who says flowers have to be in color?
the first ever picture i took with my first medium format camera, which is still my favorite and i have one cameras of this type, a zenza bronica s2a, i took of a flower (first picture in row). i am not an absessed flower photographer, but i do it from time to time, because i enjoy nature like everybody and i don’t limit myself to a certain genre as many people do (especially those uncounted self-declared street photographers). from a retrospective view i learnt that i took flower pictures by nearly every camera i had new in my collection. flowers are perfect victims. they don’t run away, they don’t complain or ask stupid questions and because they are pretty some sort of success is guaranteed even the focus was missed, the composition wasn’t optimal or exposure was too low or too high.
for learning how to use a new device flowers are very patient models. and everybody loves flowers, right? everybody who likes black and white film photography, it might be true. but when you send your grandma one of your pictures for her birthday or a friend to congratulate on her first baby or to celebrate your cousin’s exam, people very likely ask: “why do you take pictures of flowers in black and white? they look like funerary art. flower pictures have to be in color.”
well, have in mind, pictures doesn’t look the same in everybody’s eyes. it’s probably a similar reinterpretation your mom would do when getting your favorite plant as a gift for mother’s day if it is a cactus. she would believe you hate her. and under NO circumstances give her a monochrome photograph of a cactus! NEVER! she would be convinced you gonna murder her.
the specs: 1) zenza bronica s2a, ilford hp5 - 2/3/5/6) rolleiflex sl66, fuji acros 100 - 4) mamiya c330, fuji acros 100 - 7) zenza bronica etr, fuji acros 100