Although I’m not religious, I do find churches places of great serenity.
There are lots of way to experiment in photography; many in-camera (aperture, shutter speed, etc) and many more in post-processing (everything from cropping to applying filters).
Most of the time, most of us would probably say we experiment to make a “better” photograph. This of course raises the question of what makes one image better than another. Much of it is technical stuff: is it in focus? Grainy? Blurry? Have we managed not to cut granny off at the neck? Is the horizon actually horizontal?
But beyond that, how do we feel about an image? What emotion does it evoke? What story does it tell — about the subject? About the photographer?
Photography is a language which — whether we realise it or not — we are all quite adept at reading. Constant exposure to professionally produced photographic images (still and moving) in newspapers, magazine editorial, advertising, TV shows and movies — and more recently social media — has developed our photographic literacy.
So my experiment for the Daily Post’s Experimental Photo Challenge is to take a single image and create multiple edits. Do these differences in editing affect how you read the image?
You tell me?
Last summer the Big T and I planted milkweed, and enjoyed front-row seats to the lives of some monarch butterflies. From egg to mature caterpillar takes around two weeks; the chrysalis stage lasts around 10 days, and a butterfly can emerge, dry its wings and fly away in about 10 minutes.