Over and over!

[Daisy Mae]

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Lovely as always Sharon - I always love the way you light your flower photos.

I was thinking about the composition of this one - the flowers along the edge of the frame all help to frame your attention to the centre with the exception of the out of focus flower on the bottom right. I wonder what it would like like with everything the same except that flower at the bottom right. You'd have some negative space surrounding your subject but framed with the flowers on the end.

Just an idea for you to try if you're really bored sometime

[Daisy Mae]

Thanks Mal...actually what I really liked about the whole shot was the out of focus one being slap bang next to the sharp one otherwise it might look too regular..... like wallpaper, lol

My thinking was it would twist and turn as it fell.

Maybe I was being too arty!

[Daisy Mae]

Adding this.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Thanks Mal...actually what I really liked about the whole shot was the out of focus one being slap bang next to the sharp one otherwise it might look too regular..... like wallpaper, lol

My thinking was it would twist and turn as it fell.

Maybe I was being too arty!

Oh don't get me wrong - I like that too. I was just wondering what it would look like without it as well

[Andrew1]

Nice photo and I agree with Mal that the out of focus flower in the bottom right obscures and detracts from the main subject. I don't do a whole lot of flower photography but when I do, I find bamboo sticks and gardening string sometimes help in moving blooms an inch or two to help with composition. If you take a lot of flowers I'm sure you know that. I just haven't been around here long enough to be familiar with your work.

[Daisy Mae]

Thanks guys.

Looks like it didn't quite work then...bah...it did in my brain!

Thank you for your courteous comments.

[Daisy Mae]

I know what it was...I was going for a 3D effect and it was part of the front and so therefore out of focus...does that make sense?

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Thanks guys.

Looks like it didn't quite work then...bah...it did in my brain!

Thank you for your courteous comments.

Wait for Kerry to wake up and comment - she's more arty than me

[Donald]

Wait for Kerry to wake up and comment - she's more arty than me

You mean you haven't taken her breakfast in bed yet?

[Daisy Mae]

Wait for Kerry to wake up and comment - she's more arty than me

Haaaaaaaa.

Tell her I look forward to her input so that I can nail this one and get some sleep myself.

It has been suggested that the out of focus flower would work better if it were behind the 'focal' one..what do you reckon? It's so nice to be able to ask these questions without someone slapping a graph in your face.

[Donald]

It has been suggested that the out of focus flower would work better if it were behind the 'focal' one..what do you reckon?

That question poses a bit of a dilemma.

The 'normal' expectation would be that this should be so; i.e. we get the 'in-focus' main subject up front and things behind it can then be out of focus.

But is that so accepted as convention that it can't be challenged/ignored/changed? Maybe there are some 'rules' that are irrefutable and maybe this is one of them. If so, why?

Discuss.

[jeeperman]

I think it can be accomplished...to use the OOF bit upfront. Where I feel it did not work here is that it looks so close to being on the same plane. There is just not enough seperation. I also thin it would have helped to have more than just the one forward of the focal plane. Say maybe a a small one in the upper left. Here it just does not apear to have the depth needed to pull it off.

[Daisy Mae]

I think it can be accomplished...to use the OOF bit upfront. Where I feel it did not work here is that it looks so close to being on the same plane. There is just not enough seperation. I also thin it would have helped to have more than just the one forward of the focal plane. Say maybe a a small one in the upper left. Here it just does not apear to have the depth needed to pull it off.

Thanks for that Paul...really well considered points.

[Daisy Mae]

worth saying that I am long sighted.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Haaaaaaaa.

Tell her I look forward to her input so that I can nail this one and get some sleep myself.

It has been suggested that the out of focus flower would work better if it were behind the 'focal' one..what do you reckon? It's so nice to be able to ask these questions without someone slapping a graph in your face.

I think she must have gotten busy and taken off to her mother's place without seeing this thread Sharon. I left home early to go diving so I didn't get a chance to mention it to her.

But here's another suggestion - perhaps the out of focus flower is just a bit too prominent because of how bright it is relative to the main flower. If you did some selective reduction in exposure or darkening of the out of focus flower that could potentially work as well.

[Daisy Mae]

Hi Mal...I will forgive you guys......................this time.

Had another go at it but am still uncertain. bahhh. I think this one lacks movement and spirit.

Another go at..'over and over'

[Kaclarity]

Sharon
I think I see what you are trying for. Donald always seems to have great post processing advice. So I tryed it a little. I changed exsposure and contrast a little. Sigh Im not sure it really helped but it did make it more 3D to my eye. Great shot I only hope my B&W will start to improve like yours. JimC

[Daisy Mae]

Thanks Jim.