Shot on macro and back a bit from the subject. DOF?

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[JBW]

Very nice.

I agree

[FrankMi]

The flowers are colorful and engaging Brian.

Although it may be difficult from this vantage point, reducing the busyness of the background could help. The image is sharp enough so that you could move in a little closer and that would minimize the background somewhat. To get a quick feel for the difference, open the image in Lytebox and go to an Expanded View.

Hope this helps!

[JBW]

The flowers are colorful and engaging Brian.

Although it may be difficult from this vantage point, reducing the busyness of the background could help. The image is sharp enough so that you could move in a little closer and that would minimize the background somewhat. To get a quick feel for the difference, open the image in Lytebox and go to an Expanded View.

Hope this helps!

But I would lose the diagonal fern and the horizontal green leaf bottom right. perhaps a little darkening along the top?

[Loose Canon]

So Brian?

Do you see a color cast?

[JBW]

So Brian?

Do you see a color cast?

Perhaps I do but I am still short on the tech talk can you explain 'colour cast'? please and thank you.

[Loose Canon]

Brian, sure man!

A color cast over the entire shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_cast

Happens on different occasions depending on the lighting in the scene. When you shoot deep into the foliage like you do you’ll get a lot of green in the light which may cause this phenomenon?

Just wondering Brian. I could be wrong man. This shot just caught my eye! I thought it was quite nice.

[FrankMi]

But I would lose the diagonal fern and the horizontal green leaf bottom right. perhaps a little darkening along the top?

This type of image is deeply seated in personal preference. If it pleases you then it is successful.

When I look at the full image I see a number of elements that say 'Hey! Look at me!". Reds and Yellows, particularly bright colors are strong attractors so my eye goes to the flowers first. The dark green leaf on the right is also very sharp, another strong attractor so my eye goes there next.

High contrast and vibrant colors are other strong attractors but the entire scene is high contrast and fairly vibrant (but not as sharp owing to the DoF) so as I look on from the leaf, I start to see a jumble of colors and patterns where I lose my vision's 'path' as I get further from the flowers and the dark green leaf. To be honest, I hadn't picked out either the diagonal fern or the horizontal green leaf bottom right until you mentioned it.

Typically, one would look for a single strong attractor to anchor the scene and sometimes a diminished minor attractor to complement the primary focus point and direct the view back. Beyond that, you usually get into diminishing returns when there are additional strong attractors (but there can be dramatic exceptions to the norm).

Ideally there are elements in the scene that can give the eye a comfortable resting point and direct your vision back to the subject completing the initial scan of the composition.

I hope I haven't been too confusing in trying to communicate my thoughts and you can find some useful pointers that will help.

[JBW]

Brian, sure man!

A color cast over the entire shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_cast

My eyes don't see it on my monitors but there is a lot of green.
B

Happens on different occasions depending on the lighting in the scene. When you shoot deep into the foliage like you do you’ll get a lot of green in the light which may cause this phenomenon?

Just wondering Brian. I could be wrong man. This shot just caught my eye! I thought it was quite nice.

[JBW]

This type of image is deeply seated in personal preference. If it pleases you then it is successful.

When I look at the full image I see a number of elements that say 'Hey! Look at me!". Reds and Yellows, particularly bright colors are strong attractors so my eye goes to the flowers first. The dark green leaf on the right is also very sharp, another strong attractor so my eye goes there next.

High contrast and vibrant colors are other strong attractors but the entire scene is high contrast and fairly vibrant (but not as sharp owing to the DoF) so as I look on from the leaf, I start to see a jumble of colors and patterns where I lose my vision's 'path' as I get further from the flowers and the dark green leaf. To be honest, I hadn't picked out either the diagonal fern or the horizontal green leaf bottom right until you mentioned it.

Typically, one would look for a single strong attractor to anchor the scene and sometimes a diminished minor attractor to complement the primary focus point and direct the view back. Beyond that, you usually get into diminishing returns when there are additional strong attractors (but there can be dramatic exceptions to the norm).

Ideally there are elements in the scene that can give the eye a comfortable resting point and direct your vision back to the subject completing the initial scan of the composition.

I hope I haven't been to confusing in trying to communicate my thoughts and you can find some useful pointers that will help.

Not confusing at all. When I have time and energy I tend to look at classical painters to see how they composed their landscapes. your points are not only valid but they are points I should have considered.
B

[ajohnw]

Not confusing at all. When I have time and energy I tend to look at classical painters to see how they composed their landscapes. your points are not only valid but they are points I should have considered.
B

Good for you Brian. There is a school of thought in photography locked into thirds and leading lines and it produces people who can't look at an image any other way. There is nothing wrong with using these but too much thought in that direction prevents people from simply looking at images and noting what happened when they did look at it and why. Basically there can be a tendency to over analyse what they see. In this case like a painting of say a real cove by the sea lots of aspects about composition go to the wall and all that is left is the question is it a pretty picture. If pretty is what was intended. On the other hand say it was a macro of pleasing arrangement of a few flowers or a single one the only composition tool available really is back ground blur. The right amount always causes the eye to go straight to the subject. Comments about distractions is another trap that it's easy to fall into. Artists will leave things in paintings that people will notice after the main subject has grabbed the eye. It adds interest and is used rather a lot. My wife was left an interesting one probably painted in the 1700's. Bloke on a horse. Obviously the main subject. Two young ladies seated on the ground and last but not least a silver platter on the floor with 2 fish on it. Things tend to get noticed in that order. Not a valuable painting but it gives a viewer something to think about..

Another one. An inlet with the horizon smack on the upper 3rd. The inlet runs smack up the middle and has perspective. Something going on with a few people in the lower left. This is more of the same. Adding bits and pieces in the case of an artist or including them in photographs can tell a viewer more about where it was painted or shot.

Still life - birds, dogs, animals or what ever. Smack bang in the middle. There is nothing else to look at.

I happened on a photographic gallery last year with shots from many famous names in it that had won this and that high level competition. There were lots of flowers shots. Most of the scenes like yours were pin sharp all over. Basically they were colourful still life pretty pictures.

When I look at your shot and just do that with no other thoughts at all the red grabs my eyes. That works. If I then look technically I get the impression that the reds are over saturated and loose some detail because of that. I notice one green leaf across the red that really should have been removed with scissors or tucked in behind the flowers. I suspect the depth of field is passable and the background blur is ok and helps as it should. That is a technique used in many many paintings to a far greater extent than is usually possible in a photograph. Background detail in paintings is often sketchy where as we have to be happy with moderate blur to get the same effect.

John
-