In a recent post, Hanneke showed us a beautiful pencil drawing of three pears. In the comments, she and Karl expressed interest in comparing this drawing with a photograph. I decided to experiment along these lines, and above I’ve posted a first result (click on the image for a larger view). I plan to vary a number of factors involved in creating the image; you can help me decide what would be interesting to try.
In this first effort, I used one of Hanneke’s tricks: a dark background. The pears were ones I happened to have in the house, and are different from Hanneke’s, not as nice in shape. I used a similar arrangement to hers, with natural illumination from a nearby window. I’m not thrilled with my composition, but I didn’t take much time, and I can do a better job when I come back to this. Please give me your thoughts on things you like or don’t like about the composition.
One difference between the two media is that in straight photography, there is a single plane of sharp focus. In my image, this is somewhere in the middle; the top of the right pear and the bottom of the middle one are in front of this plane and slightly blurred (this shows up best in the larger image), and the left pear is behind the plane and is the most blurred. Of course, one can locally blur or sharpen areas on the computer, but I haven’t done that here — all adjustments were on the image as a whole. Naturally, in a drawing one can choose arbitrarily where to show detail and where to sketch more loosely. What do you think of the choice I made here? Would you rather have everything as sharp as possible?
So I’m asking for your guidance: What do you think would be an especially good background tone? What would work best if I want the pears to seem “luminous”? What other impressions would be interesting to attempt, and how might I go about achieving them? And the $64 question: can you imagine a photograph you would prefer to the drawing?
I’m off to Yellowstone park today for skiing and hot spring bathing, so I won’t be available for discussion until later. But I look forward to responding to comments soon and trying your suggestions in future experimentation.
Steve, this isn’t necessarily better, but just something to try. I’d like to see what it would look like if the pears weren’t all getting the same amount of light. Maybe keep one as it is, and move the other two back and into shadow. Also, maybe tip one of them over.
Steve,
This feels crowded to me (especially the lower and right edges). Also, I think that your choice of focus is a compromise that I don’t think works. Neither selective enough, nor inclusive enough. Out of focus foregrounds are difficult to pull off i.e. I can’t do it :-)
I think that this issue of plane of focus is one area where photography struggles in comparison with the other visual arts on a like for like basis.
For an example of luminous pears that I prefer to any drawing that I’ve seen, try Don McCullin’s book ‘open skies’ if you have a good library – I’ve just checked and it is available via Abebooks, but is pricey.
Steve,
Fascinating start with the pears! The one in the center doesn’t look as three dimensional as the other two. The left and right pears seem to be leaning forward. The variation in focus for the different contours further separates the middle pear; it seems to almost “fall out” of the photo. In a painting this would be seen as a weakness, if the intention were to capture reality. In the photo, it could be regarded as a strength, a breaking from reality.
I think the shadow on the right hand side is a powerful part of the picture. It would be interesting to have a bit more of this dark area.
As in Hanneke’s drawings, I find my self projecting human characteristics on the pears. The one in the center seems downcast because of its drooping stem, whereas the others seem concerned. Looking at the photo, and thinking about Hanneke’s drawing, I can see why she had difficulty trying to render both the lighting on the pears and the light/dark pattern of the pears themselves. The texture of the pears leaves me wanting to see more texture, perhaps a more pronounced texture for the surface the pears stand on.
In this scene there is not a clear distinction between the foreground and background spaces. It might be neat to try having the pears on a flat surface with a dark void behind them.
David,
Neat idea to vary the lighting, like a hole in the clouds giving a spotlight effect in a Dutch landscape painting.
Colin,
You say you feel crowding on the right side where I wanted to see more of that shadow. You see the focus choice as not working. Interesting. You say “I think that this issue of plane of focus is one area where photography struggles in comparison with the other visual arts on a like for like basis.” That’s another Colin line that I would like to hear explained further!
hi,
it is amazing how different your interpretation is.
I find it really cool especially the dark background an these pears are so robust
pears are so attractive!
once you start this pear thing and you see them in a shop you will always be struck by there differences in appearance
To be utterly unobjective and un-thoughtful, I admit to loving all the images of pears. I think, like Hanneke, I’ll never see them the same again.
The comments are fun and illuminating, although at least as much about the artistic vision of the person commenting as about the pear photo.
I particularly chuckled at Karl’s comment: “The variation in focus for the different contours further separates the middle pear; it seems to almost “fall out” of the photo. In a painting this would be seen as a weakness, if the intention were to capture reality. In the photo, it could be regarded as a strength, a breaking from reality.” My instant response was something along the line of “contrariwise, eh?” In a painting, the object is to imitate reality even though one is confined by all sorts of limitations, and in photography (which tends to mirror reality) the object is to break from the real. Whew! Thanks, Karl.
And the pears are a bit anthropomorphic, now that you mention it.
David,
A good idea about lighting variation, I’ll try that. I’ll probably use a lamp for more flexibility and consistency; I won’t have to keep moving the set-up or wait for a cloud. I also agree that tipping one over adds interest, that’s what I had in my old image from years ago that I mentioned under Hanneke’s post. I set it up this way partly for comparison with Hanneke’s drawing. But it’s amazing what large effect small compositional differences can have. For example, thinking of the pears in human terms as many did, moving the center pear closer to the right one makes those two into a couple that has excluded the left (over) one — appropriately out of focus.
Colin,
Your eagle eye detected a crop. The pears have more room on the original frame, but I wanted to emphasize the actual treatment of the pears for this comparison example. (By the way, it appears that Hanneke’s drawing is also a crop.) I think I agree with you about focus; I posted this version partly to make that point about the technical point about photography.
Karl,
I agree about the shadow importance. There’s so much to manage even in such a simple arrangement! Thanks for the other suggestions, too. I do want a more prominent surface for them to be resting on, but I haven’t located one I like so far, so I just used that dark paper in this try. Lighter paper brings the shadows on the surface into greater prominence.
Hanneke,
I like your word robust. The solidity of the pears comes through better in color, I think. I’ll show more versions in a future post. And yes, I think pears have re-captured my heart.