I was very excited about this image when I first showed it to Jerri for her opinion (an essential part of my process, despite the fact that I don’t always listen). She told me she liked it, and then . . . “people will probably just think you did it digitally though.” Thus one of the most under-reported problems with the age of digital imaging rears its ugly head again. You can be Jerry Ulesman in the darkroom, and if you do something absolutely amazing, but it looks like something that could have been done in photoshop, no one cares. (I am not trying to imply my image is amazing.) The default has become assuming the image is altered; if it looks too anything to be true, assume photoshop.
From the image it is probably not obvious what I’m doing; I am trying to create a marketable series of floral images that are a little different from the standard . . . but just so you don’t think I’m only pursuing this idea with flowers here is another example:
Those are neat. I look forward to seeing how this project develops.
I like the concept, but I might like it better with more deliberate movements. But it certainly has all kinds of potential.