with every little stitch in place exactly as I want it so how can there be faults?
Sure it might not follow the rigors of this forum and its members but how relevant is that to the photo or my intent?
It was reputed that Shakespeare was told that his soliloqy in Hamlet was too long and verbose as well as difficult to understand for a play to the masses.
'Then what part should I leave out that would make it less so?' was supposedly his reply. I don't know if that actually happened but you get my point.
After so long behind the camera I probably know all the 'rules'. My students usually want me to teach them just that. So you'd think I'd be able to put together a decent picture now and again. And you were right, I was taking the piss a bit, but for a serious outcome. Rules are not everything. Once we have an expectation that the rules are at least known of we need to look past that. How many of you would criticise Eggleston or Bown or Capa or Doisneau if they didn't follow the rules and produce a photo that was up to your expectations.

I know its a hard path for people to follow but as people who wish to be educated in photography we can learn a lot by including other aspects beyond ' I like it'.
That is my crusade!!!
Now where is my white horse?

Cheers
Tom

I love you Tom, really - you are what every photography forum needs... a shot in the arm and a call to actually learn to think outside our very very narrow boxes of rules, light, sharpness, noise etc... that is *NOT* what makes a photo

xx