[PIC] Bound Daffodil

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Questions:
1. Should the post go all the way up?
2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.
3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?
4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?
5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?

Thanks for comments.
Jim

"JimKramer" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Questions:
1. Should the post go all the way up?

No, but Reduce by half the black space on top of it.


2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.

No, because we expect one.

3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?

It could be less, but it's ok.

4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?

Anchoring.

5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?

Yes.


Thanks for comments.
Jim


It's too yellow. The flower will stand more against the post if you fix
the color.



Michel

"JimKramer" wrote in message
oups.com...
: http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm
:
: Questions:
: 1. Should the post go all the way up?
: 2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.
: 3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?
: 4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?
: 5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?
:
: Thanks for comments.
: Jim
:
The top of the post is definitely a feature of the picture.
I'm reserved about the flower stem it doesn't look right I might remove it
if I were doing the job. Then again it might be needed to keep the "captured
beauty" impression of the photo.T

he wire and the barbs tell the fable of imprisonment, capture, the flower
says it a beautiful thing captured by a harsh element (the wire). leave the
wire in place.
I'd use shift further to blue myself but this is obviously a very late
afternoon shot??? and yellow is the flavour of afternoon sun.

If you do decide to put it to print as something to sell, I think it would
need to be brightened up. These are not the colours popular in prints today
but that picture would do justice to any rustic themed cabin or timber
panelled home. Nice one Jim.

Douglas

On Mar 16, 3:09 pm, "JimKramer" wrote:
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Questions:
1. Should the post go all the way up?
2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.
3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?
4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?
5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?

Thanks for comments.
Jim

I agree with the previous posters.

1. Yes or no. Two different effects, both work quite well.

2. Nope. It looks less like a PS creation this way.

3. Yes. It looks too 'flared' to me (was this a zoom, or maybe shot
with a filter on?) This sort of shot cries out for either a *very*
good prime lens, or at least one with very good flare
characteristics. You could probably fix it with very careful PS-ing.
Having said all that, maybe the flare adds to the shot - it's all in
the eye of the beholder..

4. Anchoring

5. Yes, although it needs a bit more of a contrast tweak..

....I think you have a bit of a problem with the yellows saturating -
the flower looks a little burnt and 'one-note-ish'. The shot might
actually have benefited from auto w-b - sacrilege I know! but once you
'blow' colours, it's hard/impossible to get them back and looking
natural. Auto w-b would probably have given a much bluer result - but
then you could have selectively adjusted the flower and the background
to get it just right. As it is, I think you will struggle a bit with
the flower.

Don't get me wrong, it's a lovely shot and the golden colours are very
nice, but we are all striving for perfection, n'est ce pas? (O;

On Mar 16, 1:09 am, "JimKramer" wrote:
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Questions:
1. Should the post go all the way up?
I would crop a bit tighter, from just below the large splinter to
about were the two holes are below the barbs on the right of the
flower.

2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.
The crop above will leave some of the stem in view. It is better
to show the stem in this image due to the nature of the image. We all
know that there is a stem. But if you remove it, we think how it the
flower attached. Glued? That the stem is there gives the viewer more
feeling of the flower being held by the wire. Good use of seperation
between the stem and post.

3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?
No. It gives a softness against the hardness of the wire and post.
We expect the post and wire to be hard and abrubt. While the flower is
soft and gentle.


4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?
Most definately anchoring.

5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?
Yes along with the grain and splintering of the post. Nice
choice of subjects for a powerful image.

Others have said to reduce the saturation of the color. I think it is
very fine, for me. It was either early morning or late afternoon when
you captured this image. That will increase the warmth in the light of
the image. I like it. Also have you thought of desaturating the image
to a black and white? It might make the image even stronger.

Just a thought.


Thanks for comments.
Jim

Thank you Jim for posting that image. Keep at it. I'm sure we should
be seeing more wonderful work from you.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.

On Mar 16, 1:09 am, "JimKramer" wrote:
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Questions:
1. Should the post go all the way up?
2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.
3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?
4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?
5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?

Thanks for comments.
Jim

Hmm.. This was taken with Velvia 100F very late in the day near
sunset. 100mm Canon macro 2.8 F/11 @ 1/10s on a tripod with an
inexpensive polarizing filter. I was using a lens hood.

Scanned on the Nikon 5000ED in 16 bits of glorious color.

I'd assumed that the yellow glow around the flower was the wind moving
the outer edge of the petals, even though the center of the flower was
very sharp, I had not seen any horrid effects from this polarizer
before, but I rarely shoot anything that yellow.

Draco - One of the other shots I like was much tighter, landscape from
the left edge to past what is visible in this shot on the right (more
barbs, but the post is rolling back away) and just slightly taller
than the flower. An almost painful 1/3's shot :-)

I have added another interpretation (adulteration) of the image for
those interested, same page, just scroll down. Desaturated the flower
by about 20% color shifted the rest of the image to cyan and
desaturated that by about 90%

As for viewing, think big, 16x20 inch prints

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Again thanks to everyone for comments and thoughts,
Jim

JimKramer wrote:
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm

Questions:
1. Should the post go all the way up?
2. Should the stem disappear? I. E. just leave the flower proper.
3. Is the "fuzzy" daffodil, too fuzzy?
4. Is the wire to the left distracting or anchoring?
5. Are the barbs contrasting enough with the flower?

6. Lose the dog's-breakfast yellow border; it changes my perception of
the colour.
7. Too much post, try cropping it to landscape.

http://heron.uwaterloo.ca/~dwpayne/KramersDaffodil.jpg

"Doug Payne" wrote:

6. Lose the dog's-breakfast yellow border; it changes my
perception of the colour.

Good observation, Doug.

I have a similar problem when applying digital corrections to my scanned b&w
prints for the SI. Because of their proximity to the jet black (electronic)
background in the galleries, the digitally reproduced tones almost always
must be seriously tweaked to approach the "sense" of the original paper
photograph. And the corrections for a white background are completely
different.

When performing these corrections, I keep the original print next to the
monitor on my desk, under a viewing light for reference.* Before final
submission I always display the scan over a totally black monitor background
to see how it "plays."

Ken

*And since my monitor is not calibrated, I rely on the reactions of the
viewers to tell me when I've succeeded. (Most of their monitors are also
uncalibrated, I presume.)

On Mar 16, 3:45 pm, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:
"Doug Payne" wrote:
6. Lose the dog's-breakfast yellow border; it changes my
perception of the colour.

Good observation, Doug.

I have a similar problem when applying digital corrections to my scanned b&w
prints for the SI. Because of their proximity to the jet black (electronic)
background in the galleries, the digitally reproduced tones almost always
must be seriously tweaked to approach the "sense" of the original paper
photograph. And the corrections for a white background are completely
different.

When performing these corrections, I keep the original print next to the
monitor on my desk, under a viewing light for reference.* Before final
submission I always display the scan over a totally black monitor background
to see how it "plays."

Ken

*And since my monitor is not calibrated, I rely on the reactions of the
viewers to tell me when I've succeeded. (Most of their monitors are also
uncalibrated, I presume.)

More importantly, what color won't affect your perception of the color
or B&W tones in a photograph? The answer should come as no surprise...

Although, I really do like Doug's dog's-breakfast yellow
description. :-)

Jim

"JimKramer" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Mar 16, 1:09 am, "JimKramer" wrote:
: http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm
:
:
: As for viewing, think big, 16x20 inch prints
:
: http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/BoundDaffodil.htm
:
: Again thanks to everyone for comments and thoughts,
: Jim
:
16 x20 is not big Jim. 36 x48 is starting to fit that description and if
it's Velvia, you get it that BIG!