Flower Macro...Re-Uploaded

[David Lawrence]

I found out how to delete the picture and uploaded a better one with the
right name.

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=390314

[David Lawrence]

I deleted the Sharon and the ants photo on PhotoSIG,
Mainly because of the bad reviews and it really was a stupid photo to post.

I'll scan the rest of my Berlin Wall series photos soon and upload them to
TrekEarth.
Dave

[Todd Walker]

In article <3DBAFC54...@sympatico.ca>, dola...@sympatico.ca
says...

> I found out how to delete the picture and uploaded a better one with the
> right name.
>
> http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=390314
>
>

David,

You asked for critiques so I'll give you my honest opinion. This isn't a
very good shot. First of all, it is underexposed. Second, it is soft or
unsharp, which ever term your prefer.

I grabbed it from Photosig and made a couple of corrections. My version
is here:

http://twalker.d2g.com/forweb/flowermacro.jpg

I adjusted the levels and applied a bit of unsharp mask to improve the
definition of the various layers within the flower. You might like it,
might not. Just trying to help. It's your picture so if you want me to
remove it from my website just say the word...

--
________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Olympus E20
Olympus C3020
________________________

[Dan]

Reminds me of a Georgia O'Keefe (sp) painting. Excellent job David.

Dan

"David Lawrence" <dola...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3DBAFC54...@sympatico.ca...

[Bob Ingraham]

I'll echo Dan's comment, especially the O'Keefe part. But I don't like the
little bit of yellow, which appears to be two stamens. Granted, they're part
of the flower, but too little of them shows, leading to ambiguity. The
photograph is basically textural, but the yellow destroys that, to my mind.

My rule of thumb in this regard is that if something that is unidentifiable
intrudes (in other words, if it grabs my attention) then it's gotta go, and
if it can't go then the whole picture goes. Just this afternoon I took a
picture of an old grocery store, which had a large block of ice melting on
the edge of the sidewalk. In the photo it was just a white blob, completely
unidentifiable. A few strokes with a Photoshop brush and it was gone,
leaving the old store to ably fend for itself.

Bob

[David Lawrence]

I could have made the photo into a sharper pretty picture, But I preferred to
keep the soft tones because I wanted to keep the eye moving though the
picture.(Like a flowing gesture)
At the moment you can leave it on your page...So others can see what I mean.
Dave

[David Lawrence]

Yes...It has a painterly quality to it, Perhaps that's another reason for not
wanting to change the view of it with PhotoShop, It would have looked like
just another Georgia O'Keefe and not a David Lawrence.
Dave

[David Lawrence]

Unfortunately the Peony I photographed was the only model available, I suppose
I could have manipulated the petals a bit to show the inside more...But that
would have been contrived.
I'm not one for changing nature shots with PhotoShop at the moment...But I'll
try some diddling farther done the road when I have enough un-retouched images
made.
I was trained in Desktop publishing back in 1994-95 (A one year course that I
took in offset printing and prepress) and I am aware of the techniques.
Thanks for your suggestions though.
Dave

[Todd Walker]

In article <3DBBE72F...@sympatico.ca>, dola...@sympatico.ca
says...

> I could have made the photo into a sharper pretty picture, But I preferred to
> keep the soft tones because I wanted to keep the eye moving though the
> picture.(Like a flowing gesture)
> At the moment you can leave it on your page...So others can see what I mean.
> Dave
>

Gotcha Dave. If that is the effect you were going for, you nailed it
spot on :-)