The photo seems to be unavailable for viewing, Katy.
Funny - it worked a minute ago.
A nit-picking item here, but when writing scientific names the second name is not capitalized.
Alright, something's there, now. (45 min. later and it's still not quite what I wanted - it's the first time that I've used that "smiley" - but it's close enough. It's a loooong story.)
The brighter areas on both images seems to make me look more at them than on the flower itself. I might recommend some burning on those areas and some further dodging on the flower itself. Usually, our eyes tend to favor brighter areas than the darker ones as the main subject. Hope this helps, Katy. Btw... lovely flowers and good shots!
Thanks, Jiro, that's basically what I was working on in the first one, actually. iphoto just won't let me really edit that one anymore. I'll have to start over. Which light spots in the second one, please? Do you mean the brown background and the farthest right lip of that petal on the flower?
Thanks, Bill, I knew about the abbrev., etc. but not about the titles but I just looked it my bookand lo and behold....
It is the Pasque flower (common name). Pascha being 'passover' it is also called the Easter flower.
We have some growing at the moment. I think they are quite difficult to shoot because of the texture of them. I prefer #1, but I think they both need to be a little more in focus.
Thanks, Rob! I think that you're right about all of that. This is my first spring with my camera, even, knowing anything about photography. I feel so awkward shooting outside - like I have to figure everything out all over again. For one thing, I want to use my tripod but everything is so low to the ground. Then, it was too bright to use the screen. The light isn't mellow like it was, last fall - it seems much more blue in the morning and evening. And, and, and.... I am NOT complaining. No, no! I just feel silly. I feel like it's "back to the drawing board" to refigure out how to do everything.We have some growing at the moment. I think they are quite difficult to shoot because of the texture of them. I prefer #1, but I think they both need to be a little more in focus.
I have others with smaller aperture, where I focused in different places, etc. I just don't like them.
Yes indeed. I used to own a pet store and hatchery (just fish and reptiles), and we did a lot of breeding of rare species, and so scientific names were always important there too.I'm much better with the common names of plants than with the Latin. (Even though I took a year of Latin in H.S.) Thing is, one can wind up with the wrong "flavor" of a plant if they don't know the Latin for exactly what one wants, eh?
Plus they're fun. People look at you crazy when you say that, but oh well...
And see - if I felt like tasting that shoe leather again, I'd point out that that H.S. Latin is probably somewhat less useful than you might think as many modern binomial nomenclature designations (there's a fun phrase of the day) are not true latin, but rather just "latinized" versions of modern words. Thus "Latin name" is kind of a misnomer. (just so we're clear - while all of this is true, I'm just doing this to be funny).
I think I jump glomped onto the term glomp...Also, I glomp on to any word that's unusual or foreign - a lot like how I can't help but remember liscence plate numbers if we're stopped behind another car. (Actually, it's exactly the same thing.) Now, I wonder how many of you know what I'm talking about - memorizing liscence plates, I mean.