# Chrysanthemum



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

The golf course landscape lady gave me a a few awesome flowers to photograph. 

I tried a different background per @Tim Tucker recommendation. Not sure if it is better than black or not. I like them either way.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 5, 2016)

That's not quite what I meant. Look at the histogram here:





You see the background is still mainly dead featureless black, the maximum the base screen colour will allow. But it's still only the base screen colour and not black. So if someone is looking at the image with a screen that has a base colour that's slightly lighter than your's then what difference do they see? None really because you're just scaling the tones into the range available in the display medium, everyone will see this as black even if it is not as black as the black you see on your screen (which is not black either but just the base colour of your screen).

So allowing that viewers will perceive the darkest tone as black even when it is lighter than you see do you really think that the black you achieve on your image is in any way absolute? If not then why reduce it to a level where it can't display any hint of texture? If you reduce the luminosity to zero then there is no texture and that part of the image then becomes subtly different to the rest that does display texture. Now given that some other viewer sees a lighter black in the same way you see your black would there not be some lee-way in tone rather than thinking of black as absolute, (which it clearly isn't, it's just the base colour of the screen)?

Then would not a lighter black look the same as your other viewer's black, but still be light enough to hold a little texture?

Here is a histogram of one of my images:





Posted here:

New toy

Now admittedly I could make it more black and that there is a noticeable variation in the black, but do you not see the top left background as black? And do you not also see in the bottom right a deeper black against this black background? Black is relative and within reason is really only the darkest tone you show. If you post a reply look closely at the "Post Reply" and other buttons because they're actually 22% brightness, well off zero. What I'm trying to say is that the web site is designed not to compete against your images by showing a deep 'absolute' black. Anything you post lower than that will look 'more black' while still holding a hint of tone and texture.

Black (as is everything in an image) is not absolute, use it to your advantage, (while also going for the prize of the maximum use of the word 'black" in a post).


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

i'm confused....  you are too smart for me. I will just do it like the idiot that I am. I thought these were good. Every f**** time I try to do something, someone one here says it's wrong. I have not a clue other than not posting anything on here because it confused the crap out of me. I am seriously considering not posting here anymore. It is not productive in my artistic journey.


----------



## annamaria (Jul 5, 2016)

I like it jc, but I'm not an expert. I'm just as confused as you are about the explanation [emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 5, 2016)

I, surprisingly, understood the basis of what Tim said.  At some point as you develop your skills, a light will come on and you get a wry smile and think "Ahhhhh, so that was what Tim was talking about."

BTW- I like your image, I would have made some contrast changes, via hand tools (burn/dodge) but the difference most likely would not be significant.


----------



## snowbear (Jul 5, 2016)

Ooo.  Pretty skank-flower.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> I, surprisingly, understood the basis of what Tim said.  At some point as you develop your skills, a light will come on and you get a wry smile and think "Ahhhhh, so that was what Time was talking about."
> 
> BTW- I like your image, I would have made some contrast changes, via hand tools (burn/dodge) but the difference most likely would not be significant.


I understood what he said, he elaborated more this time which confused me. Doesn't matter, I hired a coach and I am starting with him in a couple weeks. He said he wouldn't yell at me.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Jul 5, 2016)

Your the top poster this month and considering not posting any more. I believe its called burn out. 
Take it easy a bit. 

Its a nice photo I really like it.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

OGsPhotography said:


> Your the top poster this month and considering not posting any more. I believe its called burn out.
> Take it easy a bit.
> 
> Its a nice photo I really like it.



I am the top poster? I did not know that... You are probably right.


----------



## annamaria (Jul 5, 2016)

I wish I could afford a coach, hope it works out well.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

annamaria said:


> I wish I could afford a coach, hope it works out well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It should. My mentor who moved away recommended him. He is charging me $25 per hour which I think is very reasonable. He already sent me a 4 hour itinerary.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 5, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I, surprisingly, understood the basis of what Tim said.  At some point as you develop your skills, a light will come on and you get a wry smile and think "Ahhhhh, so that was what Time was talking about."
> ...


What good it that if he doesn't yell at you.  All my coaches yelled at me ... "Ayala, take a lap!" (To this day, whenever I run, I wonder what did I do this time to screw up".


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...


True. He hasn't worked with me yet.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 5, 2016)

LOL ... Point well taken.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 5, 2016)

Hey, I noticed quite a few flowers have been converted to B&W ... It is good for you to broaden your photographic spectrum. ^5


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> Hey, I noticed quite a few flowers have been converted to B&W ... It is good for you broaden your photographic spectrum. ^5


I only convert what feels or looks realistic to me. Certain things move me, normally prior to taking them. It's driven by the surrounding circumstances I suppose.


----------



## otherprof (Jul 5, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> i'm confused....  you are too smart for me. I will just do it like the idiot that I am. I thought these were good. Every f**** time I try to do something, someone one here says it's wrong. I have not a clue other than not posting anything on here because it confused the crap out of me. I am seriously considering not posting here anymore. It is not productive in my artistic journey.


I like the chrysanthemum photo, and hope you will continue to post here. I had a friend who became a very good and recognized wood sculptor. He told me this story, which gave me a thought I have voiced here and other places many times. When he was young, he went to a show with his teacher, from the Sculptor's Alliance. There were lots of sales, but his teacher did not sell a single work. My friend expressed his wonder and even anger at this, since he recognized his teacher's work to be superior to what was being sold. His teacher gently replied to him, "That's why they make vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, Jerry."  He went on to say that if you go to a show with crap and it doesn't sell, you have to take crap home, and that is bad. But if you go to a show with good stuff and it doesn't sell, you get to take good stuff home, and that's not so bad." I think they may be contradictory thoughts, in a way, but I think there is wisdom in both.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 5, 2016)

BTW- For $25 an hour I'd coach you ... Minimum two hours a week, one hour upfront deposit.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

otherprof said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > i'm confused....  you are too smart for me. I will just do it like the idiot that I am. I thought these were good. Every f**** time I try to do something, someone one here says it's wrong. I have not a clue other than not posting anything on here because it confused the crap out of me. I am seriously considering not posting here anymore. It is not productive in my artistic journey.
> ...


Random frustration bud. There is a lot of wisdom in what he said.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 5, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> BTW- For $25 an hour I'd coach you ... Minimum two hours a week, one hour upfront deposit.


Well, if I get a divorce I will take you up on that. My wife apologized finally.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 6, 2016)

My apologies, I was meaning to help and not frustrate! Perhaps I don't always communicate my thoughts too well in the language that I use.

There is nothing wrong in what you do, only other avenues that you can explore. The avenue I was exploring was really the nature of human vision, that the perception of black and white is really only the darkest and lightest tones presented to the eye, and how you can play with this to add depth to a 'black' background.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 6, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> My apologies, I was meaning to help and not frustrate! Perhaps I don't always communicate my thoughts too well in the language that I use.
> 
> There is nothing wrong in what you do, only other avenues that you can explore. The avenue I was exploring was really the nature of human vision, that the perception of black and white is really only the darkest and lightest tones presented to the eye, and how you can play with this to add depth to a 'black' background.


No worries Tim, I was having a bad day. I don't use the same software. Your feedback is fine but difficult to digest at times as your knowledge is so vast. I just have to sit and eat slowly.


----------



## Th0r4z1n3 (Jul 9, 2016)

I feel ya man.  Every time I post something on here somebody has something negative to say about it... no matter how good I _think_ it is. It usually gets to me at first, but once I take time to digest it, and get over my hurt feelings, I usually realize they _did_ have some wisdom in their words (even if they did come off a bit harsh lol). It just pushes me to try harder.

Love the image btw. 


jcdeboever said:


> i'm confused....  you are too smart for me. I will just do it like the idiot that I am. I thought these were good. Every f**** time I try to do something, someone one here says it's wrong. I have not a clue other than not posting anything on here because it confused the crap out of me. I am seriously considering not posting here anymore. It is not productive in my artistic journey.


----------



## kdthomas (Jul 15, 2016)

I for one tend to like deep, dark, soul-sucking, midnight-in-a-coal-mine, RGB-zero blacks or retina-sizzling, nuclear-fireball, full-on clipped whites in a background. But that's just me.

As for the image ..  I like it! It might be crowding the fame a little bit. But hey! You can add RGB-zero padding with no prob! Look fwd to seeing more, JC


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 15, 2016)

kdthomas said:


> I for one tend to like deep, dark, soul-sucking, midnight-in-a-coal-mine, RGB-zero blacks or retina-sizzling, nuclear-fireball, full-on clipped whites in a background. But that's just me.
> 
> As for the image ..  I like it! It might be crowding the fame a little bit. But hey! You can add RGB-zero padding with no prob! Look fwd to seeing more, JC



Purely for the sake of discussion and exploring a different perspective and absolutely not as a 'right or wrong' argument...

White and black are the extreme ends of your available scale of tones. By pushing everything to the ends of the scale you remove all the variations, the texture. So you could display white against black. But that would defeat the aim of the image which is to show the texture of the flower. So you want to keep the flower within your scale of tones so it shows that texture, doesn't reduce it to nothing at either end of the scale.
Now you may say that you're showing the texture by contrasting it against no texture. But visually it doesn't always work this way because of the ambiguous nature of featureless black. It's difficult to make it look natural.

If I got this right then in the image below, which has been reduced to featureless colour, you should clearly interpret as being a circle in front of a background. You don't really see it as being a hole in a piece of card:






However if I change the background to pure black, and do nothing else, then it becomes ambiguous, you could interpret it as being a circle on a background or you could just as easily see it as looking through a dark tube at a background. Both visual interpretations are possible and the visual clues as to which is in front of which are contained entirely in the transition between the two, which in the case of an abrupt transition is a very small area and can be ambiguous. It's this visual ambiguity, that if not careful then the background can be seen as floating (can be either in front or behind) that I was talking about and not pure black itself. _(N.B. Zero RGB black is just the base colour of your screen and will be different shades on different monitors. Turn you monitor off and look at the screen, not a soul-sucking black any more? Why? What is the visual effect that makes it so when you switch it on when you can only add light?)_ :


----------



## kdthomas (Jul 16, 2016)

@Tim Tucker ... Okay I can see your point ... As far as the transitions go, if the edge of circle was a little soft in focus at some point on its outline, that would clue us in -- perhaps subconsciously -- as to what was in front of what.

And you're saying that having some tiny amount of texture, even at the very edge of perceptibility, gives us that same kind of subconscious clue, is that right?


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 16, 2016)

kdthomas said:


> @Tim Tucker ... Okay I can see your point ... As far as the transitions go, if the edge of circle was a little soft in focus at some point on its outline, that would clue us in -- perhaps subconsciously -- as to what was in front of what.
> 
> And you're saying that having some tiny amount of texture, even at the very edge of perceptibility, gives us that same kind of subconscious clue, is that right?


I noticed with the textured gray background, the focused object can be at max sharpness and it provides a little more 3D effect and appears more natural, like it is not just floating in space.


----------

