The narrow depth of field ordinarily would work well here, but since the main subject is so relatively dark there seems to be nowhere for my eyes to rest.
The little out-of-focus wisp at one-oclock from the orange center of the flower distracts me a wee bit, as do the "halos" around the leaves at four and five-oclock.
I would've loved to have seen this with a bit more dramatic lighting to show that this is the start of a new day... perhaps a different angle so we see more the petal in the back that is currently catching the ray of light from the sun?
Originally posted by sohr: The narrow depth of field ordinarily would work well here, but since the main subject is so relatively dark there seems to be nowhere for my eyes to rest.
The little out-of-focus wisp at one-oclock from the orange center of the flower distracts me a wee bit, as do the "halos" around the leaves at four and five-oclock.
I would've loved to have seen this with a bit more dramatic lighting to show that this is the start of a new day... perhaps a different angle so we see more the petal in the back that is currently catching the ray of light from the sun?
I would have to disagree on the depth of field. any more depth of field and the background becomes busy with in focus foliage... in this shot, if the rear foliage was in focus, how would you comment?
I would have to disagree on the depth of field. any more depth of field and the background becomes busy with in focus foliage... in this shot, if the rear foliage was in focus, how would you comment?
I was talking about a very small increase in the DOF, along with perhaps a slightly different angle.
I am assuming that the rear foliage was sufficiently far enough away to at least bring the rear-petal into focus without creating too much background distraction. If not, a different angle would be better.
I love the play of light in the photo: the light petal in the back versus the dark petal in the foreground... I guess I just wish the light petal was a bit more dominant than it currently is.
BTW-- Wanted to add that like quite a few of the others here, I think you do great work. Looking in your gallery at PBase, you haven't taken a picture yet that I wouldn't mind hanging on my wall...
Originally posted by Amphian: Hey Terry - the flower with the bee is called an Echinacea or coneflower. I got a photo of one earlier this week. Critiques welcome...
Thanks for the name. As far as your photo, I love the color and clarity of the flower, but the composition is too busy. The one in the background distracts and the wheat being cut off on the left also distracts. Just a little too busy in different directions. If you could critique any of my flower picts (especially the coneflower ones) I would appreciate it.
This is beautiful...I can almost smell the flower. Great mood and color in this photo. It has a few quirks to my eye. The photo makes me lean to the left in an attempt to get a different view of the flower (more frontal). Really weird, huh? It's like I've got a camera and I'm trying to compose a shot in the viewfinder or something. I think I may be trying to re-compose the shot to have a more evenly blurred/faded background as I don't neccessarily crave a different view of the actual flower.
More likely scenario: The photo's perfect and it's me that's quirky.
Originally posted by Amphian: Hey Terry - the flower with the bee is called an Echinacea or coneflower. I got a photo of one earlier this week. Critiques welcome...
Really nice color and dof!! Did I mention great color? I would have liked to see this cropped differently. Did you crop or is this the original image?
Originally posted by Lisa: The photo makes me lean to the left in an attempt to get a different view of the flower (more frontal). Really weird, huh? It's like I've got a camera and I'm trying to compose a shot in the viewfinder or something.
More likely scenario: The photo's perfect and it's me that's quirky.
OK, then I'm quirky too. I have exactly the same inclination, but I hadn't figured out how to phrase it. I'm also hesitant to tell someone else to change the point of view, because often enough my flower photos are framed to exclude something ugly that is just outside the view.
John, I kind of agree with Lisa. The flower being turned would not be a problem if the area of vibrant busy green next to it were not competing and nearly overpowering the flower. I'd be tempted to see if a manual sift in the green channel would help tone it down. aelith
Originally posted by TerryGee: If you could critique any of my flower picts (especially the coneflower ones) I would appreciate it.
I like the bee from the front one much better than the bee from the back. For me, there just isn't enough of the petals in the latter. In the former, I love the sharpness of the center and how it blurs out at the edges, especially the lower left corner. The contrast between the orange spiky center and the smooth pink petals works well. The background is just about perfect - textured enough to be interesting without being distracting.
For most of the rest of them, I'd like to see a little more dramatic lighting - the rose photo being the exception. I'd guess that the rest are outdoor photos, which means you pretty much have to take what you get.
Originally posted by Lisa: Really nice color and dof!! Did I mention great color? I would have liked to see this cropped differently. Did you crop or is this the original image?
Thanks! It's the original.
The flower was in a planted bed in a nature center. There was a stand of tall grass around it (which is where the stray blade comes from) that I held back with one hand. There were more flowers to either side. I couldn't have gotten behind or too far to the side without trampling the bed, but I could have moved a bit left or right or gotten higher or lower. I seem to remember trying to put the background flower more into the upper right corner, but then having another flower appear on the left.
Originally posted by Amphian: Originally posted by Lisa: [i]Really nice color and dof!! Did I mention great color? I would have liked to see this cropped differently. Did you crop or is this the original image?
Thanks! It's the original.
The flower was in a planted bed in a nature center. There was a stand of tall grass around it (which is where the stray blade comes from) that I held back with one hand. There were more flowers to either side. I couldn't have gotten behind or too far to the side without trampling the bed, but I could have moved a bit left or right or gotten higher or lower. I seem to remember trying to put the background flower more into the upper right corner, but then having another flower appear on the left.
How would you have framed it differently? [/i]
Oh, I'd do something really boring and non-artistic...put the subject-flower in the center of the photo. lol. Now that I've seen it done, I like the idea of it being at the bottom but I think there's too much space above it. My eye goes from the bottom flower up...stops half way and says 'where am I going with this'...gets to the top, sees a blurred flower, and says 'oh...hmmm, I must have made a wrong turn or something. Let me try that again.' That said, I don't think you could have gotten a better crop on this. It's still a lovely and interesting photo...wall-hanging, no...postcard, magazine ad (ooo, maybe they could put text in the top zone?), yes.
Originally posted by jmsetzler: Originally posted by sohr: [i]The narrow depth of field ordinarily would work well here, but since the main subject is so relatively dark there seems to be nowhere for my eyes to rest.
The little out-of-focus wisp at one-oclock from the orange center of the flower distracts me a wee bit, as do the "halos" around the leaves at four and five-oclock.
I would've loved to have seen this with a bit more dramatic lighting to show that this is the start of a new day... perhaps a different angle so we see more the petal in the back that is currently catching the ray of light from the sun?
I would have to disagree on the depth of field. any more depth of field and the background becomes busy with in focus foliage... in this shot, if the rear foliage was in focus, how would you comment?[/i]
I agree with the last comment. The DOF is pretty much right on. I certainly wouldn't want more. I really like this shot with the color contrast. The only two things that catch my eye negatively are the bud in the background at 2:00 on the flower's edge, and the white spot on the outer petal at 9:30.
Terry, I like your Rose of Sharon the best; it's the most artistic imho. The bee front is great too. Must confess though that since my short tenure at dpc I'm falling less off my socks when seeing pictures with bugs than I did on the first day :) Your sun-drenched rose would be a great candidate for a Photoshop background overhaul. Clay could give you some hints on that ;) ;)
Amphian, Love the lower flower. It has such great abstract qualities. The top flower is distracting and stacked right above the main flower. Wheat is a little distracting, too. You could do a levels or curves mask in Photoshop to tame those distractions a little.
What's the " photography purity level" at pbase? Any spot adjustments allowed? Retouching? Just curious.
Originally posted by Journey: Amphian, Love the lower flower. It has such great abstract qualities. The top flower is distracting and stacked right above the main flower. Wheat is a little distracting, too. You could do a levels or curves mask in Photoshop to tame those distractions a little.
I blurred the background a little, but I didn't want to blur out the wheat and leave the damselfly sharp. I thought it would look too unnatural.
Originally posted by TerryGee: Could someone please critique this flower photo.
I think it's a very nice photo... I would have tried to compose this one where the flower was on the right side of the frame since the blossom is opening to the left... I think this blossom needs room to 'look' in the direction it is opening...
This particular flower would also look very nice with a dark background. I sometimes carry a black cloth with me when i'm photographing flowers... you need your trusty assistant to hold it up behind your subject :)
Folks need to remember the frame when composing a photo is like a stage.
Most subjects benefit from looking 'into' the photo versus 'out' of the photo.
The slightly in focus leaves on the right also slightly detract and the flower looks like it has a soft focus. But for flower shots I tend to lean to liking ultra sharp and brilliant shots likeTHIS UNLESS they are like this oneStella d'Oro
