Perhaps I should have blurred the bg a bit more but I do like the ribs

[JBW]

[John 2]

As a background, it works for me Brian. So does the border. Nice shot.

[JBW]

As a background, it works for me Brian. So does the border. Nice shot.

I'm glad. Now that we have lost the light box borders do look better.

[Ziggy]

I like it Brian. Just wish the front of the bloom was in focus.

[mugge]

Brian, please do not blur the ribs.
Cheers Ole

[JBW]

I like it Brian. Just wish the front of the bloom was in focus.

so do I but all in all not so bad.

[JBW]

Brian, please do not blur the ribs.
Cheers Ole

Okay I won't!

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[DanK]

I think the ribs are blurred a very nice amount as they are. I think they add to the image. And the placement of the flower is very attractive--although I would crop a small amount of the top. Images often look top-heavy if there is more negative space on top. I think that is why framers usually use either constant widths or wider mats at the bottom but never wider mats at the top.

However, I agree with Jim: the blurred parts of the flower detract. I learned the hard way that blurred foreground elements are usually more of a problem than blur in the background. A flower that is in focus in front but gradually goes out of focus as you go back often looks nice, but blur in the front doesn't look good. I now spend quite a bit of time when I do flower macros trying to avoid foreground blur. I sometimes actually take the closest petals off for this reason. However, you can manage it other ways as well.

[DougR]

I really like the colors and composition but agree with the others concerning the focus. And yes, the ribs add to the image in my opinion.

[JBW]

Nicely captured.

I find that each type of flower needs a unique approach. I am starting to sort this one out.

[JBW]

I think the ribs are blurred a very nice amount as they are. I think they add to the image. And the placement of the flower is very attractive--although I would crop a small amount of the top. Images often look top-heavy if there is more negative space on top. I think that is why framers usually use either constant widths or wider mats at the bottom but never wider mats at the top.

However, I agree with Jim: the blurred parts of the flower detract. I learned the hard way that blurred foreground elements are usually more of a problem than blur in the background. A flower that is in focus in front but gradually goes out of focus as you go back often looks nice, but blur in the front doesn't look good. I now spend quite a bit of time when I do flower macros trying to avoid foreground blur. I sometimes actually take the closest petals off for this reason. However, you can manage it other ways as well.

A little off the top could be done. Truth be told i didn't notice the out of focus front until I was back at the computer. Seemed like to pretty a shot to not enjoy it warts and all.