I have been exploring the idea does the camera has to see what the eye saw. Lately, I have spoken to quite a few accomplished photographers on this topic. I have also tried to read up few articles and essays that tangentially touch upon this subject. And the overwhelming verdict has been – it is not necessarily true. Even in the arena of news reporting which has to bring reality to the viewer, the photographer has made a conscious decision to exclude certiain things and included others. As the cliche goes – art says not only about what it includes but also what it excludes. In the area of nature photography, however, the latitude by definition is quite broad.
So, last Saturday I was out with this mindset. It was a good hour drive to the a Azalea garden and Brighton dam in Maryland. I was driving there with an intention of breaking out of what I usually do. And these photos reflect what I tried. Albeit marginally.
I saw flowers and apart from taking the iconic shots, I moved out. It was strong light of the afternoon. I had the option of waiting till the light became a bit warmer. But I shot directly into the sunlight instead, playing with the colors. I shot placing my eye from the branch looking out long the small branches. I saw the sky like a bug through the flower trying to peak into the clouds. Later, as the wind started blowing, I wanted to flutter with the leaves. I moved like a flying leaf and wondered how the flowers and greens looked as it circled in the air, and the result was nice colors like an impressionist painting.
There are wonders that can be done with the camera. And not necessarily all that lit was seeing and captured was what I could see, however, it was the world I was in and in some ways I could see a bit in my imagination. To the extent I tried to create an artificial mist in the dam picture by exposing parts of the lens longer than the rest. Previsualization as they say. Worked a bit. More to explore.