First, assume this picture is near enough to perfect apart from the flower being past its prime. If you need to, in order to make this assumption, please pretend that I agree with every one of your other critiques and the photo's not worthy for anything but the trashcan for the reasons that you so want to mention.

So...the question (with that assumption in mind) (and bearing in mind that the pic is about the bee, primarily):

Do I toss this picture into the not-keepers bucket because the flower is old/imperfect? Or is there enough there about the bee and composition (remember, you're assuming they're both to your tastes) and other elements that for that reason, we overlook the imperfections of the flower it's on?

Hmmm. Now it occurs to me that the first question should be:

Who is the audience (what is the purpose of the picture)?

So maybe that could be a part of the discussion, too. (Along those lines, a mugshot isn't a portrait isn't art, but (hopefully) nails its purpose every time.)

I'd keep it...the flower isn't completely in focus so my mind just sees the bee. Not to mention a non gardener wouldn't even know that flower is slightly past its prime.
Very nice shot

I would keep it (the bee part of the image is awesome), but when it comes time to choose images for a select group (for example images to upload to the database here), find some with flowers in their prime instead, if you have the choice.

Aging flowers have their own senescent beauty, of course, but given the bee is on top, I would think it more logically consistent if the flower were young and bright. I usually look for young flowers with bright colored pollen when I go for shots like these. Sort of makes the flower "pop" and it tends to be associated with bee activity anyway (since that bright pollen is the reason they're there).

The bee is on the flower isn't she? She wouldn't be wasting her time there if it was not worthwhile. So then, while someone might be so persnickety as to bah humbug the less than perfectly peak bloom, the bee is obviously thinking exactly the opposite. I'm with the bee.
Another thing...... what in life is perfect? Ever? Do we only value perfectly perfect or do we appreciate the ebb & flow of life?
I love it. I would absolutely keep it. If the bloom were perfect, the photo would lose much of it's interest IMO.

Keeper vs. trash is entirely a matter of what else you already have in your collection, IMO. First shot I got of an eagle was a tiny OOF black dot but it was the best shot I had of an eagle so I kept it. I tell my students if in doubt keep it. Storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper everyday.

As an experiment, what if the old and "imperfect" subject wasn't a flower, but something else, like a human face?
Would it be worth photographing then?

Just as I've seen truly excellent portraits of old or "imperfect" humans, I have seen wilting flowers photographed to perfection.

Old or imperfect, is no reason to not photograph a flower, but it might take some effort to make your audience see beyond those imperfections. There is beauty in decay, even in the floral world.

Beyond that, not every floral shot needs to be pretty, but it does have to be interesting. At the end of the day, if I do not want to view a photograph again, then I usually toss it.

So it seems the broad consensus is:

(Assuming we're imagining "perfection" of the shot otherwise) that shot is probably okay for nearly every purpose except the cover of Aster Vogue.

What prompted the question is this: Three or four years ago, dirtdorphins and I made a calendar for friends and family using twelve bee shots (sent instead of Christmas cards and in some cases Christmas gifts). It was well-received and more than a few have asked about the next edition. So I'm trying to select for that. While this particular picture isn't in the running, I shot it yesterday and was illustrative of the question (asked in this thread) that I've been tumbling in my head for a while.

I appreciate the variety of thoughts and responses. Thank you. Especially interesting was the idea from Ann (paraphrased): If it's good enough for the bee, it's good enough for me! (not paraphrased) I'm with the bee.

Gene, are you to the point where you stop shooting a particular subject (honeybee on aster in this case)? I completely understand your notion of keeping that OOF black dot of an eagle and replacing it as skills, conditions, opportunities improve. In this case, given the number of honeybees on asters that I've shot, I'm certain I've got several truly wonderful shots. But I don't feel satisfied with the archetypal (assuming I have a few of those). And I'll go shoot several hundred bee shots on asters today...and again tomorrow...and into the fall as long as the bees are still there.

Kind of thinking out loud here... Might be about improvement. Very few of the pics on the last calendar would make the "quality cut" for this edition. Might be about seeing something new. Just yesterday, after probably tens of thousands shots of bees, I shot the underside of a honeybee for the first time and was enthralled when I looked closely. I didn't set out to shoot bee belly. But I ended up surprised and pleased. That thrill of new.

I often have students visit me for field trips, workshops. Instead of talking about pictures we actually go out and take some. Great way to learn. Depending on the "temper" of the group I often forget to show them what I took. Sometimes I do though. Guaranteed grimaces. I am throwing away shots that are better then anything the students got. Keepers vs. trash is a personal matter. Again, depends on what you already have. Hate to mention it but your friends, the people you give calendars to will, of course, swoon. That is why they are your friends perhaps. Be careful judging the overall quality of those pix.

Gene, you didn't answer my question: do you ever stop shooting a particular subject because you're "done". You've gotten that one perfect pic so you stop?

Also, I do not understand the statement: "be careful judging the overall quality of those pix."

As I'm selecting, I've got a finite number of pics from which to choose twelve. And a maximum quality level constrained by my maximum ability (and perhaps some good luck occasionally). So I'm trying to pic the twelve best from what I (we) have been able to produce. I think. Where does careful come in (apart from trying to choose the twelve best)? And careful of what in the selection process? Where might I err in judging overall quality?

Or are you saying that the overall quality of the stuff from which I have to select must necessarily be crap but my friends will swoon anyway because they have even less ability to discern than I? That's what it might read like.

And, if that's the case, what are the consequences?

I am still interested in the "be careful". But if we are treading into the land of "if Gene didn't shoot it but Asa did, it necessarily is inferior", the conversation starts to get really uninteresting to me for obvious reasons. The first of which is that it's abjectly not remotely helpful.

Are you asking if I am still shooting the exact same shot after a solid 8 hours? Of course I quit when I have gotten what I want. We all do that. All I am saying is that if anyone person, group, or forum in our case says you have a great shot, do not perhaps conclude you have something saleable. Them editors an be finicky. It seems to me that you might be worrying about what others think too much. Photography should be fun. I love it. You are doing well. Pat yourself on the back more often. Relax and enjoy.

You are reading me all WRONG !!!

I think Gene is just trying to point out that because you're making the calendars for your friends and family, there's bound to be some (subconscious) bias on their part with their comments about your photos. I didn't see any malice there, just that you should keep this in mind when trying to judge the quality of your own work.

Joshua, I'm not sure how this is germane. At no point did I indicate that their feedback was meaningful in any way - either in the selection process nor in my own thoughts about my skillset. (Mom says she thinks I'm handsome, but I've never been on the cover of GQ.) Nor is judging the overall quality of my own work (compared to what an editor or "expert") might think (meaning germane to anything in what I've said - or even intimated).

I've made it pretty clear that I've only got my body of work from which to select (with no mention of the quality apart from it's better, relatively, now than it was the last time we produced a calendar) and that depth (quality) of that bucket is whatever it is in absolute terms (by the standard of an editor or "expert" here).

Of course mom puts fingerpaint art on the fridge - and is proud. Of course the master is more adept than the apprentice. Water is also wet and the sky is (sometimes) blue. But what's the relevance? What does it add? I can go on: The Pope poops in the woods and bears are Catholic...hmmmm...maybe I got that one wrong...

I think we've all always known that we're not as handsome as mom thinks we are.

So yeah, I'm irritated by that unpromted, irrelevant intrusion. It would be one thing if I were measuring my own lens with my own ruler and yelling around about the results. (Yes, that was a euphemism.) But I wasn't. I was asking a simple question about a particular element perhaps disqualifying a photo from consideration as something to keep - and subsequently described the medium that prompted the question.

I'm usually a live-and-let-live kind of guy. But in no world are comments like this relevant to anything I have said, asked, inferred, or otherwise prompted:

"All I am saying is that if anyone person, group, or forum in our case says you have a great shot, do not perhaps conclude you have something saleable. Them editors an be finicky."

"Hate to mention it but your friends, the people you give calendars to will, of course, swoon. That is why they are your friends perhaps. Be careful judging the overall quality of those pix."

Nor are they in any way edifying (nothing I can do with them given the construct I've outlined - here or ever). They're demeaning and nothing else. Tell me how to read, "...that is why they are your friends perhaps..." in a way that it doesn't come off as condescending. It's not innocuous or innocent. And it's pervasive. And the reason I don't do much on this particular sub-forum.

Asa, your personal attack on me is not really helping anyone here learn photography. Switch to tree mail please.

Back on topic. I think it was William who said that if felt he would never look at that image again, he tosses it. A good idea. But, let me complicate this by adding in another layer that I often use in class. I use it to help people get out of their ruts. We all like things a certain way and when we shoot pix we go towards that. OK. But, I am not the same person I was a year ago and certain not the same person I was 5 years ago. What I like can change. What I might like may be different 5 years from now. I am not saying drastically different. Perhaps just subtly. Storage space is cheap. If in doubt keep it. Keep it in a folder called also or almost or B or not quite. We are all probably in ruts. My suggestion. Given the time and opportunity shoot what you normally would shoot and then shoot what your cousin would do. Variety is the spice of life. Try to lean to shoot different ways. This will sharpen your skills.

Back on topic. This idea of only shooting flowers, leaves, plants in their prime. I guess if you shot a pix of something battered there is no chance it might be interesting or beautiful. I have a bad knee but I can drive my ATV, now that I figured out how to turn the headlights on, before dawn to the edge of the marsh behind my house. I am shooting mostly dew drops on spider webs. Here is a few from this morning on topic.

With all due respect, I don't see how those photos are on topic (which had to do with Asa's original photo) and I don't see how repeatedly talking about teaching photo class and taking better pictures than your students (here and in other threads) is on topic, either. This is not a personal attack, this is a carefully considered request to change the way you approach the other members of the group. We are not your students, and we are not your inferiors.

evermorelawnless said:Joshua, I'm not sure how this is germane. At no point did I indicate that their feedback was meaningful in any way - either in the selection process nor in my own thoughts about my skillset.

Since I was thinking about bias, the relevance was that you might be inclined to pick photos that your family and friends might like.

---

With regards to this thread overall - I am tempted to lock it, since this is turning into an escalating series of personal comments. If it doesn't get back on track shortly, I will do so.

With that response, I will discontinue my participation in this forum.