For Discussion: How much stem to include on a flower?

More and more, I am feeling dissatisfied with flower shots that do not include a fair amount of stem. Some work quite well without. For example, I think these work to a degree (the first one I'm very happy with, by the way):


This one, though does not.



More stem helps.


Continued

And I'm considering even more stem to elongate the image.



What determines how much stem is needed? I think I know, but thought it might be interesting to hear what others think.

Hi Rachel,
I'm not very good at capturing the essence of flowers but I'll offer this:
I think the "amount of stem" is relative to what you are trying to express.
Pink daisies 2 and 3 are excellent examples of the flower as a whole and finely done (hence needing the stem).
However, the closeups of the white daisy in dim light and the pink daisy stand well upon their merit.
In these you were focusing our attention on the flower, ergo the stem becomes irrelevant.
I hope I'm making sense?

Rachel Foster said:

More and more, I am feeling dissatisfied with flower shots that do not include a fair amount of stem. Some work quite well without. For example, I think these work to a degree (the first one I'm very happy with, by the way):

Click to expand...

You are happy with this one, Rachel? Hmm, I'm surprised. 'cause Im gaga about it! I thnk it's one of the most sensuous flower pictures I've seen. I'd say from this, you need no stems at all. However, sometimes the composition might need stems, but that is going to depend on how you build your picture.''

So the question you have posed cannot be answered except for a picture that has proportons and patterns that would be best completed, challenged, balanced or given more tension or magic by the length of the stems.

Asher

Exactly! But can we articulate the general guidelines?

By the way, since this post is about the abstract and not any of my images, I would welcome other images added to the thread.

Rachel,

Look at the flowers Challenge again in Themes. The pictures by Janet Smith have stems and just a few stems that are curved. With the flowers the composition is perfect.

Asher

I have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. I was hoping to hear what others thought. Oh well.

Rachel,

The stems can often be awkward additions. It seems that they work better when there's an interesting irregular background OOF or some other vertical element to complement if it's just a single stem. For a bunch of stems, the way they are arranged seems to be important. It must add interest to the entire real estate of the frame. I agree that stems are a challenge where we easily come up short with justification for inclusion.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

The stems can often be awkward additions. It seems that they work better when there's an interesting irregular background OOF or some other vertical element to complement if it's just a single stem. For a bunch of stems, the way they are arranged seems to be important

Click to expand...

Here are examples of mine, where the stems have been included, for me I only include stems if they have something to add to the photograph that is of interest, perhaps a graceful curve as in No 1, the OOF background is sufficiently interesting as in No 2 (I hope) and where the stems are carefully arranged as in No 3. Hope this helps...



Jan

No rules

There are no rules but you want to see the framing, dof, the size of stem to leaves and color.

Just like with people, we don't need no stinking rules. Rules are made to be broken.

I LOVE the red Tulip that is selectively focused. I love some of the long stemmed flowers and others not so much. All of the first line applies.