Just a simple Rose

Is a rose just as beautiful without its traditional color?

 

Please let me know what you think.

 

Let me know if this Rose (that has yet to bloom) speeks to you.

 

Let me know what color you think this Rose will be.

 

Let me know what you think about the picture good or bad.

 

And as always just enjoy. ~ micki

What I think: Well The dof is good. I like the perspective with the younger bud to the left. If I were to add anything to this shot it might be some water drops. I'm not sure how that would work in a mono-chromatic shot but I think it adds to this kind of shot.

 

What color do I think... Well, I see this through the composition as fresh and new and is ready to come alive, therefore it's not a soft color but to me it's vibrant and should be red.

he he ~ there is a little itty bitty water drop on it. HA ~ I too wish there was a water drop on it as that would have been cool. I will work on that this week, maybe. Hmmm

 

And the color is to remain held to later ;) he he

I am not guessing colour of this rose. For me, BW (or toned-) image is beyond that. It lives via tonality, shapes, light, texture...

 

I wish background of this rose was slighly darker to show main subject more clear. But your shallow DOF somewhat fixes it. Shape of this rose is interesting. Its sharp and even spiky. Square format fits well. I find this photo quite heavily toned to my taste; for me "whites" could be more white. But overall interesting and pleasing photo, indeed.

 

No ratings, as I do not them anymore, a s l a

I think you composed, framed and used selective focus beautifully, Micki. The toning is rather flat for me, Don't quite know how to express it, but the outer matte melds with the rose and much of the background, giving the rose less prominence than it deserves. I tried a few hue changes with a bit more contrast, but a more B&W best illustrates what I'm trying to say, and it can probably be done with the same basic colours you used.

Anyway, you did a fine job with this.

By the way. Many nature buffs carry a fine spray water bottle with them. Fabreze containers have a very fine spray, if you want to try it.

Asla ~ thank you for your comment. I too like thinks white on the front and darker in the back. I tried to do that and had a hard time getting it done. Sily rose wouldn't work for me. I appreciate comments far more than ratings so thank you so much for stopping by my picture!

 

Doug, you did a wonderful job in B&W on this picture. I didn't even try doing it in B&W and It really did POP when you did that. I guess I was doing the HALLMARK thing. I tried to make the contrast deeper and then I lost the sharpness of the flower so I just let it be.

 

Just working with the flowers has been a new joy for me. :) YEAH!

It's easy to see that you're enjoying flowers. All your posts have been very tastefully done. Sometimes a slight change in gamma, contrast or saturation can add significant impact.

I think it's a beautiful frame, and had the rose been in colour it would have complimented it nicely, instead of competing with it for attention. I know this is all personal subjectivity but it does provide another option and perspective.Here's your original with a bit more contrast, but an entirely different border effect.

The one thing I hate MOST about doing pictures on here is the silly silly frames we do.

 

SEE I like traditional frames. I like actual real frames. I hate deciding WHAT frame to put on anything. ARGHHH

 

LOL

 

You are always a winner in my book! :)

First off, Micki, I love this photo. I don't think a flower needs to be in color to be beautiful and this is an example of that. You've given it a very classic and classy feel. It feels like it might have been my grandmother's rose! What I love most about it is the gentle approach you have, the subtlety. No, this is not as eye-catching as other flower shots and that's what puts it a step above. It's moody and has great presence. It's one I'd keep coming back to. The more eye-catching ones tend to be one shot deals. See it, move on, that's all. I think Doug had it right when he said the toning is a little flat but (sorry Doug!) I don't like his solution. When something feels flat, I don't think the answer is always more contrast. Often, it's more highlights and nuances of tonality, particularly gradations of tone, all of which can be done using a good post-processing program and sticking to dodging and burning and other darkroom-type features. For instance, look at the main petal facing us. It already suggests some very slightly darker areas and some lighter. That can be worked with. Or simply a slight deepening of tone as we go down the petal, a gradation to add dimension. A little dodging and burning or selective adjustment of levels will bring each part of this photo to life. To keep the gentility of this photo, some selective highlighting and deepening will, I think, be more apppropriate than a global change in contrast. The rose that's not yet opened, for instance. Note the darker circle at the base of the petals just above the stem. That might be more emphasized. The very upper tip of the main petal of the main rose, the one I was talking about that faces us, has a beautiful natural highlight. Make it and a few select others reach us more. Honestly, this is one that is worth and would demand several hours of patient and detailed work. The background, also, could have more life, not by making the shadowed areas into gobs of black, but by, again, emphasizing the many wonderful highlights you can already see, so the level of tones isn't so constant and we get more sense of depth and varieties of lighting make our eyes wander through the background a bit without being totally distracted. Look at how soft your shadows are compared to Doug's suggestion. (Doug: you know, I hope, how much I respect your photography and I hope you don't mind an alternative opinion and my specifically referencing some of your points. I believe a good discussion ensues when photographers disagree and that's when learning, hopefully, can take place.) Keep what you have in terms of shadows and work with the rest of the background. There's plenty of depth from the main flower to the next flower to the background. That, you've done a great job on already. Now find the depth within each of those layers of the photograph and you'll bring this to the next level. Without using any special effects, just traditional photo tools, you can take a painterly approach to this photo and bring out more of its poetry.

I too looked at it so long in color and then switched it to SEPIA and went ahhhh

 

that's it no more. I wanted to bring out and spend more time on it like you said but felt like uploading it and seeing what others thought was the best idea.

 

I also needed to see what it looked like printed before I do anything. Printing it makess it look darker so I would have to put highlights back into it in places and prevent it from looking flat.

 

We forget that it looks different when we print vs upload them. Thank you for your wonderful comment. Sometimes I forget the dodge and burn tool. I used it so much years ago and forget I can still use it even tho we have so many other tools. Silly me. :) ~ micki

its the timeless rose that will never die, yet never bloom and can be any color you want it to be. i like the small companion bud as well. as for the frame, well... anyway, the sepia is nice and soft and i like that. this works well in its square format. well done micki. take care, J.K.

Perfectly done, very nice, best regards.

 

You can see my son`s works here http://crabs.dtiltas.lt

 

 

Very nice composition and ps work, dear Micki. You should really do more shots with shallow dofs, because you do it very good :) Best regards

Great DOF and details, beautiful tones...Love it

but I too would like to see a little more contrast range between the flower and the background - something to watch for when you're composing a shot in the viewfinder.

SO you can see what it looked like ;)