Riot II in the secret garden

Lovely tones and composition and very artistic use of dof.

Incidentally, I did like what you did to my "boat at Negombo" picture the other day.

tony, everyone views images differently, for me what you have here is just really nice.  its a image you could overdue really easily. like the softness of colors, goes well with mood of image.  the flower is just marvelous has wonderful structure.  there is just so much to like here, like a pleasant dream. one of your very best!

Pat - thank you very much. I am glad you like it. If you like flowers, check out Roger's superb images.

Roger, coming from you, that is a special compliment. Glad you liked it.

The very narrow dof and lovely colors combine to make this an exceptional image.

A whimsical and dreamy image, maybe you found this on Pandora? ;-).  Superb... Mike

Mark and MLM(Mike), thanks for your strong endorsement. A friend who is an old lady and proud of her garden kept telling me that I was going to miss her  flowers. I gave in and found these in the shade. Since they were waist high, I had the luxury of a chair, put on my 90 macro lens and started to explore via the view finder. I took about 25 shots - most I would not bother to post here and I should really take the step to delete them from my hard drive but that is the hardest thing to do. 

Hi Tony,

I really like the composition you've achieved here. The arching stem in the left foreground balances nicely with the staunch upright of the spent bloom. The fact that you have an oof soft upright in the right side background as well as a soft focus arching stem in the left background echoing the foreground structure further reinforces and thus strengthens the feel of stoicism married to flexibility.

As for your question: yes I do find the image too dull. I say this while knowing that despite both of our monitors likely being calibrated I may not be seeing precisely the same end result as that which you are viewing. I do not think the image needs more punch. In fact punch, at least as I understand the general use of the term around PN, is what kills a lot of otherwise potentially good images.

The pastels here are lovely I would suggested rather than punching up contrast, saturation etc. that you add a curves layer and pull up the curve from the middle a tad to lighten the image and better play off of those pastels by making them a bit more airy and delicate.

I also think that the bit of the left side arching stem which fell within the plane of sharp focus is killing the narrow dof effect a bit. By setting up a competition between the two areas of focus you introduce some imo unwanted conflict into the frame.  I tried adding a layer to which I applied a Gaussian blur and then masking and blending to soften the focus in that area.

To illustrate my two suggestion I will upload my alterations. I hope you do not mind as I know some people get their knickers in a twist if you muck with their art.

This is a wonderful photo one of the best I've seen lately in this genre -  congrats.

It has been quite a while since I have received a critique like this and it is appreciated.

I usually go through a critique only review before putting an image up for rating and that is where I hope to get not just accolades but all suggestions including demonstrated changes to my image. By the time I get it up for rating with modifications, I am hoping that there are fewer recommendations.

I like what you have done on the image where I have very little adjustments from the original RAW view.  I might not go so far with the density change to make it quite as light as the attachment but perhaps something in between yours and mine. For what it is worth I created with Photoshop a 'calculated' 16 step density wedge which quickly tells me if my monitor is off.

The curved stalk where the fine hairs are present I thought augmented the image because the fine white "hairs' show up well on the green background as opposed to the ones on the 'main subject' which is against a lighter background.

Very good food for thought and thank you again for writing such a detailed review.

Not dull. majestic!

Best regards Tony

PDE

Tony,

If my observations gave you any pause for thought then they were worth the effort. I do think that with some work the image has huge potential. My upload was just a very quick run by. You could spend a lot of time tweaking this one to really get it tuned in and glowing. It would look fabulous printed on a quality watercolour textured paper such as Hahnamuhle  German etching or Epson cold press natural.

I seldom receive nor do I often give detailed critiques at this site as PN is mostly about blowing smoke.

So long as my monitor calibration gives me accuracy between my screen and my printer I do not stress about anything else.

Cheers 

Gord

Tony,

  Beautiful image with wonderful composition & soft colors.  Take care, Patsy

I like it very much the way you have presented it.

tony,  with all respect to gordons well thought out and articulate critique, when you look at his version compared to original,  its like the life has been sucked out of it.  think sometimes we can ruin a good image by being too clever with all the tools available with editing now.

Pierre, Patsy and Joscelyn - thank you very much.

Roger and Gordon: Oh Dear! Oh Dear! You are both very talented photographers whom I respect. I realize you have a difference of opinion on how the 'final' image should look.  Ultimately, it is my decision to make but I appreciate all of your input.

Roger, while I was aware that you do not know your way around post 1970 photographic technology I had wrongly assumed that you had once been current in basic darkroom technique.  

" we can ruin a good image by being too clever with all the tools available with editing now. "

Anyone who had ever worked in a darkroom would realize that there is nothing new and/or clever about adjusting brightness or selectively softening a small portion of an image. I have worked professionally in darkrooms for most of my life and I can assure you that we 'ruined"  all sorts of images with these and even more outrageous forms of trickery on a daily basis.... no disrespect intended.

This need for the home-team to rally around whenever a dissenting opinion is voiced is destroying meaningful photographic exchange at PN..... a shame really.

Tony,

I have the greatest respect for the artists vision for his or her own work. I understand that you are here asking for opinions when you post for critique and not asking for someone to tell you what to do. I apologize if my suggestions were misconstrued as such. Again nice image well done!

gordon,  you have taken my comment as a personal attack on you.  shame on you!  whether editing today or 30, 40 or 50 years a go there are good results and there are bad results.   my opinion of this image has nothing to do with you personally,  its based on what i think of the image.  in my opinion you have taken a really nice image and as said earlier "sucked the life right out of it".  if your not mature enough to respect that as just my opinion i cant and further more don't want to discuss this or for that matter anything else with you. 

"This need for the home-team to rally around whenever a dissenting opinion is voiced is destroying meaningful photographic exchange at PN..... a shame really."  i think you should read your own words and maybe give them some thought!

roger

I am trying to beat a conciliatory path here and no apology is required. I am sure that in a few days or a few weeks no one will remember this image. It is not in the same league of a mother holding her child dying from mercury poisoning or an image of a drowning sailor's hand at the Pearl harbor attack or even the live bodies diving to the ground  during 911. 

As I have mentioned in the past, I find flower photography very challenging because I am attempting to capture almost predictable beauty in a particular species - but something that few photographers have done before. In this case, I avoided a full flower but one in its infancy and looked for a background that would augment and not detract from the main subject. Going with a wider aperture would have created a smoother bokeh but I wanted to be able to recognize something in the background.

Sitting in one location with these waste high beauties i am still fascinated that I was able to capture images with such a varied character; from the soft and romantic to the vivid and the passionate. Perhaps that is the right order.

I will have to plead to you both that this image does not warrant the 'vitality' that you have both given to it.

PS I am not sure if i should tell you that I think I have a better one than this but it is not ready for posting.

Roger it is arrogant of you to presume to know how I did or did not take your  " sucked the life out of it " comment. Although it is pretty clear that an original response from yourself demonstrating a bit more respect for a opinion contrary to your own could have been formulated, had you not chosen to resort to hyperbolic vitriol. You are fooling no one.... well actually on second thought you are no doubt fooling some people.

Tony,

I cannot determine the species from your image ( I would love to know if you should happen to know and could tell me because it does look familiar yet I cannot place it ) however I do believe that what we are looking at is not an emerging bloom but rather a spent bloom with the seed pod swelling.

I will keep an eye out for your alternate version although I will not be commenting on it. My foray into the realm of the ratings pack stops here. I will slink back to the comfort of  my little corner of PN. I agree with your assessment of the relative importance of PN exchanges in the general scheme of things. I always say " don't sweat the small stuff" and it does not get any smaller than this.  Good day and the very best to you.

tony,  could see how you could feel caught in the middle,  and for that i am truly sorry.  our discussion should have gone private when it became personal,  p/n does offer the option of " send message to this user " i should have used it.  also apologize  for highlighting  " sucked the life out of it " in my last response,  as am aware that added fuel to the fire,  and i admit i did  it with mean intent, that was petty of me.  the real loss here to me would be cant help but notice others have stopped commenting on your lovely image,  and that is a real shame.

roger

Well.....  I didn't know how relevant my earlier comment would become!  It seems you opened Pandora's Box with this one... LOL... Mike

Here's my 2 cents: I love the composition, color palate and contrast and would only make one minor adjustment. Taking an eyedropper tool to the crepey cover of the bud, it appears to me to have a green cast. I would make that part of the photo whiter. I think that would make it POP just a little bit and increase the already great drama. It's a great photo, Tony.

Cheers ~

Alberta

"Tony,
I cannot determine the species from your image ( I would love to know if you should happen to know and could tell me because it does look familiar yet I cannot place it )"

I don't know the species also. And I am leaning without knowledge based on how it appeared to me that it is a new pod but I could be wrong.  I will load an unedited image here that might give you a better idea but it is not an image I am planning to load to PN because I have some concerns with it. 

No apology required. You see that Mike and Alberta have commented since the dialectic interlude.