harmony is not the elimination of extremes but the proper balancing of them?

[JBW]

[QUOTE=GrumpyDiver;546845]Brian you can say that all you want, but what you are saying is incorrect as there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to composition. There are different approaches and both of us can prefer one over the other. It is quite clear that a number of the members have different takes in both of our approaches. It would probably be more correct to say that you prefer your approach, while I find mine works far better.

I think you misunderstood me. the only thing you were wrong about was that you had rambled on enough. I meant it as a compliment.

[JBW]

I would say that I am 100% with Brian on this issue. The key is 'subtle'. It is a matter of seeing, what you see. If there's anything I might have done, it would be adding just a tad of vibrance to the flower, by slightly lifting the curve, without touching neither white nor black points. I would hold back the darker parts, to retain the subdued green on the leaves.

Of course anyone may prefer their own image style, but I see the eye of an artist in the image. To me, it has got the 'wow' factor.

I'll show the idea with an image of the curve tool. In my opinion, the magic will be lost if the flowers are brightened too much or too much contrast is applied.

we ARE a varied group and I like the variety

[JBW]

Perhaps you could let linear remain in your mind and never say "never", so to speak?

For example, I have found that a linear curve can help with image contrast in full-spectrum work, IR work - not to mention extracting B&W from raw channels. Or even just playing with the gamma slider to get a darker background, i.e. your image becomes somewhere between linear and fully "gamma-compensated".

Now if I only looked as good as Sean Connery. But you are right never say never.

[JBW]

The only change I would suggest is to clone out the leaf in the yellow highlighted area. To my eye the balance of extremes is that of the green L-shaped area of leaves and the red L-shaped area of emptyness. I see no reason why they they can't balance. I think it presents an interesting symmetry. So I wouldn't consider the empty, black area as negative space, if anything it's positive space, as it's adding itself as an integral element of the photo.

The bottom leaf could go. it would probably improve the balance.

[rawill]

Well maybe cloning out the bottom leaf would.
But for me, the bottom leaf did not distract me when I first saw the image.
When I first saw it the "centre bloom" was clearly the hero, and such sharp focus, I thought wow.
The contrast, black and green with the bloom is great.

And the extra leaf, well it doesn't really intrude, and there is a lightness/brightness to it, that makes the image real.
But of course in someways this is art, and reality is not part of the equation.

Great image

Rbn

[rawill]

Well maybe cloning out the bottom leaf would.
But for me, the bottom leaf did not distract me when I first saw the image.
When I first saw it the "centre bloom" was clearly the hero, and such sharp focus, I thought wow.
The contrast, black and green with the bloom is great.

And the extra leaf, well it doesn't really intrude, and there is a lightness/brightness to it, that makes the image real.
But of course in someways this is art, and reality is not part of the equation.

Great image

Rbn

[jcuknz]

What amuses me is when I see a photo which has been composed to follow the RoT when it is completely inappropriate for the subject and I think of the centred 'mug shot' which applies to subjects as well as people. To justify following RoT there must be some infered or actual directional movement to be balanced.
This thread's photo is [not] a 'mug shot' of a flower with Brian trying to justify the looseness with extranious material.
One solution might be to incorporate a large matt if one doesn't want to 'crop and enlarge' though that is hardly the case when you shoot 20Mp and only need less than 1Mp for a full width shot, say 700 pixels across. And have, I suspect, a larger pixel size in the camera? I do not know where/how to look to confirm that guess.
[ But 20Mp with a 24mm sensor is surely bigger than 16Mp on 17mm for camera pixel size ? ]

The trouble with Manfred's #6 is that it is quite unbalanced and with the infered movement of flowers looking left of frame it is too tightly cropped on the left. I also found that it was using just 3/4 of the tonal range so lifted it by adjusting the white point [ AND YIPPEE! re-discovered how to organise a border using an in-shot tone ] Also cloned out the leaf which was just 'hanging' from the top right.


comparing the two images original is 1091 pixel across and this 700 . starting with 5450?

edit and I agree with Brian in liking the darker richer flower if tha is what he liked

edit 2 correct my description of the flower by adding 'not'.

[JBW]

What amuses me is when I see a photo which has been composed to follow the RoT when it is completely inappropriate for the subject and I think of the centred 'mug shot' which applies to subjects as well as people. To justify following RoT there must be some infered or actual directional movement to be balanced.
This thread's photo is a 'mug shot' of a flower with Brian trying to justify the looseness with extranious material.

I was not, nor have I ever tried to, justify my shots by including extranious(sic) material. I posted what I thought was a well thought out shot.

The ongoing conversation says to me that this is not a 'mug shot'.
Brian

[DanK]

Well, there's no arguing about taste.

While in general I do what Manfred suggested--use tonality controls to increase the tonal range of photos that have a narrow range (like this one)--that isn't always what one wants. For example, I often don't do that with night photography. However, in this case, I found the limited tonal range in the original to be somewhat drab. That's just my preferences.

I also found the large amount of empty space unbalance.

However, given the goal of keeping the background subtle, I can see reasons not to apply tonality adjustments to the whole image.

So, for what little it is worth, here is my very quick edit. I selected the flower in order to brighten it without brightening the background. I applied levels and curves adjustments to the flower, and I cropped the image. That's all I did.

Again, just my taste.

[JBW]

Well, there's no arguing about taste.

While in general I do what Manfred suggested--use tonality controls to increase the tonal range of photos that have a narrow range (like this one)--that isn't always what one wants. For example, I often don't do that with night photography. However, in this case, I found the limited tonal range in the original to be somewhat drab. That's just my preferences.

I also found the large amount of empty space unbalance.

However, given the goal of keeping the background subtle, I can see reasons not to apply tonality adjustments to the whole image.

So, for what little it is worth, here is my very quick edit. I selected the flower in order to brighten it without brightening the background. I applied levels and curves adjustments to the flower, and I cropped the image. That's all I did.

Again, just my taste.

There is more than one way to cook rice and more than one way to pp. I like your version.

[Rebel]

Well, there's no arguing about taste.

While in general I do what Manfred suggested--use tonality controls to increase the tonal range of photos that have a narrow range (like this one)--that isn't always what one wants. For example, I often don't do that with night photography. However, in this case, I found the limited tonal range in the original to be somewhat drab. That's just my preferences.

I also found the large amount of empty space unbalance.

However, given the goal of keeping the background subtle, I can see reasons not to apply tonality adjustments to the whole image.

So, for what little it is worth, here is my very quick edit. I selected the flower in order to brighten it without brightening the background. I applied levels and curves adjustments to the flower, and I cropped the image. That's all I did.

Again, just my taste.

This is the best version for me.

[DanK]

There is more than one way to cook rice and more than one way to pp.

Exactly. And often several different excellent ways.

[xpatUSA]

Balance appears to be an interesting subject and, as is my wont, I googled:

http://digital-photography-school.co...n-photography/

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/unde...n-photography/

https://photographylife.com/balance-in-photography

http://www.digitalphotographytipsonl...otography.html

Within minutes, I was expert in all matters of balance, but said expertise will only last a few minutes - so I better type fast

Brian seems to have quite deliberately placed the subject at the center of the frame; this would have been termed "symmetrical" balance as found in e.g. railroads stretching to infinity, kaleidoscopes, etc., if it were not for the leaf visible at lower right. To maintain symmetry (if indeed symmetry was the original intention), one might perhaps clone a similar leaf into the top left corner. Or clone out the offending leaf. Or, going more artistic, clone out the leaf or leaves altogether and add an art nouveau border.

On the other hand, the other type of balance (asymmetric) requires moving the main subject a bit toward the top left corner and that single leaf being given more visual "weight" rather than less.

Time's up - it has all faded from the mind . . . .

[xpatUSA]

I deleted a post from this thread but it still shows on the 'latest threads' page

just for the record.

[Wavelength]

Lovely

[JBW]

Balance appears to be an interesting subject and, as is my wont, I googled:

http://digital-photography-school.co...n-photography/

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/unde...n-photography/

https://photographylife.com/balance-in-photography

http://www.digitalphotographytipsonl...otography.html

Within minutes, I was expert in all matters of balance, but said expertise will only last a few minutes - so I better type fast

Brian seems to have quite deliberately placed the subject at the center of the frame; this would have been termed "symmetrical" balance as found in e.g. railroads stretching to infinity, kaleidoscopes, etc., if it were not for the leaf visible at lower right. To maintain symmetry (if indeed symmetry was the original intention), one might perhaps clone a similar leaf into the top left corner. Or clone out the offending leaf. Or, going more artistic, clone out the leaf or leaves altogether and add an art nouveau border.

On the other hand, the other type of balance (asymmetric) requires moving the main subject a bit toward the top left corner and that single leaf being given more visual "weight" rather than less.

Time's up - it has all faded from the mind . . . .

I know that feeling of fading.

[JBW]

CinC has been a little strange of late.

[jcuknz]

I was not, nor have I ever tried to, justify my shots by including extranious(sic) material. I posted what I thought was a well thought out shot.

The ongoing conversation says to me that this is not a 'mug shot'.
Brian

You misunderstand me and I was working from my memory of the shot but when I posted my crop version I realised that the angle of the flower and stems stops it being a 'mug-shot' and with its infered directional movement needs more space on the left for balance which was missing in Manfred's crop. 'M-S' refers to my starting comment of that posting. Apart from the 'M-S' reference I hold to the view that you are trying to justify a fault.

[jcuknz]

Sorry Brian I have corrected my comment in #27 but I think the end of the sentence reflects the situation. But reflects the difference between somebody who likes looseness and another who does not.

I have further mild amusement that in their crops nobody except me appears to be concerned by the top right leaf 'hanging unsupported'.