p e t i t e

Jim: Your point is well taken. In this case, though, I think the image would be more impactful if about half the space on the right were cropped out.

Jim, nobody said every photo should be centered? I explained my motives for suggesting a crop, feel free to disagree, but do not twist what I said in a generic wide-sweeping statement I did not make.

If something/anything was there, to the right of the flower, no matter how small or larger, in focus, or out, it would in my opinion be a more pleasing photograph. As it is, there is just too much nothing. If it was mine, I'd crop some of it.

An interesting, but misguided comment, in my opinion. Frankly, I hadn't even read what you'd written about the photograph. If you'll pay attention to what you're reading, you'll notice I was replying to Mr. Linder's comment, not yours. But I should "feel free to disagree" as long as I do so in a manner that suits you? And you believe I was "twisting" what you said into something you didn't say? Climb down off your high horse...I wasn't even thinking about you or your comment when I wrote my reply.

But since I'm here, I did go back and read your comments. I'll address one thing you said. You state that "...this photo does not aim to be more than a nice, cute photo." Really? Are you psychic? You know the photographer's intentions, the motives for making this photograph, or the emotions behind it? You have looked into the photographer's heart and saw the word "cute" flashing like a neon sign in the night? That's amazing. Can you tell me...will I win the lottery this weekend? Baloney.

I thought this image had a serene feel to it.... surprisingly generating temper tainted comments ... I don't think the POW is the arena for this kind of attitude. Please respect the photographer!

I don't see it as breaking the RoT but simply a very loose mug shot of a very ordinary flower.

The prominent element in the composition is the flower, which is exactly in the center, and therefor IMO, is not breaking the rule of 1/3ed...

It is a nice delicate compoaition, even though I agree with Wouter about too much empty space on the RHS.

It is not an interesting composition, in general, for a week's discussion.

I have said it before, and will repeat it ( for the last time)...

It is much better to choose phorographers work, of those who are active and present at the site. As the multi dialogue ,including the presented photographer , that can tells us WHAT and WHY, and brings life to the POW!
(Fred G. was, and is!a good example)

Pnina - - QED!

Michael, what QED means?....;-))

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι), meaning "which had to be demonstrated". (Thanks, Wikipedia.)

At the risk of rising ire, may I just say, I think the photograph is beautifully rendered and balanced unto itself. I also consider that if everyone followed rules for the perfect shot, a lot of spontaneity would be lost. As to my comments raising ripples, I would timidly suggest that the flower dipping its head could have created ripples forward and into the blank area also. At first glance, that's what I thought was the idea, an abstract but I could have been wrong.

Lovely picture.