Helpful Posts: 0
31st March 2011, 01:56 AM
But, I shot these a few days back and one the white flower, I did almost no PP other than the standard issue in ACR and sharpening and the yellow flowers, more PP but Iwas looking for a more painterly quality...
First question is: does the white flower really need much else? (I think sometimes I tend to work a horse to death and now on a kick to save a few ponies.)
Second question: do the yellow flowers have enough of a painterly quality, or too much?
31st March 2011, 02:37 AM
I can't comment on what the white flower "needs" -- it looks great to me, except I don't care for the stem going up through the petals.
But the tulips are great -- very painterly without being too much. Beautiful back lighting.
31st March 2011, 02:50 AM
First: I think the second image is outstanding. Colours are bright and well saturated. I like the depth of field between your flowers in the foreground and the ones in the background. I was thinking it might be nice if the leaves in the foreground were a brighter green, but I think it might detract from those beautiful orange/yellows. The painterly effect works very well, very subtle (to my eye anyway).
Second: The image is well executed but there is something about it that is distracting. Now I consider myself a novice, so please take this for what it is, a simple opinion. After looking at it for a little while, I think the stalk running through the flower on the right is the issue. You might try cropping the stalk out if it doesn't throw the whole thing too off balance.
31st March 2011, 09:52 AM
With the first image, Chris, there are a couple of bright stem areas amongst the background which I would probably tone down a touch. To me, they appear a little distracting compared with the rather pale flower.
The white flower may take a little extra brightness but I suspect that could cause a loss of fine details so I would probably leave it as it is.
31st March 2011, 11:57 AM
The more I think about it, the less I know what "painterly" means. #2 is a lovely photo, but I don't see the painterly in it beyond the composition, except in that first tulip on the lower left. Edit: Parts of the second front row tulip also achieve the effect, I think, but the first one is very nice, not overdone, but unmistakable.
To me, a painting isn't going to have a constrained depth of field. But that is something different. I guess I wish I had a better idea of your definition of "painterly."
Second edit: I see the effect more when I click on the picture and view it in a smaller format.
Last edited by tameigh; 31st March 2011 at 12:34 PM.
31st March 2011, 03:30 PM
Painterly is a term used to describe something which has a "painted" feel to it. In this case, I used Pixel Bender to apply a very muted oilpaint texture to the surface, then reapplied the original atop that and dropped the opacity to 50%. I wanted it to have an oil-ish look, but not so much as to lose the quality of the original photograph...does this help?
31st March 2011, 03:44 PM
Yes, that does help. I was mystified as to how you got that look on that first tulip. Very subtle, but very nice.