Rain and pain in the back explains the dirth of shots.

[JBW]

that should read Rain and pain in...

[Shadowman]

It was an odd weekend for many a reasons. Nice effort, where was your light source coming from?

[JBW]

It was an odd weekend for many a reasons. Nice effort, where was your light source coming from?

Indeed it was. The cheeky answer would be the sky but a better one would be the sun was behind, above and slightly to the right as you face the flowers.

[Kodiak]

•
I like the take! …though, IMO, the rendition is much too hard! I imagine more
delicate nuances in tonal range and details to match the nature of the subject.

You are surprising me once again!

[Shadowman]

Indeed it was. The cheeky answer would be the sky but a better one would be the sun was behind, above and slightly to the right as you face the flowers.

I wondered because I could only see flecks of light on one flower only, while the rest was in shade. Couldn't tell if it was natural or lit by a torch.

[ajohnw]

Nice one Brian. I suspect you could get the sort of effect that Kodiak mentions by moving the centre slider about in levels. This will probably lighten it so that can be fixed by moving the black pointer up to restore the blacks if you want to and the output highlight slider down to restore the brightness.

The centre slider adjusts gamma - sets how the mid tone contrast behaves and where it lies in the lightness range. The same thing can be done with curves. On that the slope would need reducing over the lightness range of the flowers, reducing contrast. Plus probably fiddling with other points on it to get what ever your after. Usually ends up with a smooth one with no sudden changes when this is successful.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Kodiak is this the sort of effect you meant? I could only go so far with it. The left flower has a lot of strong detail.



And looking at both in the lightbox I haven't changed it as much as I thought.

John
-

[Kodiak]

Kodiak is this the sort of effect you meant?

In that direction, yes, but quite further.

I could only go so far with it

Of course not John, I didn't attempt a suggestion because I very well knew
that the damage was done on the image. Irreparably! One may only hope
to reach decent results on the original document and even better still on a
RAW file.

[JBW]

In that direction, yes, but quite further.


Of course not John, I didn't attempt a suggestion because I very well knew
that the damage was done on the image. Irreparably! One may only hope
to reach decent results on the original document and even better still on a
RAW file.

I can supply the original but not in RAW. Personally i do not find this a 'soft and subtle' flower. But then again I have been wrong before. Go for it guys!

[Kodiak]

Go for it guys!

So, I went for it!

[JBW]

I can supply the original but not in RAW. Personally i do not find this a 'soft and subtle' flower. But then again I have been wrong before. Go for it guys!

Interesting! No where near as grungy. I like it. Could you find a way to get a little more emphasis on the brown leaf top left and green leaf bottom right. they might act as a frame?

[ajohnw]

Interesting! No where near as grungy. I like it. Could you find a way to get a little more emphasis on the brown leaf top left and green leaf bottom right. they might act as a frame?

I had one play and messed up earlier today and that did emphasise the leaf - didn't look a good idea at all to me. I got way too complicated trying for a different result. I think on this one the detail round the flowers is needed but subdued and if PP isn't done carefully background colours start showing through the flowers as they are slightly transparent. I could see signs of that on your 1st post.

John
-

[Kodiak]

…didn't look a good idea at all to me…

+1

[ajohnw]

2 versions.

One


Two - same but with a soft light duplicate layer


I can't usually make my mind up about shots until I see them in the lightbox a few hours after I have done them.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Using GIMP's foreground select but not sure this really suits it. Maybe another colour



John
-

[JBW]

Using GIMP's foreground select but not sure this really suits it. Maybe another colour



John
-

does this need brush work?

[JBW]

2 versions.

One


Two - same but with a soft light duplicate layer


I can't usually make my mind up about shots until I see them in the lightbox a few hours after I have done them.

John
-

I like #2

[ajohnw]

Foreground select brush - yes and no. It all depends on the colour differences. Brush use doesn't have to be accurate. Some final retouching may be needed.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/gim...und-select.htm

Often the best way to use it is to create an image that exaggerates the differences. The shot you like for instance would be easier. Then when the selection is ok save it to a channel and get shut of the modified image. You can then use channel to selection or mask etc. Once in a mask the brush can be used again if needed. That's of more use if the magic wand is used as that often leaves unselected patches that are a right pain to tidy up but it often gives precise edges leaving any brush work relatively easy to do.

The brush work on this one can be a bit tricky. Sometimes a simple squiggle over what needs to be selected works without any problem at all. Actually I suspect the magic wand tool would be easier on this one followed by some simple brush work when the selection is in a mask. It should get the edges which is the difficult bit. The colour select tool may work out as well - that select all of them in an entire image but brushing out unwanted bits later is often easy. Both of these tools show what will be selected or unselected while the mouse button is held down - moving the cursor about will change the area.

John
-