I loved the first three ones and second last :!!)
What are those in the first one? (Never saw them before :()
Wonderful shots, all, Marzena! You and Andre might be in for a fight to the death.
Here are some bluets. Tiny guys, not even 1/4" across.
Just realized - there was a typo in the url and the picture was not showing.
She has more and she can't make her mind, just like Andre...
Edit: thank you Kurdt
Wow! Like in Andre's thread, I can't decide.
Pardon me for my ignorance, but what exactly makes these pictures interesting?
I guess to really get what's involved, you'd have to try to take a pic like this, of something really close-up. It's surprisingly difficult!
It is not that they are especially interesting (although some details catched are quite surprising), but Marzena has to select one for the Flower power competition - and they are all worth using.
I don't doubt that, but... so all these competitions are about picture taking technique?
Don't the picture comp rules state that no photo that has been previously uploaded on the site can be used? Doesn't this thread mean you've disqualified them all? :tongue2:
EDIT: Ahh only one use in a contest.
Technique, composition, artistic sense... They all play into the competition. Depending on the focal length, aperture, shutter speed, and available or filled light, results can range from flat and dull to wonderful.
For instance, if you use a large aperture, you generally get a shallower depth of field, meaning that things closer or farther than your point of focus (the subject) end up more or less out-of focus. You can use this effect to accent and isolate your subject, and you can over-use it to the point where the effect gets to be a bit "much". Some subjects really require a bit of context and use of an overly-shallow DOF can detract.
Thanks for testing out my new monitor, Marzena, and providing some beauty in my day.
Are these digital or film shots?
Digital, Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7.
Maybe I have misunderstood this, but shouldn't art try to convey some message?
Sometimes "art" is what one finds appealing, apart from any "message". When I see a well-composed image of a flower with interesting lighting, etc, I don't try to ascribe any meaning to it, any more than I would try to ascribe some meaning to the composition "Classical Gas". Just enjoy it for what it is.
i'm not a big fan of art as message/politics. beauty is universal. the poorer the art, the more message it needs to sell.
Astute observation. The concept that "the artist was trying to convey this" is often pushed by critics. I can look at Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or "Sunflowers" without trying to ascribe some motive to them apart from the artist's joy in the creative process. Lots of art was subsidized by wealthy patrons centuries ago, but much of the stuff that captures our imaginations was avante-garde, stuff done for the love of it. Vincent was floored when he found out that he was making a living (just barely!) because his brother Theo was quietly buying his paintings and stacking them under his bed.
lol, that's another sign of a great artist. no one appreciates you until you're dead!
actually, i think a lot of it is simply art dealers conning buyers.
Separate names with a comma.