water lillies (sigh)

[Harryb]

Hi you'll

I critiqued some flower shots today and I said that I would post some of mine own. http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif This should be the last time. Quick and I hope painless.

http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/23827591-L.jpg

same shot but with some detail taken out. Do you have a preference?
http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/23827593-L.jpg

the last one http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/cheerleader.gif
http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/23827588-L.jpg

[USAIR]

Well I like flower shots :D
I really have a hard time picking just one here but the one without detail has my attention.
Very nice :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

Care to share how you removed the detail ?

Thanks
Fred

[Harryb]

Well I like flower shots :D
I really have a hard time picking just one here but the one without detail has my attention.
Very nice :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

Care to share how you removed the detail ?

Thanks
Fred
Hey Fred,

Glad you liked them. I used a plug-n called buZZ.Pro on that second shot. I use it when I get into a rare artsy-fartsy mood.

[jwear]

I am going with fred the second one but i looked for 10 min. for the duck before i read it :D :D

[bfjr]

Hi Harry
Stick to Birds :D :lol4 , no just kiddin, no really :hide

1st one for me, don't care for artsy fartsy :D
Oh yeah like the last one too :thumb

[rahmonster]

Hi Harry:D

Well, I think I agree I like the 2nd version better. But I really like the composition in the last one, with the partial leaf in the foreground and the flower top left and the great reflection.

[gaylenick]

Harry -

The shot I like the best is shot #1. After scrolling back and forth between 1 and 2 for a few minutes, I like the way the sun light plays on the water droplets on the lilly pads and sometimes below them. The second and third shots are wonderful also, number 1 just stands out for me.

Gayle

[QUOTE=Harryb]Hi you'll

I critiqued some flower shots today and I said that I would post some of mine own. http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif This should be the last time. Quick and I hope painless.

same shot but with some detail taken out. Do you have a preference?

the last one http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/cheerleader.gif

[nightingale]

Hi you'll

I critiqued some flower shots today and I said that I would post some of mine own. http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif This should be the last time. Quick and I hope painless.

http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/23827591-L.jpg

same shot but with some detail taken out. Do you have a preference?
http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/23827593-L.jpg

the last one http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/cheerleader.gif
http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/23827588-L.jpg
#1 definitely! I think you lost some sharpness when you took out the details. #2 looks like it is smudged.

[BigAl]

Definitely #1 for me. I like the detail.

regards
alan

[Harryb]

I am going with fred the second one but i looked for 10 min. for the duck before i read it :D :D
The Duck!!! I knew i forgot something! :rofl

Thanks Jeff

[gus]

I'll pay that 2nd one harry...got a funny feel to it (in a nice way but it is quite odd the way it draws you into it) The water looks pastel.

[WaterfallRich]

Hi Harry - the 2nd image caught my eye also even tho I would generally prefer shots with more detail. I like the angle you chose to shoot from. I like the reflection in the 3rd shot and the image overall. Nice job on both - nothing to be ashamed of!

[Rufio220]

I don't know which one i like between 1 and 2.

I looked at both for a while and i'm not sure....hmmm.

[snapapple]

I like the last one. The artsy one did not appeal to me. I like the reflection and the drops in the last one. I go for lots of detail and sharpness.

[Harryb]

Hi Harry
Stick to Birds :D :lol4 , no just kiddin, no really :hide

1st one for me, don't care for artsy fartsy :D
Oh yeah like the last one too :thumb
Hey Ben,

You don't like artsy-fartsy? :pissed I'm so disappointed. :cry Not really I'm not that crazy about it myself. :D Every once in a while I have to do a non-bird pic.

[ginger_55]

Harry, I think they are too saturated. Flowers are fragile, a feminine thing, usually. (Just don't try the cactus in the clown flower pot: a joke been making the rds of the net for years.)


Harry, I will post some of my flowers, they were in the water, not water lillies, but in the water..............

You can tear the hell out of them, for some reason my family is very partial to them, and I think they are rather nice, too.

I wonder if saturating flowers like you did can kill them.:rolleyes

ginger

[Harryb]

Hi Harry:D

Well, I think I agree I like the 2nd version better. But I really like the composition in the last one, with the partial leaf in the foreground and the flower top left and the great reflection.
Thanks. I like the last shot best myself.

[rutt]

These are beautiful, Harry, but they can be even better with a little LAB curve work.

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/23947615-O.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/23947609-S.jpghttp://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/23947595-S.jpghttp://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/23947606-S.jpg

The flower itself has a beautiful glow. I enhanced this by moving the lightness endpoint of the L curve in just a touch. I enhanced the contrast within the flower by steepening the highlights in the L curve. The image didn't have a real black point, so I moved the darkness endpoint of the L curve inward until there was one. This also has the welcome side effect of enhancing contrast and detail throughout the midtones.

Whenever there is vegetation, consider A+B steepening in order to bring out the color contrasts in the greens and flower colors. Here it made both the lilly pads greener and also enhanced the yellow glow in the flowers.

[4labs]

Definately #1 Harry. Every Bird shot you ever posted has been great, wish you would post some more often..

[Harryb]

Hiya Gayle,

It was great seeing you again yesterday BTW. #3 is my pic mostly because of the comp but I like the light bette in the first. Thanks for your comments.

[Harryb]

#1 definitely! I think you lost some sharpness when you took out the details. #2 looks like it is smudged.
The idea of the effect is to simplify the shot and it removes detail and gives it a painterly effect. I agree with you though and like #1 better also.

[Harryb]

Definitely #1 for me. I like the detail.

regards
alanThanks Alan for the response.

[Harryb]

I'll pay that 2nd one harry...got a funny feel to it (in a nice way but it is quite odd the way it draws you into it) The water looks pastel.
Thanks Gus. The idea behind tha plug-in is to give a painterly effect to the shot.

[Harryb]

Hi Harry - the 2nd image caught my eye also even tho I would generally prefer shots with more detail. I like the angle you chose to shoot from. I like the reflection in the 3rd shot and the image overall. Nice job on both - nothing to be ashamed of!
Thanks Rich. I don't shoot flowers much anymore because they are relly hard to shoot and come up with something that hasn't been done 100 times before.

[rutt]

Thanks Rich. I don't shoot flowers much anymore because they are relly hard to shoot and come up with something that hasn't been done 100 times before.

I agree with this, but when you find yourself feeling complacent about flower shots and want to see some real creativity applied to the subject, check out the flower shots by Irving Penn and Dain Tasker. These couldn't be more different. Tasker was a Los Angeles radiologist working in the 1930s. He had the idea of taking X-Ray flower shots. His work is very startling and different:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3142870-L.jpg

You can buy a book of Tasker's work (highly recommended) from Panopticon Gallery: http://www.panopt.com/ I forget how much these cost, but it's not too much.

Irving Penn, along with Avedon, is one of the two great American fashion photographers from the 50s and 60s who transcended their day jobs and became great all around photographers and artists.

http://www.meccanica.jp/image6_bsp/b_ip01-02.jpg

Once again, this is sort of a book plug, but this book is out of print and a bit rare. Amazon has them used starting at $83. I know this is kind of a lot for a photography book, but it's a fraction of the cost of a new lens or something and might do more for your photography. In fact I feel that way about all the Irving Penn books.

We may not be as creative as these guys, but their work shows just how differently it is possible to see even flowers, one of the most "over exposed" areas of photography.

[Harryb]

I like the last one. The artsy one did not appeal to me. I like the reflection and the drops in the last one. I go for lots of detail and sharpness.
Thanks for our response Snappy.

[Harryb]

Harry, I think they are too saturated. Flowers are fragile, a feminine thing, usually. (Just don't try the cactus in the clown flower pot: a joke been making the rds of the net for years.)


Harry, I will post some of my flowers, they were in the water, not water lillies, but in the water..............

You can tear the hell out of them, for some reason my family is very partial to them, and I think they are rather nice, too.

I wonder if saturating flowers like you did can kill them.:rolleyes

ginger
Hey Ginger,

The only saturation on those shots was done by ma nature. The only post on #1 and #3 was sharpening, set a gray point in curves to adjust the WB, and minor cropping for composition.

[Harryb]

These are beautiful, Harry, but they can be even better with a little LAB curve work.

The flower itself has a beautiful glow. I enhanced this by moving the lightness endpoint of the L curve in just a touch. I enhanced the contrast within the flower by steepening the highlights in the L curve. The image didn't have a real black point, so I moved the darkness endpoint of the L curve inward until there was one. This also has the welcome side effect of enhancing contrast and detail throughout the midtones.

Whenever there is vegetation, consider A+B steepening in order to bring out the color contrasts in the greens and flower colors. Here it made both the lilly pads greener and also enhanced the yellow glow in the flowers.
Hey Rutt,

Thanks for the info. I can definitely see the difference. :thumb

[ginger_55]

Hey Ginger,

The only saturation on those shots was done by ma nature. The only post on #1 and #3 was sharpening, set a gray point in curves to adjust the WB, and minor cropping for composition.
I forgot this thread. Maybe I can post my flowers, not much to blow,smile.

I just looked at 1 and 3.....................something bothers me.

really does, it could just be apples and oranges, who knows.

Please look at mine, but I have to feed the dogs before I can do anything.

ginger

[Mike-Photos]

Definitely #1 for me, I like detail, and there's plenty of it there!

#3 is also nice, but I prefer simpler - there are too many elements for me, so it doesn't tell a single story. Just my preference, of course.

Mike

[Harryb]

Definately #1 Harry. Every Bird shot you ever posted has been great, wish you would post some more often..
Thanks Eric and that was a very nice way of telling me to stick to birds in the future. :rofl

[Harryb]

I agree with this, but when you find yourself feeling complacent about flower shots and want to see some real creativity applied to the subject, check out the flower shots by Irving Penn and Dain Tasker. These couldn't be more different. Tasker was a Los Angeles radiologist working in the 1930s. He had the idea of taking X-Ray flower shots. His work is very startling and different:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3142870-L.jpg

You can buy a book of Tasker's work (highly recommended) from Panopticon Gallery: http://www.panopt.com/ I forget how much these cost, but it's not too much.

Irving Penn, along with Avedon, is one of the two great American fashion photographers from the 50s and 60s who transcended their day jobs and became great all around photographers and artists.

http://www.meccanica.jp/image6_bsp/b_ip01-02.jpg

Once again, this is sort of a book plug, but this book is out of print and a bit rare. Amazon has them used starting at $83. I know this is kind of a lot for a photography book, but it's a fraction of the cost of a new lens or something and might do more for your photography. In fact I feel that way about all the Irving Penn books.

We may not be as creative as these guys, but their work shows just how differently it is possible to see even flowers, one of the most "over exposed" areas of photography.
Hey Rutt,

That is a great idea! Every once in awhile we need something to reawake the creative juices. Thanks

[Harryb]

Definitely #1 for me, I like detail, and there's plenty of it there!

#3 is also nice, but I prefer simpler - there are too many elements for me, so it doesn't tell a single story. Just my preference, of course.

Mike
Hey Mike,

Thanks for your insights. Its always helpful to get someone else's eye on your work.

[ginger_55]

After looking at the photos again, Harry, I am going to go against the grain, with the minority, I think. I like the second one best.

For me it has a softer quality. (Maybe that is "lost detail", but I prefer it.)

ginger:D

[Harryb]

After looking at the photos again, Harry, I am going to go against the grain, with the minority, I think. I like the second one best.

For me it has a softer quality. (Maybe that is "lost detail", but I prefer it.)

ginger:D
Thanks Ginger. The idea behind the plug in is to simplify the shot and give it a painterly effect. I have found it to work better on landscapes and such better than flower shots. Here's a better example of it

http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/27116770.jpg