Watercolor Iris

I like this...What do you think? Monet like?

Thanks for comments...

 

Elizabeth

It's rare when I see a strong photoshop filter being used on a photo to good effect. This is a great example of a digitally modified image looking great! Kudos!

Nice lighting.

Very nice color(s) and lighting

Great match of subject and technique.

good work!

Very beautiful, I love the effect you have used, it has worked brilliantly. A great image Elizabeth, well done - Richard.

Excellent ,like watercolour picture.Nice light and colour.Well done, Elizabeth.

for comments and ratings of my Iris boquet. Here's the story of how I ended up with Iris. I wasted 2 hours trying to get a photo of a humming bird. I filled the feeder with fresh nectar, washed the window, set my camera to macro and took a few test shots. I was ready. I stood by the window, camera in hand & nothing. The minute I put the camera down "BAM" they would appear...by the time I pick up the camera, they are gone! Soooo I settled for cutting down some of my iris & they cooperated. Next to bloom in the East are Peonies & lilies. I have 25 to 30 varieties of each. I would have preferred the boquet to be a little more "floppy" but you can't bend an Iris. More to come.....

 

Regards, Elizabeth

This effect worked beautifully.

Well done Elizabeth, I like the choice of the colors .They blend wonderfully and the lighting is beautiful.Anna

Lovely image Elizabeth. I am thinking hummingbirds must be the hardest thing to photograph! Good luck on that endeavour. :)

Very well done !

so wonderful, great colours!

Well, I survived Red Shoes. I see you did too.

What I like about this, and I don't know if it's just the effect, or if it was intentional, but they look realistic in the middle, paper as you go out from the middle, and then water color on the top. What I don't like, or find questionable, is the light, which is very top-heavy so that the main bunch is in a big, but open shadow. It would be nice to see some of those same nice highlights on the top filtered down in those shadowed flowers in the middle and on the bottom. And maybe a little side lighting on the vase, too. The light on the top is very nice, but there's nothing going on in terms of light and the play of light anywhere else. What do you think?

Fine and delicate !

That was quite a debate about Anna's Red shoes. I found it enjoyable. Thanks for critiquing my Iris boquet. Here's why the light is at the top. I walked all over with this heavy vase of flowers in one hand & camera in the other. I finally set them down on the floor under a half screen door, that explains the light at the top. I thought I could digitally fix it. I'll try to upload the original so you can see what I had to work with. I went light on the watercolor effect..did some burning & cloning in the bare areas. I was going to delete it, but when I came back after dinner, I was somewhat happy with the results. I hope you didn't give me 3's ;>) ((smile))

 

Elizabeth

A 4 Doug...that's OK, I can take it because you left a comment. I will try your suggestions. I can see how adding light to the vase will balance it nicely.

 

Thanks

 

Elizabeth

Elizabeth, I wish everyone could accept a 4 in aesthetics with as much maturity and rationale as you. I have plenty of them on my photos, and they're really not that bad. In fact, theyre more motivating than getting 7's and 6's, which lead to complacency.

Anyway, that's another issue. I've found that you can usually fix proplems like color, tone, sometimes composition (by cropping), but that lighting is the hardest of the photographic skills to fake, and the hardest to cover up, or fix. Every once in a while you can add a highlight, like a spot of white, or something, but you can not often make a dark area look as light as the bright area next to it. Not easily. Burning, dodging, adjusting contrast, these can help, and with much, much practice, can really do a wonderful job. But, on the whole, lighting is the one, most important, most difficult, most essential element in making consistently good photographs. I really like the way the light is working on the top of these flowers. I really do. But after that top layer, the image just deepens into a blend of colors and shapes, which is, you know, ok. But the tease of that light on the top, if that could be carried down the rest of the way, wow! what a shot this would be.

In another way, flowers are such a common, common subject, and rightly so, because they are so naturally beautiful, so intricate and so inherently delicate, they are universally inspirational. I think that's why they are a both a poor and excellent subject for beginners. They're excellent because they can inspire confidence on one just beginning. They're poor because one can be 'taken' with their natural beauty, and technical and aesthetic problems can go unnoticed. Sunsets are the same: Universally beautiful, universally inspirational, but perilously deceptive because of it from a photographic point of view. That's why you will come across such opposing views on sunsets and flowers. Every photographer starting out, I bet, shoots flowers and sunsets when they're starting out. I did. I have quite a few flower and sunset slides and prints.

Andrew Buzzell is undertaking an interesting project. He's using the natural beauty and glory of sunsets juxtaposed with found refuse, old tires, and the like, to illustrate a concept he discovered. He writes on a recent critique request that he was very conscious of making sure the garbage was out of the frame before making his exposure, but soon realized that this was, in a way, propagating a lie, that the world is nothing be beautiful colors, etc. Well, It's fine to believe the world is a wonderful place, I believe it is, but it's also fine to include garbage in that view. Anyway, before I completely mess up Andrew's work with my hack reporting, I'll just post a link here and you can see for yourself. Andrew sometimes posts images for only a week or so, so this link may not work for ever.

A photo by Andrew Buzzell

Hey, how do you like your Sony Mavica MVC-CD400 ()? I was looking at some of those today, the Cd500, and some lower models. Do you like yours? All the other digital cameras are like spy cameras built out of cigarette packs, they're so small. The Sony's were larger, almost like real cameras. My only complaint was the veiwfinder since it was unpositionable. Does it give you a hard time? Can you see it outside? what's it like? questions, questions, questions.

I love my Sony ...I like the convience of the cd's. they're also cheap! cd's that is. The camera is very substantial to hold. It has a nice grip area. There is a problem with the view outside. Almost can't see what I'm shooting. I'm ready to upgrade to the next one which I think is the cd1000. Did you check out my corrected iris upload?

 

Elizabeth

Doug has done an excellent job of critiquing this shot, so I really don't have very much to add in that regard. But the topic of shooting flowers in general is an interesting one. As Doug mentioned there are opposing points of view on the subject. A double edged sword if you will. :-) Some people will love every photograph of a flower, because it's a flower. While others will hate every photograph of a flower, because, well, it's a flower!

 

The most important thing to remember is to never rely on the inherent beauty of the subject for the success of the photograph. The approach you've taken here is along the lines of what we may see on flowers.com or the like. A legitimate approach to be sure, but I think you could push this farther. Next time you invade your garden try a more simple arrangement. Look not only for the beautiful blossoms, but for the more interesting stems. Think color and shape and strive for a more dynamic composition. Try to set a mood with your lighting. And above all else experiment. Just play with it!

Look what I found, an eye level attachment for Sony CCD digital cameras! and for only $70. This is the clincher for me regarding this camera. I'll be out this morning to pick it up for my office.

Bob is right, very right. Another thing in addition to what he says is Don't be afraid to fail. Don't turn away from criticism. If you like the result, then that's great and there's little anyone can truly say to change your mind, so take every criticism for what it's worth. Some are worth nothing, while others can change your work for the better. Your efforts on this shot are a good example because your rework is a tremendous improvement over the original post, and a light year away from the original capture. I really think you should be very happy with your newer version.

Bob, , Your right. I am drawn to flower shots. but, now I'm able to recognize the good from the bad.I've even deleted some of my first uploads.

Bad! very bad. I think I'm getting better thanks to all the constructive critiques I get on PN. I don't even mind a 3 or 4 WITH an explanation. But not the snide remarks like a few I recieved such as "what do you think you are ,,,an artist?" That doesn't help me. I'm invading the garden today Bob, so get ready for a peony boquet. I have some shots of single flowers, buds & leaves. I think I need to build a light box. This is a very exciting hobby to me. Thanks Bob. Now, Doug! That's exactly what I need. Thanks for the link. I'm placing my order today. That was my only complaint I had about the camera was the view finder going black in the sunlight. I'm glad you think the reworked version is "a tremendous improvement." I really worked on it.. Is there such a thing as a untouched photo? One more thought Bob. I do get comments that start with "I usually don't rate flowers...But"........Thanks again guys,((smile))

 

Elizabeth

Elizabeth it's very true, snide remarks like the one you received are uncalled for. I'd love to see people who leave such comments banned from the site. As for low ratings without a comment? I received 3 - 3/3's in a row just yesterday on my latest image, not one with a comment. I just shrug them off, and you should too.

 

I'll be looking out for that peony bouquet! :-)