Yet, more flowers!

[Katy Noelle]

Blurry and bright on purpose.



Well, I was really liking this until I saw the aphids!



Well, I like to take photos of "things" and wonder if I'm saying anything with the things and/or are they unique and noticeable enough. In other words, do the "things" communicate?

Anyway, I'm looking for C&C on any of it and would love to hear from anyone.

(BTW, I can get the exif data if you'd like. I'm not feeling so great, today, and decided to be lazy.)

[ScoutR]

Hi Katy: #1 is my favourite of the crop. Focus is sharp where you want it, and the highlights on the petals and leaves make this very nice to look at - it looks even better in the lyte box.
#2 looks like a crop of the first one, and it really does not keep my attention. Maybe if you cloned out the aphid on the back right petal, and could somehow blur that petal into the background. This would have looked nice with really shallow DOF (I think)
#3 DOF is working for you here except there is no focal point. If only the stamens and pistils were in focus this would I think be a very nice shot. I'd also clone out the green spot on the right and 2 aphids?
#4 Not my favourite, but I think if you cloned out the aphid and the pollen carriers (anther?) on the back flower this might look better. There is something about this that one is throwing me off though. I think maybe it would be better if the focus was more on the bottom (closest) petals and the stamen of the front flower and having the top (farthest) out of focus. Just a thought, and probably not even possible. It's maybe a bit top heavy or something to my eye.

Please consider the source when reading this Katy. Critique is really hard for me. I'm still in the Like it Don't like it category. Sometimes I know why but most of the time I don't. I'm trying though

Wendy

[carregwen]

Critique is really hard for me. I'm still in the Like it Don't like it category. Sometimes I know why but most of the time I don't. I'm trying though

Wendy

Have a go at this, Wendy? Critique chain - post one comment two

[ScoutR]

Rob, I was just looking at that. Great idea and I will be joining in for sure. Being able to critique is so helpful, but so difficult. It also takes a considerable amount of time, but I will be back when I have enough time to sit and think. Jiro got things off to a great start and pointed out things I would never have thought of, but he made some very good comments that made sense and opened my eyes quite a bit and the thread has just started so I think it's going to be a great help to many of us.

Wendy

[Suzanne]

OK OK I just have to be different I guess.
There is a GREAT history of including the natural insects in an artistic image. And though I know your saying , "eek aphid's in my house!" I like the bugs. . . . not personally, but as part of the image.
The dutch masters were known for adding insects into their still lifes to make the image feel real and give them context. It made them a part of time. They would also show decay or a knife with bread crumbs, for example, to capture a moment in time.

I know many of you here are into the technical skill involved in photographing a flower, and let me assure you that I completely!! respect and admire your skills. But I have to say one of the things that can happen, especially I think with natural subjects, is that they can become sterile. A flower on it's own is beautiful, but a flower surrounded by its context (bush, garden, living room, vase, etc.) isn't just a flower it's a story. And I love me a good story mmmmmmhmmm. The elements that make up a flower (colour, shape, etc.) are interesting, but a flower really being a "flower" is fantastic.

OK all that said, sis, I like #'s 1 and 4. I wish there was a tiny bit more background, and on #4 the focus seems wonky to me. ???

i think I see what you were trying to do with #3 but think that it might have worked better if you'd done the opposite and had it all very clear with a greater dof. What d'ya think?

#2 is too dark for me, though the stamen are interesting with their beads of light, but not enough to hold my interest.

OK thats my two cents

[carregwen]

Katy

I probably agree with most of what Wendy said. #1 looks the best as you have concentrated more on the subject. I differ from Wendy in that I think #4 is OK. It just needs a crop to exclude the background detail. I did a quick edit just to show what I mean. I really think your flower shots would be significantly improved by the addition of a good macro lens - it just enables one to get in closer. I think a cheap set of studio lights would also improve the lighting and the effect that they can create. But I realize these things cost money - doesn't everything!

[ScoutR]

Katy

That's it - the crop solves the issue I was having. Now it looks balanced, and that is what was bothering me. See what I mean, I know somethings not right but never know what it is. Thanks Rob

from Suzanne: There is a GREAT history of including the natural insects in an artistic image. And though I know your saying , "eek aphid's in my house!" I like the bugs. . . . not personally, but as part of the image.
The dutch masters were known for adding insects into their still lifes to make the image feel real and give them context. It made them a part of time. They would also show decay or a knife with bread crumbs, for example, to capture a moment in time.

Suzanne: I appreciate and agree with what you are saying about keeping things natural, but if we want to do that wouldn't it be better is the bugs were identifiable, and obviously meant to be part of the shot. You are a trained artist, so I am not being argumentative, but really want to know from an artistic point of view.

Wendy

[Suzanne]

Oh yes, for sure. That was partly tongue in cheek and partly a way of leading into saying I like a flower to look like a flower. Bugs make it interesting. Anything that helps push the story.